Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: SwordOfTheSpirit on September 30, 2016, 10:32:59 AM
-
Part 1/2
There may be some Christians here who are wondering why they keep on coming up against invented entities: pixies dancing on keyboards, leprechauns speaking to people, etc., and seeing them compared to religious belief. They are all based on the flawed Parable of the Celestial Teapot by Bertrand Russell.
Apparently, it is meant to illustrate the Negative Proof Fallacy, and up to a point, it does. However, it then goes astray. It may well have been written at a time when sceptics were expected to disprove the existence of God, otherwise belief wins by default.
I’m using the text as per Pg 74-75 of the paperback edition of The God Delusion...
Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.
Up to a point, I agree. However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this. However, if I went up to a Muslim and said, “Mohammed was not God’s final messenger”, then the onus should be on me to back up my claim, not expect the Muslim to affirm why he or she believes that particular tenet of their religion.
If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.
If someone were to claim this and really believed it, then it could be subjected to the same inductive technique I suggested on another thread. One could start with questions such as
• How did they come to know about the teapot?
• How do they know about its properties, e.g. that it is a china one?
• How do they know the nature of its orbit, etc., etc.
And if you go there, you may see the extent to which the deception will be maintained. I tried it with bluehillside’s pixies on the Cold-Case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.msg637289#msg637289) thread, asking him how he defined them. This was his response:
How are you defining “God”?
Oh, to have the faith of an atheist, to be relying on something he can’t even define, lol!
But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.
I would agree with this being linked to religious belief if the individual were claiming belief by default if one couldn’t disprove their particular belief, but as I said earlier, I’m not seeing this nowadays.
-
Part 2/2
If however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or the Inquisitor in an earlier time.
Here is where the parable goes wrong. The teapot is a made-up entity used to illustrate a fallacy, yet it is being compared to religious belief! The implication is that religious belief is as much of a man-made invention as the teapot, yet there is no demonstration of why. As such, it is an exercise in circular reasoning, yet all of the parody deities, and other entities (e.g. bluehillside’s leprechauns / pixies) used in arguments against religious belief are based on this!
The central issue I have with the parable is that it relies on circular reasoning; assuming the conclusion to demonstrate the conclusion.
1. It assumes that there is no reasoning basis behind religious belief.
If someone makes a religious claim, there is nothing to stop me investigating it for myself.
2. It assumes that there is no evidence for religious belief.
As such, it conflates belief with blind belief, faith with blind faith.
3. It assumes that religious belief is not falsifiable.
As some Christians have realised now, the only thing not falsifiable is the naturalistic precommitment of some atheists.
The worst bit about this parable however is that it does what it claims shouldn’t be done!!A made-up entity (e.g. bluehillside’s pixies, which he can’t define!) is compared with religious belief so the reality (intended or otherwise) is that the religious belief is taken as false by default and the religious believer is invited to counter it. Oh, and in countering it, you can only use techniques that has concluded that religious belief is false!!
I’m anticipating all the atheists telling me how I’ve misunderstood the parable or how I’ve violated some argument or other, so if any of the Christians here (e.g. Bashful Anthony, Hope, Sassy, Vlad, etc) disagree with anything I’ve said, feel free to say why and I’ll consider it, thanks.
-
Lot of words just trying to avoid the burden of proof, sword. The teapot, the pixies, the cook, the thief, and her lover, old uncle Tom Cobbley and all are just hypotheticals about the NPF. Tell me how to distinguish between them and your god beliefs. What makes your claim more valid than any made up beliefs.
-
Here is where the parable goes wrong. The teapot is a made-up entity used to illustrate a fallacy, yet it is being compared to religious belief! The implication is that religious belief is as much of a man-made invention as the teapot, yet there is no demonstration of why. As such, it is an exercise in circular reasoning, yet all of the parody deities, and other entities (e.g. bluehillside’s leprechauns / pixies) used in arguments against religious belief are based on this!
It seems you haven't understood the analogy yet.
There are a potentially infinite number of beliefs; they can't all be correct and it would be impossible to review and investigate all of them and it would be foolish to assume they are valid by some sort of default. So, it is incumbent on the believer to justify their particular belief to the sceptic, not vice versa.
-
It is an analogy that illustrates certain logical fallacies, and in spite of this being explained to you several times it seems you haven't understood it yet. It has nothing to do with either begging the question or showing religion to be falsifiable, or this 'faith vs blind faith' dichotomy you are peddling.
If you intend to go down the philosophical route you need to do some homework first, else you'll continue to look uninformed.
-
There seem to be two versions of the teapot analogy, the first written by Russell in 1952, and the second in 1958. This one is very compressed: "nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely." (Wiki, under 'Celestial Teapot').
This shows clearly how Russell intended the NPF here: 'nobody can prove that there is not ...'
Also of interest, J. B. Bury's version of it: "If you were told that in a certain planet revolving around Sirius there is a race of donkeys who speak the English language and spend their time in discussing eugenics, you could not disprove the statement, but would it, on that account, have any claim to be believed?"
This was written in 1914. Bury has a very succint summary: 'the burden of proof does not lie with the rejecter'.
-
Sword,
Part 1/2
There may be some Christians here who are wondering why they keep on coming up against invented entities: pixies dancing on keyboards, leprechauns speaking to people, etc., and seeing them compared to religious belief. They are all based on the flawed Parable of the Celestial Teapot by Bertrand Russell.
Apparently, it is meant to illustrate the Negative Proof Fallacy, and up to a point, it does. However, it then goes astray. It may well have been written at a time when sceptics were expected to disprove the existence of God, otherwise belief wins by default.
I’m using the text as per Pg 74-75 of the paperback edition of The God Delusion...
Um, it’s just a useful way to illustrate that the negative proof fallacy is a fallacy. Nothing more, nothing less.
Quote from: Bertrand Russell
“Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake.”
Up to a point, I agree. However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this. However, if I went up to a Muslim and said, “Mohammed was not God’s final messenger”, then the onus should be on me to back up my claim, not expect the Muslim to affirm why he or she believes that particular tenet of their religion.
You’ve gone off the rails. The response to the Christian, Muslim etc isn’t, “you’re wrong”; rather it’s, “you have no cogent argument to suggest that you’re right”. That’s why for example “atheism” isn’t the claim that there are no gods, but rather that there are no good reasons to think they do exist.
Quote from: Bertrand Russell
“If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes.”
If someone were to claim this and really believed it, then it could be subjected to the same inductive technique I suggested on another thread. One could start with questions such as
• How did they come to know about the teapot?
• How do they know about its properties, e.g. that it is a china one?
• How do they know the nature of its orbit, etc., etc.
You’ve gone even further off the rails here. None of these questions are relevant because all that’s necessary for the teapotist is faith. That’s it – “I know that the teapot is there because that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it. Russell’s point however concerns only what happens when I try to argue that it’s there for you too because you can’t disprove my faith belief.
And if you go there, you may see the extent to which the deception will be maintained. I tried it with bluehillside’s pixies on the Cold-Case Christianity thread, asking him how he defined them. This was his response:
Quote from: he
“How are you defining “God”?”
Oh, to have the faith of an atheist, to be relying on something he can’t even define, lol!
Oh dear. For the reason I’ve explained, the question is irrelevant for the purpose of Russell’s analogy. As a secondary issue though, if you do want to ask how the pixie-ist defines pixies you may as well ask how the theist defines “God”. If absence of a definition for the latter doesn’t trouble that faith belief, nor can you argue that it should trouble the faith belief of the former.
Quote from: Bertrand Russell
“But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense.”
I would agree with this being linked to religious belief if the individual were claiming belief by default if one couldn’t disprove their particular belief, but as I said earlier, I’m not seeing this nowadays.
Then you’re not looking properly. The negative proof fallacy appears regularly here for example. Hope in particular is a big fan.
Part 2/2
Quote from: Bertrand Russell
“If however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or the Inquisitor in an earlier time.”
Here is where the parable goes wrong. The teapot is a made-up entity used to illustrate a fallacy, yet it is being compared to religious belief! The implication is that religious belief is as much of a man-made invention as the teapot, yet there is no demonstration of why. As such, it is an exercise in circular reasoning, yet all of the parody deities, and other entities (e.g. bluehillside’s leprechauns / pixies) used in arguments against religious belief are based on this!
You really haven’t got this at all have you? Russell is saying that the celestial teapot is self-evidently an invention. If however it was as culturally embedded as “God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, “Zeus” etc were or are then it would be considered orthodox and so dissent from it would be thought to be eccentric. It’s a secondary issue to the principle argument – that non-falsification doesn't make a conjecture true – but it’s also a truism about group think.
The central issue I have with the parable is that it relies on circular reasoning; assuming the conclusion to demonstrate the conclusion.
It does no such thing. It merely points out – correctly – that arguing for the truth of something on the basis that it can’t be falsified is a bad argument. Nothing more, nothing less.
1. It assumes that there is no reasoning basis behind religious belief.
If someone makes a religious claim, there is nothing to stop me investigating it for myself.
No it doesn’t. Whether or not there is reasoning for a religious belief has no relevance whatever to the fallaciousness of the negative proof argument. If such reasoning exists then it stands on its merits, and even it could do so the negative argument would still be a bad one.
2. It assumes that there is no evidence for religious belief.
As such, it conflates belief with blind belief, faith with blind faith.
You’d have all your work ahead of you to establish a difference between them, but for this purpose you don’t have to because it assumes no such thing. Even if you could make an argument for faith that isn’t “blind”, the negative proof argument would still be false.
3. It assumes that religious belief is not falsifiable.
As some Christians have realised now, the only thing not falsifiable is the naturalistic precommitment of some atheists.
“Some Christians” might think that, but they can’t “realise” it because it relies on a straw man definition of “naturalism”. Again though, Russell’s teapot assumes no such thing. All it does is to explain that when the Christian says, “you can’t disprove God, therefore God is real” he’s making a false argument.
The worst bit about this parable however is that it does what it claims shouldn’t be done!!A made-up entity (e.g. bluehillside’s pixies, which he can’t define!) is compared with religious belief so the reality (intended or otherwise) is that the religious belief is taken as false by default and the religious believer is invited to counter it. Oh, and in countering it, you can only use techniques that has concluded that religious belief is false!!
Are feeling about now like Wylie E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons when he runs off the cliff, looks down and suddenly realises that the ground is no longer beneath him? You should be.
Some of us are pretty sure that “God” is every bit as much a made up entity as pixies or the teapot, but that’s not relevant for the purpose of the argument.
All Russell’s teapot does is to clear away the deadwood of one argument that Christians (and other faith believers) sometimes use. That’s it. Really, that’s it. It doesn’t say, “therefore Christianity is wrong” as you imply at all. All it actually says is, “that specific argument for Christianity is wrong.” If Christians want to make different arguments for “God” they can do so, and those arguments can be considered on their merits. For the NPF to which Russell confines himself with his teapot though the analogy is fine.
I’m anticipating all the atheists telling me how I’ve misunderstood the parable or how I’ve violated some argument or other, so if any of the Christians here (e.g. Bashful Anthony, Hope, Sassy, Vlad, etc) disagree with anything I’ve said, feel free to say why and I’ll consider it, thanks.
As you demonstrably have misunderstood it and been told why, why would you not want to address that rather than talk only to people you think might share your misunderstanding?
-
Thanks for the Bury quote, wigginhall, not seen that before. The actual quote from Russell does trigger off a note of agreement between Sword and me. The use of the word 'unlikely' imports some form of probability being calculated. To an extent, the Bury quote implies it too. This isn't about likelihood, and such claims would surely have to take the supernatural into the realms of probability.
In the end I think we are back that the best summation is probably that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, as long as people are clear on what evidence means. We lack any method for establishing causes currently that does not assume a naturalistic approach. The idea that induction is a method that lends itself to supernatural causes has been asserted by Sword but when I used induction as regards dead people he thought incorrectly that it was deduction, and when asked to use induction on one area then used deduction. So given he can't actually tell what is being used, I'm more than a tad sceptical about his idea on induction.
-
Sword
I think you capture the category confusion of certain atheist argument quite vividly.
An elf is categorised with a teapot and during any argument the elf will gain some powers and lose others.
Of course the whole point of using these characters The FSM, the Leprechaun is that they are ridiculous. Technically it is hard to disprove there existence and as long as we don't mention any other categories in which they differ from God and are lucky, perhaps a bit of the ridicule will rub off.
Russell will still be one of the greatest as the joke is owned up to. He will be one of the greatest of the aristocratic piddletakers of the anglo saxon world which has it seems an insatiable appetite for celebrity scallywags.
-
I think you capture the category confusion of certain atheist argument quite vividly.
An elf is categorised with a teapot and during any argument the elf will gain some powers and lose others.
Of course the whole point of using these characters The FSM, the Leprechaun is that they are ridiculous. Technically it is hard to disprove there existence and as long as we don't mention any other categories in which they differ from God and are lucky, perhaps a bit of the ridicule will rub off.
Russell will still be one of the greatest as the joke is owned up to. He will be one of the greatest of the aristocratic piddletakers of the anglo saxon world which has it seems an insatiable appetite for celebrity scallywags.
In which Vlad once again demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of the term "category error".
Oh well - we tried.
-
In which Vlad once again demonstrates his fundamental misunderstanding of the term "category error".
Oh well - we tried.
In which Hillside tries to vindicate Invisible Pink......Oh well.
-
Vlad,
In which Hillside tries to vindicate Invisible Pink......Oh well.
As you've been corrected on the meaning of "category error" many times and you still get it wrong, just out of interest why don't you tell us what you think it means so we can see why you keep going off the rails?
-
Ok, time to start addressing the responses. Bear with me as I will go in order ...
Lot of words just trying to avoid the burden of proof, sword.
Perhaps you missed this:
I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim.
The teapot, the pixies, the cook, the thief, and her lover, old uncle Tom Cobbley and all are just hypotheticals about the NPF.
And that is your problem! By then comparing with religious belief, the attributes of these hypotheticals must also apply to religious belief, otherwise the comparison doesn't work. So you are in effect asking this:
Using the reasoning that says X is hypothetical and given that Y is similar to X, show that Y is not hypothetical
Tell me how to distinguish between them and your god beliefs. What makes your claim more valid than any made up beliefs.
You've answered your own question! Made-up beliefs are false by default. So again, if you are using the techniques that produce made-up beliefs to try and show that a belief is not made up, you can't! Another approach is needed.
I tried to address this in the Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction thread (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12577.0), an approach to use where certainty cannot be guaranteed. Hope gave a specific example on the 'Cold-Case Christianity' (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread. How many here have tried it?
-
There are a potentially infinite number of beliefs; they can't all be correct and it would be impossible to review and investigate all of them and it would be foolish to assume they are valid by some sort of default. So, it is incumbent on the believer to justify their particular belief to the sceptic, not vice versa.
Agreed. Perhaps you missed this?
However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this.
-
There seem to be two versions of the teapot analogy, the first written by Russell in 1952, and the second in 1958. This one is very compressed: "nobody can prove that there is not between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit, but nobody thinks this sufficiently likely to be taken into account in practice. I think the Christian God just as unlikely." (Wiki, under 'Celestial Teapot').
Thanks for this wigginhall. It's a shorter version of the problem!
Who came up with the idea that between the Earth and Mars a china teapot revolving in an elliptical orbit. He did! Why did he come up with it? Any visual evidence? Any documented claim he was researching? No! He made it up. So as soon as he compares it to the likelihood of the existence of God, he is starting from the premise that God is as unlikely, not reaching this conclusion after any kind of investigation.
-
I think you continue to miss the point - all beliefs about god/s are made-up beliefs, and that includes the god generally given a capital G.
It is you who needs to back up your claim, if you claim that your god/god is not a made-up belief.
-
I think you continue to miss the point - all beliefs about god/s are made-up beliefs, and that includes the god generally given a capital G.
It is you who needs to back up your claim, if you claim that your god/god is not a made-up belief.
That all god beliefs are made up is a positive claim. If you state that the burden of proof lies upon you.
-
I think you continue to miss the point - all beliefs about god/s are made-up beliefs, and that includes the god generally given a capital G.
It is you who needs to back up your claim, if you claim that your god/god is not a made-up belief.
If you are saying like Bluehillside does ''prove your God is not something made up'' then you are in fact suggesting that a person is making something up in a rather tricksy fashion knowing full well that the claim that God is made up is a positive assertion and thus carries a burden of proof.
In other words, you have to demonstrate that there is any making up going on.
-
You’ve gone off the rails. The response to the Christian, Muslim etc isn’t, “you’re wrong”; rather it’s, “you have no cogent argument to suggest that you’re right”.
Which is still a positive claim that I would be making! How do I know that they have no cogent argument to suggest that they are right? It's arrogant presumption on my part!
That’s why for example “atheism” isn’t the claim that there are no gods, but rather that there are no good reasons to think they do exist.
Which is why I prefer the definition of atheism as an absence of belief in God(s). The burden of proof lies with the believer.
When you say there are no good reasons to think they do exist., there is no way to convince the individual otherwise as they are claiming their position as true.
None of these questions are relevant because all that’s necessary for the teapotist is faith. That’s it – “I know that the teapot is there because that’s my faith” is the beginning and end of it.
So what we have here is someone's impression of what religious belief entails, coming up with something they think is analogous and comparing them. The error made here is to fail to differentiate between faith and blind faith; belief and blind belief.
You really haven’t got this at all have you? Russell is saying that the celestial teapot is self-evidently an invention.
Precisely!
If however it was as culturally embedded as “God”, “Allah”, “Ra”, “Zeus” etc were or are then it would be considered orthodox and so dissent from it would be thought to be eccentric.
Exactly. Hence the question as to why it appears to be self-evident in one case, but not the other. From his perspective, both are the same; yet one is not given a second thought and the other is followed by millions.
Are feeling about now like Wylie E. Coyote in the Roadrunner cartoons when he runs off the cliff, looks down and suddenly realises that the ground is no longer beneath him? You should be.
:)
No. Actually, try Indiana Jones in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade and the third of the trials that he has to do to get the grail. Best illustration of faith I've seen anywhere!
Some of us are pretty sure that “God” is every bit as much a made up entity as pixies or the teapot, but that’s not relevant for the purpose of the argument.
Having admitted this, it is very relevant. The teapot is made up, so if you are going to link it with religious belief, you are claiming that religious belief is made up, whether you intend to or not! You are not doing any analysis and reaching a conclusion. You are starting with the conclusion!
-
Thanks for the Bury quote, wigginhall, not seen that before. The actual quote from Russell does trigger off a note of agreement between Sword and me. The use of the word 'unlikely' imports some form of probability being calculated. To an extent, the Bury quote implies it too. This isn't about likelihood, and such claims would surely have to take the supernatural into the realms of probability.
Thank you Nearly Sane :) Now some progress can be made.
Before bluehillside dives in: No, I am not claiming anything by default, or even two alternatives as equally likely.
In the end I think we are back that the best summation is probably that which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence, as long as people are clear on what evidence means.
Which, if there is genuine intention to move forward, would be a good discussion. That's partly why I think an opportunity was missed with Hope's Cold-case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread.
We lack any method for establishing causes currently that does not assume a naturalistic approach.
Perhaps with certainty, yes, but strong arguments can be made (and indeed have been made), in my opinion
The idea that induction is a method that lends itself to supernatural causes has been asserted by Sword but when I used induction as regards dead people he thought incorrectly that it was deduction
Because of your assertion that dead people don't rise from the dead, one that I took to be a deduction based on a naturalistic-only way of seeing things. An inductive approach would be to investigate the claim, which was the subject of Hope's Cold-case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread.
and when asked to use induction on one area then used deduction.
I never claimed I was using induction in response to Sebastian Toe's question (I've said more on the thread). It was a clear trick question, attempting to put me in the invidious position of saying a poster was in error. It appeared that there was no way out. So I dealt with it another way, exposing the flawed premise in the question. I didn't say at the outset what approach I was using because it would have given the game away!
-
Sword
I think you capture the category confusion of certain atheist argument quite vividly.
Thank you. :)
Of course the whole point of using these characters The FSM, the Leprechaun is that they are ridiculous.
True. If their use stopped there in illustrating the NPF, I would agree with it 100%. It is the linking with religious belief that is wrong, in my opinion. If you are going to compare two different things, there has to be at least one common frame of reference, so there is no way to avoid the implication that religious belief is also made up.
Russell will still be one of the greatest as the joke is owned up to.
Although I've addressed at lengths my disagreements with his parable, I can't help feeling that there has been some misuse of it. I can see that at the time he wrote it, there may well have been those claiming belief by default if it couldn't be disproved.
-
Just a quick note to Sword, thanks for the detailed responses to a couple of posts. I don't currently have time to reply but will do.
-
If you are saying like Bluehillside does ''prove your God is not something made up'' then you are in fact suggesting that a person is making something up in a rather tricksy fashion knowing full well that the claim that God is made up is a positive assertion and thus carries a burden of proof.
In other words, you have to demonstrate that there is any making up going on.
But at the moment, I'm not going to do that, i.e. word the post differently to make it correct - it makes it too easy for the believers to talk as if their views are the more probable, or that there is a sort of 50/50 balance either way.
-
Just a quick note to Sword, thanks for the detailed responses to a couple of posts. I don't currently have time to reply but will do.
That's ok. Thanks for at least trying to understand.
There's a couple of things you've said that have got me thinking (e.g. the whole issue of evidence), so I'll try and say more in the next couple of days...
-
But at the moment, I'm not going to do that, i.e. word the post differently to make it correct - it makes it too easy for the believers to talk as if their views are the more probable, or that there is a sort of 50/50 balance either way.
But can't you see how you are investigating something, yet deciding in advance what the conclusion must look like?
If any of us believers talk as if our views are the more probable then it's still a faith position! In any case, the burden of proof would be with us to back up our position.
Probability may affect the decision, but it has no bearing on what is true. The odds of winning the UK National Lottery are 45,057,474 to one (59C6 on a calculator or combin(59,6) in Excel for the mathematicians!), but people still win it!
-
But can't you see how you are investigating something, yet deciding in advance what the conclusion must look like?
I have been investigating, reading, learning, following all sorts of leads, reading all the books on the, e.g. von Daniken, Graham Hancock, astrology shelves, mysteries of Ancient Egypt, you name it, I've read it! and have belonged to discussion groups as often as possible and, at 80, I think I know what I think! However, I can't see myself losing interest in the subjects and will continue to be on the look-out for the one fact which will change the world's atheists to believers or vice versa. In the meantime, I continue to enjoy reading discussions like these ... ... wel, most of them anyway!
How do you decide, for yourself anyway, what is true?
-
I have been investigating, reading, learning, following all sorts of leads, reading all the books on the, e.g. von Daniken, Graham Hancock, astrology shelves, mysteries of Ancient Egypt, you name it, I've read it! and have belonged to discussion groups as often as possible and, at 80, I think I know what I think! However, I can't see myself losing interest in the subjects and will continue to be on the look-out for the one fact which will change the world's atheists to believers or vice versa. In the meantime, I continue to enjoy reading discussions like these ... ... wel, most of them anyway!
How do you decide, for yourself anyway, what is true?
Unlike you, Susan, I haven't read many books on the subject, but like you, I have never seen any argument strong enough to convince me of the existence of any "god".
The chemical and electrical properties of the physical world, on the other hand, convince me that nothing else is needed to explain the existence of the universe and us.
Where it all came from we don't know ... yet!
-
Unlike you, Susan, I haven't read many books on the subject,
It is possible that I exaggerated there, just the teensiest bit! :Dbut like you, I have never seen any argument strong enough to convince me of the existence of any "god".
The chemical and electrical properties of the physical world, on the other hand, convince me that nothing else is needed to explain the existence of the universe and us.
Where it all came from we don't know ... yet!
Agreed, as always!
-
But at the moment, I'm not going to do that, i.e. word the post differently to make it correct - it makes it too easy for the believers to talk as if their views are the more probable, or that there is a sort of 50/50 balance either way.
So, so far you are saying believers make up their beliefs and that their beliefs are less probable than yours.
If any of your atheist colleagues have any decency they should be persuading you to a) Demonstrate that believers make up their beliefs b) give the figures of probability for their beliefs and yours showing working out.
I do not include the very wonderful Nearly sane who has taken you to task for this.
-
In a sense SwordoftheSpirit does have a point.
The burden of evidence really depends on the audience. In an abstract setting, yes, the burden of evidence is on the person making the positive claim. So, in a debate where the "jury" is some putative unbiased entity that will be swayed by the arguments put based on their objective strength, an argument like "you can't prove there isn't a god has no validity.
However, in the situation where you are trying to persuade an actual person to change their belief, the burden of evidence is on you. It's no good telling them that the burden of evidence is on them because they don't believe they are making the positive claim. A Christian believes that "there is a god" is the default position. The fact that they are wrong about the default position is irrelevant.
-
If you are saying like Bluehillside does ''prove your God is not something made up'' then you are in fact suggesting that a person is making something up in a rather tricksy fashion knowing full well that the claim that God is made up is a positive assertion and thus carries a burden of proof.
In other words, you have to demonstrate that there is any making up going on.
Just to note that I have retired from this board in part because of unremitting dishonesty of this type. bluehillside never has and never would have said this. What bluehillside did do though was to examine the arguments made for god and when they were fallacious bluehillside said so - and moreover bluehillside explained why they were fallacious. That's not to say that someone somewhere does not have an argument for a god that isn't fallacious but - so far at least - none have been presented here and nor, so far as bluehillside is aware, anywhere else.
In short: bluehillside merely asked whether theists here had an argument to distinguish their claims from guessing.
Oh, and whether Russell's teapot is made up, ridiculous or anything else remains utterly irrelevant to the point he was making - namely that the argument, "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true" is a very bad argument.
I wish you all well.
-
Just to note that I have retired from this board in part because of unremitting dishonesty of this type. bluehillside never has and never would have said this. What bluehillside did do though was to examine the arguments made for god and when they were fallacious bluehillside said so - and moreover bluehillside explained why they were fallacious. That's not to say that someone somewhere does not have an argument for a god that isn't fallacious but - so far at least - none have been presented here and nor, so far as bluehillside is aware, anywhere else.
In short: bluehillside merely asked whether the theist had an argument to distinguish his claims from guessing.
Oh, and whether Russell's teapot is made up, ridiculous or anything else remains utterly irrelevant to the point he was making - namely that the argument, "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true" is a very bad argument.
I wish you all well.
You're letting Vlad's dishonesty drive you away from the board? Everybody would have read that and known straight away that he is talking bollocks as usual.
-
Just to note that I have retired from this board in part because of unremitting dishonesty of this type. bluehillside never has and never would have said this. What bluehillside did do though was to examine the arguments made for god and when they were fallacious bluehillside said so - and moreover bluehillside explained why they were fallacious. That's not to say that someone somewhere does not have an argument for a god that isn't fallacious but - so far at least - none have been presented here and nor, so far as bluehillside is aware, anywhere else.
In short: bluehillside merely asked whether the theist had an argument to distinguish his claims from guessing.
Oh, and whether Russell's teapot is made up, ridiculous or anything else remains utterly irrelevant to the point he was making - namely that the argument, "you can't disprove it, therefore it's true" is a very bad argument.
I wish you all well.
Just ignore the arseholes and carry on as if they don't exist?
You could try it for a while to see if that works?
-
Ignore the trolling, blue. That's all it is.
-
I have been investigating, reading, learning, following all sorts of leads, reading all the books on the, e.g. von Daniken, Graham Hancock, astrology shelves, mysteries of Ancient Egypt, you name it, I've read it! and have belonged to discussion groups as often as possible and, at 80, I think I know what I think! However, I can't see myself losing interest in the subjects and will continue to be on the look-out for the one fact which will change the world's atheists to believers or vice versa. In the meantime, I continue to enjoy reading discussions like these ... ... wel, most of them anyway!
How do you decide, for yourself anyway, what is true?
(emphasis mine)
Before I get picked up on it, I’ll make it clear that what I am saying is a belief about what is true, not a certainty.
You seem to have had an interesting journey! Some of my best friends are Muslims and Sikhs. From a belief perspective, we could all be wrong, but we can’t all be right. I wrestle with that one sometimes because I see a commitment to their religion that has to be respected.
You said, “and will continue to be on the look-out for the one fact which will change the world's atheists to believers or vice versa” My journey on this revolved around looking for explanations for the something. Do I go for natural only explanations or do I go for a non-natural explanation? I had arguments for both but the deciding factor for me going for non-natural explanations was when being presented with naturalistic explanations that were contradicted by what can be observed. The biggest one for me was anything that relied on something being caused by nothing, e.g.
• Life from non-life
• Functionality (in living organisms, e.g. senses) from non-functionality.
• Intelligence from non-intelligence
• Morality from non-morality
• Laws from non-laws
My favourite science displine at school was Physics and the one thing you learn very quickly is that you do not get something for nothing, for example Newton’s conservation of energy/momentum laws, the work-energy principle, etc. I also observed in Chemistry that under certain conditions, order could come from disorder, but something had to be given up, e.g. the orderly static structure of water molecules, or the beautiful patterns in a snowflake comes at a price: giving up heat energy (i.e. the dynamism of the water molecules). Again, no something for nothing.
Ok. So why the creator route? Human beings design and make things. What are the attributes of these? Is there anything comparable in the world? In my opinion, absolutely. Having a creator therefore solves the something from nothing problem.
So what is the nature of the creator? Over to religious belief. I was brought up in a Christian environment, so it made sense to start there. I spent much of my teenage years trying to get away from it because I didn’t have any say in whether or not I could attend church. So I kind of went along with it. Ultimately, it came down to whether or not I could believe that Jesus rose from the dead. When I was 18, I came to the conclusion that I needed to decide one way or the other, so made a decision to commit to it and take the Christian faith more seriously.
So, to answer your last question (in bold), it was an inductive approach that led me to the conclusion that there was a creator, a step of faith based on believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and if that is true, then there is no reason for me to doubt other things that are said in the Bible, and in terms of what is true with regard to the Christian faith, I try and take a deductive approach based on what the Bible says.
-
(emphasis mine)
Before I get picked up on it, I’ll make it clear that what I am saying is a belief about what is true, not a certainty.
You seem to have had an interesting journey! Some of my best friends are Muslims and Sikhs. From a belief perspective, we could all be wrong, but we can’t all be right. I wrestle with that one sometimes because I see a commitment to their religion that has to be respected.
You said, “and will continue to be on the look-out for the one fact which will change the world's atheists to believers or vice versa” My journey on this revolved around looking for explanations for the something. Do I go for natural only explanations or do I go for a non-natural explanation? I had arguments for both but the deciding factor for me going for non-natural explanations was when being presented with naturalistic explanations that were contradicted by what can be observed. The biggest one for me was anything that relied on something being caused by nothing, e.g.
• Life from non-life
• Functionality (in living organisms, e.g. senses) from non-functionality.
• Intelligence from non-intelligence
• Morality from non-morality
• Laws from non-laws
My favourite science displine at school was Physics and the one thing you learn very quickly is that you do not get something for nothing, for example Newton’s conservation of energy/momentum laws, the work-energy principle, etc. I also observed in Chemistry that under certain conditions, order could come from disorder, but something had to be given up, e.g. the orderly static structure of water molecules, or the beautiful patterns in a snowflake comes at a price: giving up heat energy (i.e. the dynamism of the water molecules). Again, no something for nothing.
Ok. So why the creator route? Human beings design and make things. What are the attributes of these? Is there anything comparable in the world? In my opinion, absolutely. Having a creator therefore solves the something from nothing problem.
So what is the nature of the creator? Over to religious belief. I was brought up in a Christian environment, so it made sense to start there. I spent much of my teenage years trying to get away from it because I didn’t have any say in whether or not I could attend church. So I kind of went along with it. Ultimately, it came down to whether or not I could believe that Jesus rose from the dead. When I was 18, I came to the conclusion that I needed to decide one way or the other, so made a decision to commit to it and take the Christian faith more seriously.
So, to answer your last question (in bold), it was an inductive approach that led me to the conclusion that there was a creator, a step of faith based on believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and if that is true, then there is no reason for me to doubt other things that are said in the Bible, and in terms of what is true with regard to the Christian faith, I try and take a deductive approach based on what the Bible says.
Something from nothing?
Who is advocating that?
-
bluehillside
Nearly all of us here will be saying - as per posts above - and thinking:
please do keep on reading here and joining in topics that interest you; your absence would leave a large empty space.
Sword of the Spirit
I will come back to your post in a minute (or tomorrow). Asking bluehillside to stay is much more important just at the moment.
-
Ok. So why the creator route? Human beings design and make things. What are the attributes of these? Is there anything comparable in the world? In my opinion, absolutely. Having a creator therefore solves the something from nothing problem.
No it doesn't. It only leaves us with a very much bigger problem of where the creator came from.
-
No it doesn't. It only leaves us with a very much bigger problem of where the creator came from.
How is God being eternal any greater a problem than the universe being eternal?
The problem with an eternal universe though is that at the moment it seemed to come into being with the big bang.
The irony is that a creator of the universe allows the universe to be more natural as it avoids having the universe having the supernatural properties of either creating itself or being eternal.
-
My dear bh,
Please, please don't let the moronic posts of some members of this board drive you away.
Most thinking people recognise the non-existence of the god brigade's "arguments", but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.
Your contributions are some of the most cogent and persuasive to achieve this.
Sincerely,
Leonard.
-
The biggest one for me was anything that relied on something being caused by nothing, e.g.
• Life from non-life
The jury remains out on abiogenesis, and no doubt investigations continue. That in the absence of knowledge you can't envisage abiogenesis without 'god' is a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
• Functionality (in living organisms, e.g. senses) from non-functionality.
• Intelligence from non-intelligence
• Morality from non-morality
• Laws from non-laws
These are emergent properties that arise from the evolution of species - that you can't envisage the emergence of these traits without 'god' is also a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
So, to answer your last question (in bold), it was an inductive approach that led me to the conclusion that there was a creator, a step of faith based on believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead and if that is true, then there is no reason for me to doubt other things that are said in the Bible, and in terms of what is true with regard to the Christian faith, I try and take a deductive approach based on what the Bible says.
Which is a fallacious argument from authority unless you can demonstrate the reliability of the Bible without recourse to circular reasoning or the relativist (its true for me) fallacies.
You seem keen on adopting a philosophical approach yet you seen unaware of the logical fallacies you keep falling into.
-
How is God being eternal any greater a problem than the universe being eternal?
Sword's claim was about something from nothing. Complexity arises from simpler origins. Human mind is complex, and it has taken 14 billion years of cosmic evolution for it to appear. Theism claims a creator being even more complex than human mind just existing out of nowhere with no provenance. That is a more fantastic claim than simple matter starting to exist out of nowhere which then goes on to evolve complexity; after all this happens all the time in the quantum field.
-
I see that many of the points you raise have been dealt with but I will post this as is.
(emphasis mine)
Before I get picked up on it, I’ll make it clear that what I am saying is a belief about what is true, not a certainty.
Okay. To be absolutely precise, those of us who, like me, are totally lacking a belief in any god whilst acknowledging that there is just the remotest possibility that one might be found one day, disregard that chance.You seem to have had an interesting journey! Some of my best friends are Muslims and Sikhs. From a belief perspective, we could all be wrong, but we can’t all be right. I wrestle with that one sometimes because I see a commitment to their religion that has to be respected.
Why ‘respected’? acknowledge, understood, both historically and culturally, but since there is zero evidence for anything supernatural – call it what you will – why, ‘respected’?You said, “and will continue to be on the look-out for the one fact which will change the world's atheists to believers or vice versa” My journey on this revolved around looking for explanations for the something. Do I go for natural only explanations or do I go for a non-natural explanation? I had arguments for both but the deciding factor for me going for non-natural explanations was when being presented with naturalistic explanations that were contradicted by what can be observed.
The Theory of Evolution deals with much of your list. I will comment on the moral point:• Morality from non-morality
the word ‘morality’ is simply a label to cover behaviours that were advantageous and pleasing to our species and assisted their survival. When civilisation and language development formed them into a code they simply became a set of rules, but that was not the start of morality.Ok. So why the creator route? Human beings design and make things. What are the attributes of these? Is there anything comparable in the world? In my opinion, absolutely. Having a creator therefore solves the something from nothing problem.
No, it simply adds the question of infinite regression – who created the creator, etc.So what is the nature of the creator?
All attributes and characteristics ascribed to any kind of god or creator come from the imagination of humans.Over to religious belief. I was brought up in a Christian environment, so it made sense to start there. I spent much of my teenage years trying to get away from it because I didn’t have any say in whether or not I could attend church. So I kind of went along with it. Ultimately, it came down to whether or not I could believe that Jesus rose from the dead. When I was 18, I came to the conclusion that I needed to decide one way or the other, so made a decision to commit to it and take the Christian faith more seriously.
I don’t know how old you are, but for those of my age, there was really no option. However, I consider myself fortunate in one way – the only part of belief in my family was that of belief in God. All other ideas, myths, legends, biblical stories, miracles etc were, self-evidently, simply stories, many aimed at promoting goodbehaviour and showing why anti-social behaviours were wrong.So, to answer your last question (in bold), it was an inductive approach that led me to the conclusion that there was a creator, a step of faith based on believing that Jesus Christ rose from the dead …
I really have to stop you there. In the face of everything we know, and that humans have known for thousands of years, however much they may have wanted to believe otherwise, all living things die; why do you wish to suspend your disbelief to such an extent to believe that a person can be resurrected? Do you think that people 2,000 years ago were better informed than we are today?…and if that is true, …
The word if has a lot to answer for here – there is overwhelming evidence that it Is vanishingly unlikelythat it is even remotely possible, so why is it more believable to you that it could happen? What logic do you use to arrive at that idea?…then there is no reason for me to doubt other things that are said in the Bible, and in terms of what is true with regard to the Christian faith,…
If you only believe those bits, then you are being very selective I think.I try and take a deductive approach based on what the Bible says.
Why would you do that? Do you think that the words and stories written down pretty much 2,000 and more ago are more worthy of belief than our up-to-date knowledge of our planet, our galaxy, space, the universe, etc
-
Just to say thank you for the various kind comments that have been posted here. I came here because I’m interested in religion generally as a phenomenon, and because I enjoy the discussion of ideas. Increasingly though I’ve found that I’m repeating the same rebuttals to the same arguments, that what some of us say quite plainly is too often misrepresented, and that the fruit loop proselytising and conspiracy theory stuff is antithetical to the very idea of discussion.
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And for me at least that’s a bit dull.
I will look in from time-to-time, and if someone posts an argument that I do find interesting I’ll engage with it. For now though I feel I haven’t much more to say without becoming dull myself, and that would never do.
My best wishes to you all.
-
ALL gods are invented entities, imo. The Biblical god is not very credible; it appears to be the figment of the human authors' imaginations.
-
Just to say thank you for the various kind comments that have been posted here. I came here because I’m interested in religion generally as a phenomenon, and because I enjoy the discussion of ideas. Increasingly though I’ve found that I’m repeating the same rebuttals to the same arguments, that what some of us say quite plainly is too often misrepresented, and that the fruit loop proselytising and conspiracy theory stuff is antithetical to the very idea of discussion.
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And for me at least that’s a bit dull.
I will look in from time-to-time, and if someone posts an argument that I do find interesting I’ll engage with it. For now though I feel I haven’t much more to say without becoming dull myself, and that would never do.
My best wishes to you all.
Haste ye back now, as the Scots like to say :)
-
Just to say thank you for the various kind comments that have been posted here. I came here because I’m interested in religion generally as a phenomenon, and because I enjoy the discussion of ideas. Increasingly though I’ve found that I’m repeating the same rebuttals to the same arguments, that what some of us say quite plainly is too often misrepresented, and that the fruit loop proselytising and conspiracy theory stuff is antithetical to the very idea of discussion.
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And for me at least that’s a bit dull.
I will look in from time-to-time, and if someone posts an argument that I do find interesting I’ll engage with it. For now though I feel I haven’t much more to say without becoming dull myself, and that would never do.
My best wishes to you all.
I certainly hope you will look in from time to time, Blue. I generally don't bother with those posters like NM or Sass who just seem to proselytize by continually repeating what I see as unadulterated assertions and which are a world away from my experiences and thought processes. I always read your posts however because I often find them thought provoking and interesting and never dull.
-
I certainly hope you will look in from time to time, Blue. I generally don't bother with those posters like NM or Sass who just seem to proselytize by continually repeating what I see as unadulterated assertions and which are a world away from my experiences and thought processes. I always read your posts however because I often find them thought provoking and interesting and never dull.
Ditto of course. I don't know - although probably mods do - how many times posts here are read by lurkers and browsers, but I hope that the sensible posts are noticed andmaybe some of those people might have cause to think about and bringtheir own beliefs forward to a non-religious one..
-
Something from nothing? Who is advocating that?
It is an inherent problem with a philosophy that takes a bottom-up approach (e.g. explanation for diversity of life), rather than a top down.
If you take a top-down approach, that which is created has the ability to diversify. There is no which came first? The chicken or the egg (seed or the plant) problem to solve.
If you take a bottom-up approach with gains of functionality coming from something simpler (e.g. compare the functionality in and of human beings or plants with the single common ancestor all life is supposed to have descended from), then you are getting something for nothing, a notion contradicted in Physics.
-
No it doesn't. It only leaves us with a very much bigger problem of where the creator came from.
This statement is a brilliant quintessential illustration of the problem I see some atheists here running into time and time again. You are not going where the evidence leads. You are dictating what the results should look like. If you were doing Statistics and took that approach, you would find that you are introducing bias, e.g. A student who wants to find out what type of music young people listen to, and they give the survey to students in their class.
Anyone can look on this very thread and see a huge contrast with the approach taken to abiogenesis. I don't see anyone here saying, "We can't say how life developed because we don't know how it started", which in my opinion, is a much bigger problem! If abiogenesis can be divorced from any common-descent evolutionary theories, why can't the nature of a creator be a separate study from life being created?
Human beings design and make things. If those attributes and characteristics are present elsewhere then why shouldn't it be seen as evidence for a creator? It appears to be such a big problem (especially when you get the likes of Richard Dawkins talking about the illusion of design in his book The God Delusion, yet I can bet those looking for evidence of life on Mars are using the same kind of inductive techniques based on what they know about life on earth!!
-
If abiogenesis can be divorced from any common-descent evolutionary theories, why can't the nature of a creator be a separate study from life being created?
In which you are begging the question, which is yet another logical fallacy.
-
The jury remains out on abiogenesis, and no doubt investigations continue. That in the absence of knowledge you can't envisage abiogenesis without 'god' is a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
Once again, the prejudicing of the investigation is laid bare for all to see. Before mentioning God, I said this:
Ok. So why the creator route? Human beings design and make things. What are the attributes of these? Is there anything comparable in the world? In my opinion, absolutely. Having a creator therefore solves the something from nothing problem.
So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?
These are emergent properties that arise from the evolution of species - that you can't envisage the emergence of these traits without 'god' is also a fallacious argument from personal incredulity.
Which is just another way of solving any problem by saying, evolution-did-it. Hardly evidence-based. And Christians here are being criticized for their faith???
-
It is an inherent problem with a philosophy that takes a bottom-up approach (e.g. explanation for diversity of life), rather than a top down.
If you take a top-down approach, that which is created has the ability to diversify. There is no which came first? The chicken or the egg (seed or the plant) problem to solve.
If you take a bottom-up approach with gains of functionality coming from something simpler (e.g. compare the functionality in and of human beings or plants with the single common ancestor all life is supposed to have descended from), then you are getting something for nothing, a notion contradicted in Physics.
I'm not following that last point. If simple things give rise to complex things, how is that something for nothing?
The explanation of diversity as being top down, is not really an explanation. Well, if it is, explain how the creator developed mammals during the Triassic period.
-
Once again, the prejudicing of the investigation is laid bare for all to see. Before mentioning God, I said this:
So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?
Which is just another way of solving any problem by saying, evolution-did-it. Hardly evidence-based. And Christians here are being criticized for their faith???
There is one heck of a lot more evidence for evolution than there is for the creation tale, for which there is zero evidence.
-
So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?
You don't have a 'route' to go down: your reasoning is repeatedly fallacious, as above, which has been pointed out to you frequently.
Which is just another way of solving any problem by saying, evolution-did-it. Hardly evidence-based. And Christians here are being criticized for their faith???
Here we have several fallacies arranged in row: a straw man, your personal incredulity, a non sequitur and your argument from ignorance.
If you are going to try a philosophical approach you'll need to bone up on those fallacies.
-
Sword's claim was about something from nothing. Complexity arises from simpler origins.
For me, there is a difference between something becoming more complex and something gaining something. The gain is the something from nothing problem.
Example: You give me a black and white photo. I do something to the photo and give it back to you. You notice that it is now a colour photo, with all the right colours in the right places. That photo has gained something that couldn't come from what was there.
If you start from a single common ancestor and jump to human beings, what gains do you have?
- The senses
- brain, eyes, nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, ...
- the ability to make moral choices
- intelligence
- male and female
- sexual reproduction
Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.
-
Before mentioning God, I said this:
So you have made it very clear that the reason that you are not prepared to go down this route is because it may lead to God, and that cannot be allowed. You are not even prepared to consider the possibility of a creator and leave the nature of that creator to another field of study?
And for those who have "gone down this route", and find that Gordon's et al. position is the valid one? For those who found "the mystical" (let alone the exclusively Christian view) was a wild-goose chase?
Didn't do it right? or something...
-
Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.
Aside from the confusion of abiogenesis with the process of evolution itself, you need to be reminded that for believers there is always the question: "If God made the world, why did he make it so badly"
-
The Theory of Evolution deals with much of your list.
Not in my opinion. Evolution works with what is already there. It doesn't magic things out of nothing!
I will comment on the moral point:the word ‘morality’ is simply a label to cover behaviours that were advantageous and pleasing to our species and assisted their survival. When civilisation and language development formed them into a code they simply became a set of rules, but that was not the start of morality.
i.e. evolution of the gaps
No, it simply adds the question of infinite regression – who created the creator, etc.
Which assumes that God is created, i.e. had a beginning.
Incidentally, infinite regressions don't seem to be a problem elsewhere, e.g.
- plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
- I was given birth to by my mother, who was given birth to by her mother, who was given birth to by her mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
Are you seeing now how the things that you claim happen in some evolutionary theories have to be taken by faith, yet the things that contradict it are observable by all?
why do you wish to suspend your disbelief to such an extent to believe that a person can be resurrected?
Because it requires even more faith to believe that nothing can cause something, and that's the alternative with the conclusions based on your naturalistic philosophy.
Do you think that people 2,000 years ago were better informed than we are today?
I wouldn't knock everything about 2000+ years ago. How old is Pythagoras' Theorem or Archimedes' Principle?
Incidentally, it's interesting that the Bible contains a falsification test for the Christian faith, yet 2000 years later, not a single atheist can give me an example of how their naturalistic philosophy can be falsified. Hmmm
-
For me, there is a difference between something becoming more complex and something gaining something. The gain is the something from nothing problem.
Example: You give me a black and white photo. I do something to the photo and give it back to you. You notice that it is now a colour photo, with all the right colours in the right places. That photo has gained something that couldn't come from what was there.
If you start from a single common ancestor and jump to human beings, what gains do you have?
- The senses
- brain, eyes, nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, ...
- the ability to make moral choices
- intelligence
- male and female
- sexual reproduction
Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.
Amongst the various fallacies on display here there is a glorious argument from ignorance: yours.
-
Aside from the confusion of abiogenesis with the process of evolution itself, you need to be reminded that for believers there is always the question: "If God made the world, why did he make it so badly"
There is also the issue of how he made it, or makes it. If he did, then how he produce the shift from reptiles to mammals? Just saying, 'just like that', doesn't count as an explanation.
-
Incidentally, it's interesting that the Bible contains a falsification test for the Christian faith, yet 2000 years later, not a single atheist can give me an example of how their naturalistic philosophy can be falsified. Hmmm
Could you specify the Christian 'falsification test'?
-
Incidentally, it's interesting that the Bible contains a falsification test for the Christian faith....
Do tell - and remember to include the methodology to be applied should I wish to attempt to falsify Christianity.
-
There is also the issue of how he made it, or makes it. If he did, then how he produce the shift from reptiles to mammals? Just saying, 'just like that', doesn't count as an explanation.
At best, you'd have to say he builds on what has gone before, even though there have been obvious design faults which should have been rectified long ago. God is definitely behind the newer versions of Windows :)
-
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
You seem unable to accept the fact that there are some who have thought about things and have reached a different conclusion to you.
You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.
To all the Christians (particularly those who have been posting here long before I came along), consider this: The next time an atheist here mentions any fallacy, circular reasoning, etc., (particularly when used to dismiss the contents of an entire post) apply it to their naturalistic precommitment. You may well find two things.
1. The claim is incorrectly used against religious belief.
2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.
-
2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.
On this at least, your thinking is very binary. Not every atheist had a 'precommitment', but may end up with a naturalistic view eventually.
-
Which atheists have a naturalistic precommitment?
-
The next time an atheist here mentions any fallacy, circular reasoning, etc., (particularly when used to dismiss the contents of an entire post) apply it to their naturalistic precommitment.
Ironically this reads like a textbook example of the reification fallacy being applied to your own fallacious strawman representation of atheism.
You may well find two things.
1. The claim is incorrectly used against religious belief.
Religious belief is riddled with fallacies, as your own posts clearly demonstrate.
2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.
Which, as noted above, is your own fallacious representation of atheism.
If you are going to try philosophy you need to understand fallacies properly. It seems to me you've concluded 'God' and are now thrashing around to construct your own versions philosophical arguments that fit your preferred conclusion of 'God', which is of course begging the question by assuming your conclusion.
-
Gordon's point there strikes me as quite common. I mean, that people start off with 'God', for whatever reason, and then look around for arguments to support it. You could argue, of course, that we all do that - for example, I can't stand Theresa May, in a kind of instinctive way, so then I look for reasons, like she gurns.
But what is weird is the claim that such and such arguments lead us to God belief. Really?
-
For me, there is a difference between something becoming more complex and something gaining something. The gain is the something from nothing problem.
Example: You give me a black and white photo. I do something to the photo and give it back to you. You notice that it is now a colour photo, with all the right colours in the right places. That photo has gained something that couldn't come from what was there.
If you start from a single common ancestor and jump to human beings, what gains do you have?
- The senses
- brain, eyes, nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, ...
- the ability to make moral choices
- intelligence
- male and female
- sexual reproduction
Now: If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information
-
There is an old saying that camouflage and mimicry in animals show how the environment can be literally painted onto the organism's body, for example, the wasp spider, which (gasp) looks like a wasp. But this can be widened out - natural selection permits information from the environment to be added to the organism, or its genome.
-
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And for me at least that’s a bit dull.
I will look in from time-to-time, and if someone posts an argument that I do find interesting I’ll engage with it. For now though I feel I haven’t much more to say without becoming dull myself, and that would never do.
My best wishes to you all.
Hillsides valedictory is a paeon to the naturalistic assumptions he has preached on this board and so his great and hazy distance from the very basis of Christian belief was self imposed.
Blue was, IMHO, only too willing to see his own position as ''true for everyone'' as exemplified in his often announced catch phrase ''can we move on now?'' to which I am glad non Hillside worshipping voices delivered a resounding ''no''.
-
You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.
You are just guilty of your of committing the NPF fallacy yet again. Naturalism, if you insist on -isms, is just a default position unless some justification can be found for supernaturalism. It is not for us to justify the default position, rather the burden lies with those claiming something exceptional.
-
Naturalism would be falsified by something non-natural. However, this raises the thorny issue of what that is, and how it would be known, detected, identified, and so on. Any ideas?
-
If the ability for all this to evolve was present in the single common ancestor, where did it come from? You are in exactly the same position as you claim I am in, by saying that the question of where did the creator come from? is a problem. If the ability for all this was not present in the single common ancestor, then you are saying that it came from nothing! That's your problem, and that is the problem with the bottom-up approach.
The difference is that cells, however they began, existed and persisted in an unbroken line for the billions of years since life started and show no sign of ending. They are facts and just because you cannot cope with the idea that evolution from single cells to complex mammals can take place during those billions of years does not invalidate the TofE..
As soon as you wish to bring God into it, you are faced with the problem of providing just one observation on which to base a hypothesis.
-
It sounds like that standard argument: we don't know how living cells emerged, therefore God did it. We don't know how the Big Bang happened, therefore God. We don't know how the brain constructs conscious thought, therefore God. We don't know how thunder happens, therefore Thor. We don't know how my tooth fell out, therefore Tooth Fairy.
-
Reasons to be leaving (Part 2).
So I posted:
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And right on cue Sword respond with:
You seem unable to accept the fact that there are some who have thought about things and have reached a different conclusion to you.
You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.
To all the Christians (particularly those who have been posting here long before I came along), consider this: The next time an atheist here mentions any fallacy, circular reasoning, etc., (particularly when used to dismiss the contents of an entire post) apply it to their naturalistic precommitment. You may well find two things.
1. The claim is incorrectly used against religious belief.
2. The claim is true of their own naturalistic precommitment.
It’s all there: the failure to understand that logic leads where logic leads, not that this is an issue of “reaching different conclusions”; the repetition of the straw man version of “naturalistic philosophy” despite being corrected on it several times already; the avoidance of what circular reasoning actually entails, and – as ever – the shifting of the burden of proof by never once suggesting an argument for his god.
And in other posts we see the most abject failure to grasp what emergence entails and thus the crudest Paley’s watch reasoning of, “if it looks complex it must have been designed”, the continued misconstruing of Russell’s teapot as if the ridiculousness had anything to do with the underlying point and so on.
I see too that Vlad has returned with his standard tactic of, “lie, ignore the corrections and rebuttals and keep on lying.”
What then should we make of this? That these people do grasp the logic that undoes them but just ignore it anyway? Or do they just not see it – a bit like the toad that can’t see the snake when it’s turned sideway because that’s not the way snakes are orientated?
Either way, it all confirms my view that there’s no point even trying to engage. No matter how many times you say, “no, what I actually said was that 2+2=4 and here’s why” you still get the same basic dishonesty or ignorance in response.
Of course the people who behave this way could I suppose say something like, “yeah OK – I see the point of Russell’s teapot now so will stop misrepresenting it” but as there’s precious little sign of it I see little point in wasting time on them.
To my virtual (and virtuous) friends here though, my very best wishes.
-
Yes, the ignorance I can understand, but the dishonesty is difficult to process. I think people have suggested an impervious defence system, so that some people actually cannot take in something.
I understand the reasons for quitting, as I get fed up. But in a way, it doesn't matter to me if people are dishonest.
-
Reasons to be leaving (Part 2).
So I posted:
And right on cue Sword respond with:
It’s all there: the failure to understand that logic leads where logic leads, not that this is an issue of “reaching different conclusions”; the repetition of the straw man version of “naturalistic philosophy” despite being corrected on it several times already; the avoidance of what circular reasoning actually entails, and – as ever – the shifting of the burden of proof by never once suggesting an argument for his god.
And in other posts we see the most abject failure to grasp what emergence entails and thus the crudest Paley’s watch reasoning of, “if it looks complex it must have been designed”, the continued misconstruing of Russell’s teapot as if the ridiculousness had anything to do with the underlying point and so on.
I see too that Vlad has returned with his standard tactic of, “lie, ignore the corrections and rebuttals and keep on lying.”
What then should we make of this? That these people do grasp the logic that undoes them but just ignore it anyway? Or to do they just not see it – a bit like the toad that can’t see the snake when it’s turned sideway because that’s not the way snakes are orientated?
Either way, it all confirms my view that there’s no point even trying to engage. No matter how many times you say, “no, what I actually said was that 2+2=4 and here’s why” you still get the same basic dishonesty or ignorance in response.
Of course the people who behave this way could I suppose say something like, “yeah OK – I see the point of Russell’s teapot now so will stop misrepresenting it” but as there’s precious little sign of it I see little point in wasting time on them.
To my virtual (and virtuous) friends here though, my very best wishes.
Russell's Teapot is an old crock.
I'm not sure but you may have beaten my record vis time of announcing retirement from forum and return.
I think it would be right for you to make good your promise to retire from the forum as it will give people a chance to look at your corpus with critical reasoning.
-
Just to say thank you for the various kind comments that have been posted here. I came here because I’m interested in religion generally as a phenomenon, and because I enjoy the discussion of ideas. Increasingly though I’ve found that I’m repeating the same rebuttals to the same arguments, that what some of us say quite plainly is too often misrepresented, and that the fruit loop proselytising and conspiracy theory stuff is antithetical to the very idea of discussion.
I could for example counter Sword’s post by explaining that it’s one long argument from personal incredulity, that it rests on a straw man (no-one says that the phenomena he lists do come “from nothing”), that he could read about how complexity emerges from simpler components without external intervention by reading a book (Steven Johnson’s Emergence for example), that his personal “leap of faith” is not an argument for a “true for you too” fact for others etc.
What though would be the point? In the Christian’s shoes I’d think, “blimey – I’d better think about this as it appears to unravel the very basis of my belief” and if I found that it did I’d either try to find some cogent reasons for retaining it or I’d abandon it.
What actually happens though with some posters is that the same arguments are repeated over and again, or we get a “so you think the moon is made of cream cheese then do you?” type reply, or the fallacies that have been attempted (circular reasoning, category error etc) are just thrown back with no basis and with no understanding of what they mean.
And for me at least that’s a bit dull.
I will look in from time-to-time, and if someone posts an argument that I do find interesting I’ll engage with it. For now though I feel I haven’t much more to say without becoming dull myself, and that would never do.
My best wishes to you all.
This forum is a microcosm of the religious debate in general. If the arguments are repetitive, it's because the religionists can't think of anything new and the atheists don't have to think of anything new (their existing arguments going unanswered).
-
This forum is a microcosm of the religious debate in general. If the arguments are repetitive, it's because the religionists can't think of anything new and the atheists don't have to think of anything new (their existing arguments going unanswered).
Au contraire Rodney. The atheists on this forum sit bolt upright whenever Auntie Bluehillside tells the old familiar tale of The Leprechuan and The Ant God.......
-
Au contraire Rodney. The atheists on this forum sit bolt upright whenever Auntie Bluehillside tells the old familiar tale of The Leprechuan and The Ant God.......
Keech.
-
Au contraire Rodney. The atheists on this forum sit bolt upright whenever Auntie Bluehillside tells the old familiar tale of The Leprechuan and The Ant God.......
No hey don't.
-
I'm not following that last point. If simple things give rise to complex things, how is that something for nothing?
Where did the ability for the simple things to give rise to the complex things (and in the process, the generation of new functionality) come from?
-
Could you specify the Christian 'falsification test'?
Yes. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith.
-
And for those who have "gone down this route", and find that Gordon's et al. position is the valid one? For those who found "the mystical" (let alone the exclusively Christian view) was a wild-goose chase?
Didn't do it right? or something...
Hmmm...interesting question, because that is precisely what I’m being accused of, for example, this from Gordon:
It seems to me you've concluded 'God' and are now thrashing around to construct your own versions philosophical arguments that fit your preferred conclusion of 'God', which is of course begging the question by assuming your conclusion.
Or wigginhall:
But what is weird is the claim that such and such arguments lead us to God belief. Really?
The implication being that those who reached that conclusion didn’t do it right? or something ...
-
Yes. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith.
This is a claim based on ancient anecdotal accounts of unknown provenance involving supernatural agency that, as things stand, are indistinguishable from fiction. Given that the risks of mistakes or lies in these accounts haven't been meaningfully excluded then you don't have anything substantive that can be falsified - so one can reasonably doubt the truth of these accounts, where the burden of proof lies with those supporting the claims.
Congratulations - your proposed falsification method is itself incoherent, partly since these claims are unfalsifiable, they may well be fiction and also because the implied challenge to disprove the resurrection is fallacious, since it is the good old NPF yet again.
-
Where did the ability for the simple things to give rise to the complex things (and in the process, the generation of new functionality) come from?
That is not something from nothing. Complexity is a reference to the ways things are organised. We have a word for properties that are evident at higher levels of complexity - emergence.
-
Yes. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith.
That's not a falsification test.
All supernatural beliefs are unfalsifiable, that is implied by supernatural.
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information
Both of those links are talking about an increase in information. I've no problem with that as the complexity comes from what is already present.
The problem I have is with a gain in information. A gain in information means adding something that cannot come from what is already present. For example: a black-and-white photograph being turned into a colour photograph gains something, namely colour information. Not only that, but the colour has to be added in the correct place.
If all life evolved from a single common ancestor, then gains include the functionality for animal life, plant life and human life, including gender. If it didn't come from nothing, the ability to do so must have been there from the start, so where did that come from? If the ability wasn't there from the start, but came as a result of mutation+natural selection then you are talking about a gain in ability coming from nothing.
Last time I wrote along these lines, one charge was, argument from incredulity. Is there any experiment I can conduct that copies something and ends up with something greater than what I started with? Can I copy e.g. my CD's of Windows Vista imperfectly, select some copies, copy those again, select some copies, repeat until such point that I end up with Windows 7? That's an illustration of a gain in functionality. I would suggest that when something is copied, a perfect copying process yields an identical version of what you are copying. An imperfect copying process leads to a variation (e.g. colour information copied incorrectly will give another colour), or a loss. Only in common-descent evolutionary theories can you start off with something and end up with something greater than what you started with (Wikipedia's explanation for the alleged evolution of the eye, for example)
-
There is an old saying that camouflage and mimicry in animals show how the environment can be literally painted onto the organism's body, for example, the wasp spider, which (gasp) looks like a wasp. But this can be widened out - natural selection permits information from the environment to be added to the organism, or its genome.
Which is working with an ability that is already present. I've no problem with evolutionary explanations involving adaptation as it is easily demonstrable.
However, if the claim is that all life evolved from a single common ancestor, how did we get from there, to a wasp that can do this, via natural processes only?
-
You are just guilty of your of committing the NPF fallacy yet again. Naturalism, if you insist on -isms, is just a default position unless some justification can be found for supernaturalism. It is not for us to justify the default position, rather the burden lies with those claiming something exceptional.
I'm not committing the NPF fallacy. If I said e.g. my belief in God is correct unless you can disprove it, that would be committing the NPF fallacy.
If you are claiming that naturalism is the default position and it isn't falsifiable, then whether you are aware of it or not, you are claiming it as true, so there is no way for anyone to provide any justification for anything that contradicts it.
-
Which is working with an ability that is already present. I've no problem with evolutionary explanations involving adaptation as it is easily demonstrable.
However, if the claim is that all life evolved from a single common ancestor, how did we get from there, to a wasp that can do this, via natural processes only?
Don't you believe that natural processes were created by a god? What difference does it make to what natural mechanism is used if you believe a god creates those anyway? What you are doing is contradictory - saying natural process X can't do Y, therefore god did Y, while simultaneously stating that natural process X would come from god.
-
Naturalism would be falsified by something non-natural. However, this raises the thorny issue of what that is, and how it would be known, detected, identified, and so on. Any ideas?
There's a fine line here between an undiscovered/unknown natural cause and a non-natural cause. I would suggest that where something happens that goes against the way the natural world works, e.g. miracles.
Can they be proven conclusively? I don't believe so which is why faith is involved, but I don't see why an inductive approach cannot be taken. It wouldn't be conclusive proof, but at least the individual taking such an approach can make their own mind up.
There's been a lot of objections to the inductive approach suggested on a couple of other threads. If one considers those investigating whether or not there is life on Mars, I don't see anyone taking the approach of, well, there is no evidence that what applies on Earth will apply on another planet. Rather, patterns that are known on earth are applied on Mars. So the discovery of water below the surface could suggest life? Why? Because on earth, water contains living organisms.
-
There's a fine line here between an undiscovered/unknown natural cause and a non-natural cause. I would suggest that where something happens that goes against the way the natural world works, e.g. miracles.
What can't be a miracle when nature itself is believed to have arisen miraculously?
-
The difference is that cells, however they began, existed and persisted in an unbroken line for the billions of years since life started and show no sign of ending. They are facts and just because you cannot cope with the idea that evolution from single cells to complex mammals can take place during those billions of years does not invalidate the TofE.
Which is something you have to believe by faith.
On this the idea that evolution from single cells to complex mammals can take place during those billions of years
What are your thoughts on where all of the gain in functionality from cells to complex mammals came from? Cells do not have eyes, a nose, ears, heart, lungs, kidneys, the ability to breathe, swim or fly, make moral decisions, design and make things, ...
-
As soon as you wish to bring God into it, you are faced with the problem of providing just one observation on which to base a hypothesis.
Before bringing God into anything, I stopped at creator. Even if I didn't believe in God, I would still believe that something was responsible for the design & creation of life.
One observation on which to base a hypothesis? DNA! Here's a snippet from Wikipedia(1)
DNA is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.
An interesting description! Instructions are made for a purpose. That implies forethought and intent. Show me any natural process that can think in advance and make decisions accordingly.
There is also a similarity with things designed and made by human beings that have similar characteristics, e.g.
- alphabet for books
- musical notes for music
- computer instructions for software.
(1) DNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA)
-
You and some of the other atheists here could make things a lot easier for yourselves if you could just come up with one example of how your commitment to a naturalistic philosophy can be falsified, but you won't.
If by "naturalistic philosophy" you mean believing that only the natural exists, then you have just scored a massive own goal. If you believe that this position can't be falsified, then you have inadvertently conceded that your super/non-natural position can't be confirmed in any way, as doing so would falsify this "naturalistic philosophy".
-
Before bringing God into anything, I stopped at creator. Even if I didn't believe in God, I would still believe that something was responsible for the design & creation of life.
And that something doing the designing and creating couldn't be life.
-
Probability may affect the decision, but it has no bearing on what is true. The odds of winning the UK National Lottery are 45,057,474 to one (59C6 on a calculator or combin(59,6) in Excel for the mathematicians!), but people still win it!
You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope: those may be the odds of you winning the lottery but the probability that someone will win the lottery is very different, as is confirmed by the simple fact that jackpots are won on a regular basis.
-
Before bringing God into anything, I stopped at creator. Even if I didn't believe in God, I would still believe that something was responsible for the design & creation of life.
One observation on which to base a hypothesis? DNA! Here's a snippet from Wikipedia(1)
An interesting description! Instructions are made for a purpose. That implies forethought and intent. Show me any natural process that can think in advance and make decisions accordingly.
There is also a similarity with things designed and made by human beings that have similar characteristics, e.g.
- alphabet for books
- musical notes for music etc)
- computer instructions for software.
(1) DNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA)
Musical notes aren't manufactured or designed by humans though: they occur naturally. That humans manufacture devices to make sounds of certain pitches (A=440 etc) and then organise them into arrangements we call music is just one example of emergent properties - as is the symbolic representations that we use to convey meaning and sound.
-
There's a fine line here between an undiscovered/unknown natural cause and a non-natural cause. I would suggest that where something happens that goes against the way the natural world works, e.g. miracles.
How does one identify "something happens that goes against the way the natural world works". Suppose you are at the cutting edge of what is known, a scientist working at CERN say, and you see a collision debris pattern you have not seen before, do you call it supernatural because it appears to defy previously known experimental data ? I put it to you that we cannot know what is supernatural and so an honest investigator will never use that description. Rather, what we do is use the new evidence to enrich our models of reality. Calling it supernatural is a dead end, it gets us nowhere.
-
The problem I have is with a gain in information. A gain in information means adding something that cannot come from what is already present. For example: a black-and-white photograph being turned into a colour photograph gains something, namely colour information. Not only that, but the colour has to be added in the correct place.
If all life evolved from a single common ancestor, then gains include the functionality for animal life, plant life and human life, including gender. If it didn't come from nothing, the ability to do so must have been there from the start, so where did that come from? If the ability wasn't there from the start, but came as a result of mutation+natural selection then you are talking about a gain in ability coming from nothing.
Last time I wrote along these lines, one charge was, argument from incredulity. Is there any experiment I can conduct that copies something and ends up with something greater than what I started with? Can I copy e.g. my CD's of Windows Vista imperfectly, select some copies, copy those again, select some copies, repeat until such point that I end up with Windows 7? That's an illustration of a gain in functionality. I would suggest that when something is copied, a perfect copying process yields an identical version of what you are copying. An imperfect copying process leads to a variation (e.g. colour information copied incorrectly will give another colour), or a loss. Only in common-descent evolutionary theories can you start off with something and end up with something greater than what you started with (Wikipedia's explanation for the alleged evolution of the eye, for example)
This sounds like a regurgitated Intelligent Design argument from about 15 years ago. Biologists have no such problems as you describe. Why should it be a problem for you if it is not for those working in the field ?
-
It sounds like that standard argument: we don't know how living cells emerged, therefore God did it.
That's not the argument.
In any case, human beings design and make things, so why are some here so against the idea that a creator could have designed/created cells?
-
I thought that a mutation by definition adds information; but this is only part of the process, since mutations can be selected for, as the environment also introduces new information. Thus, recent studies on Darwin's finches (Galapagos), have shown that beak size (which affects which kinds of seeds can be eaten), is affected by climate. Periods of drought or el Nino conditions favour finches with different size beaks, and the others tend to die out. But beak size is continually oscillating via genetic variation, and is heritable.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/10/965.full
-
Yes. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith.
Gordon has pointed out the unreliability of these ancient accounts, and I might go on to mention their huge contradictions. The text you seem to be alluding to is from St Paul, who had a very different view of the Resurrection from the gospel accounts.
Your problem is how to explain what the phrase "Christ rose from the dead" even means. It is true that those who have believed that it expressed some sort of reality have often been inspired to action (though often such actions have been extremely morally dubious), but all you really have to go on is that it seems to mean something to them. Those of the liberal wing of Christianity (inspired by the writings of Paul Tillich etc) don't seem to talk in terms of revivified corpses, but the latter seems to be at least part of the package of belief for a lot of traditional Christians.
-
It’s all there: the failure to understand that logic leads where logic leads
Logic according to whom though? That's the point you keep on missing!
If I say 1+1=10, that is not a logical statement in base 10, but it is in base 2.
The logic you use is an assumed tautology (true by default), so it is not falsifiable. Therefore you make deductions based on it, e.g. dead men don't rise from the dead, a positive claim for which you don't have to present any kind of evidence and / or reasoning to support.
the avoidance of what circular reasoning actually entails
You mean reasoning like absence of evidence => evidence of absence, leading to
As there is no evidence of God's existence, He doesn't exist;
God doesn't exist therefore there is no evidence of His existence
and – as ever – the shifting of the burden of proof by never once suggesting an argument for his god.
And, according to you, neither has any other Christian ever on this forum!
And in other posts we see the most abject failure to grasp what emergence entails and thus the crudest Paley’s watch reasoning of, “if it looks complex it must have been designed”
That's your argument, not mine. But hey. If you (and Dawkins) have enough faith to believe that a blind watchmaker is more likely to build a watch that one that can see what they are doing, all credit to you! That's atheist logic for you!!
the continued misconstruing of Russell’s teapot as if the ridiculousness had anything to do with the underlying point and so on.
Well, you are the one who has to resort to inventing dancing pixies on keyboards, then comparing it to religious belief, but cannot see why the comparison is invalid.
Once again: The analogy with religious belief fails because the teapot is made up. It doesn't exist. If you compare it with religious belief, you are claiming (whether you want to or not) that religious belief is made up.
I see too that Vlad has returned with his standard tactic of, “lie, ignore the corrections and rebuttals and keep on lying.”
It's called a difference of opinion, clearly something you are not mature enough to handle.
What then should we make of this?
That your philosophy, when subject to the same scrutiny as religious belief is found wanting. It has no foundation because it is not based on truth.
To my virtual (and virtuous) friends here though, my very best wishes.
Au revoir...until Part 3 then ;)
-
Just because you - and , yes, large numbers of others, believe that there **must have been** a creator of some sort does not make it true. Why should non-believers take on your faith in this belief which is entirely without a fact to back it up?
-
Your denigration of one of our best and longest-posting members is, in my opinion, a disgrace. If you think your thinking is so much better, produce just one fact to back up your guessworked claims.
-
Once again: The analogy with religious belief fails because the teapot is made up. It doesn't exist. If you compare it with religious belief, you are claiming (whether you want to or not) that religious belief is made up.
For crying out loud: the celestial teapot thought experiment is not analogous to religious belief - it illustrates a fallacy. If you are going to dabble in philosophy you really need to do some homework, unless you wish to continue looking uninformed.
That religious belief is made up is a separate matter involving the deployment of other logical fallacies beloved by theists.
-
That is not something from nothing. Complexity is a reference to the ways things are organised. We have a word for properties that are evident at higher levels of complexity - emergence.
Which is just a clever way of saying something from nothing
Try that approach in Physics. I put a book on the ground. It springs three metres into the air. Was a force applied to the book, or did it self-emerge the energy to overcome gravity?
-
That's not a falsification test.
All supernatural beliefs are unfalsifiable, that is implied by supernatural.
If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, there is no Christian faith.
If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, there is a Christian faith.
So how is the resurrection of Jesus Christ not a falsification test?
-
What difference does it make to what natural mechanism is used if you believe a god creates those anyway?
Truth, specifically accuracy.
It's clearly an issue, otherwise why is there so much resistance to even the possibility of a creator being involved?
-
Truth, specifically accuracy.
It's clearly an issue, otherwise why is there so much resistance to even the possibility of a creator being involved?
It makes no difference to the truth of what natural mechanism is used. Why are you making out like it does?
-
If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, there is no Christian faith.
If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, there is a Christian faith.
So how is the resurrection of Jesus Christ not a falsification test?
Well 2000 years on I think all hope of any evidential basis for that claim is gone. It is not something we can test, all people do is put interpretation on ancient claims, that is not the same as testing.
-
If by "naturalistic philosophy" you mean believing that only the natural exists, then you have just scored a massive own goal. If you believe that this position can't be falsified, then you have inadvertently conceded that your super/non-natural position can't be confirmed in any way, as doing so would falsify this "naturalistic philosophy".
It's not so much me believing that the position can't be falsified, but the philosophy being set up so it isn't falsifiable. So it asks religious believers for evidence of their faith, whilst denying them the ability to do so. It claims a position of being true without ever having to give an account of why.
-
And that something doing the designing and creating couldn't be life.
In my opinion yes; some kind of intelligent life.
-
It's not so much me believing that the position can't be falsified, but the philosophy being set up so it isn't falsifiable. So it asks religious believers for evidence of their faith, whilst denying them the ability to do so. It claims a position of being true without ever having to give an account of why.
So who is it that's claimed that only the natural exists?
-
In my opinion yes; some kind of intelligent life.
Then your argument is circular.
-
You are looking down the wrong end of the telescope: those may be the odds of you winning the lottery but the probability that someone will win the lottery is very different, as is confirmed by the simple fact that jackpots are won on a regular basis.
That was my point Gordon. The odds are high, yet as you say, the jackpots are won regularly. Therefore it shows that just because the probability of something happening is high, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be considered unlikely to the point of dismissing it.
-
That was my point Gordon. The odds are high, yet as you say, the jackpots are won regularly. Therefore it shows that just because the probability of something happening is high, it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be considered unlikely to the point of dismissing it.
You still don't get it: for Camelot that someone (as in anyone) will win is quite probable but for you or I it is quite improbable but possible, since people do win.
So, the odds of one person surviving being dead for around 3 days is what exactly? Try consulting several undertakers, apply some induction and I think you'll find no examples at all on which to calculate probability.
-
If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, there is no Christian faith.
If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, there is a Christian faith.
So how is the resurrection of Jesus Christ not a falsification test?
Because it is indistinguishable from fiction: to claim the resurrection as fact is on a par with claiming you are in possession of the favourite pipe of Sherlock Holmes.
-
If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, there is no Christian faith.
If Jesus Christ did rise from the dead, there is a Christian faith.
So how is the resurrection of Jesus Christ not a falsification test?
Talk about a false dichotomy.
-
Anything is indistinguishable from fiction at first glance because you can write fiction about anything.
However since you have made a positive assertion Gordon i'll let you provide evidence that it is fiction.
Yours, Not holding his breath Vlad.
Bring back Bluehillside. I'm fed up with Hillside manqué.
Don't be a silly boy, Vlad.
I've said it is indistinguishable from fiction and not that it is fiction, and in relation to that I've frequently asked you guys how you have assessed the risk of mistakes or lies in these NT resurrection accounts, and so far no takers - so that the resurrection of Jesus tale is indistinguishable from fiction is a reasonable conclusion.
You could try doing some distinguishing.
-
Hi Susan,
Your denigration of one of our best and longest-posting members is, in my opinion, a disgrace. If you think your thinking is so much better, produce just one fact to back up your guessworked claims.
As you know, I've withdrawn now from this board at least until someone posts an argument that hasn't been rebutted countless times. I had to look in briefly though to thank you for your very kind comments.
I see that Sword has returned with repetitions of exactly the same arguments that have been undone already, but has made no effort to deal with the rebuttals that unhorse him. To be frank, this kind of thing only vindicates my decision to step away. There are only so many times that you can explain bad reasoning before it becomes dull to do and, I suspect, dull to read. If anyone does engage with the counter-arguments then I may well respond. As things stand though, there doesn't seem to be much point.
Maybe there needs to be a new corner of this site called, "Space for Theists Who Actually Want to Engage with the Arguments Rather than Ignore or Lie About Them" or some such, but until then...
My very best wishes to you, and good luck with the tapdancing :)
-
Hillsides
I think you are equating arguments against as automatic wins or as Gordon would put it "indistinguishable from a win."
There is an opportunity for you to, uninterrupted, debate with a theist.
Would you be prepared to do this?Or does your strategy depend on calling out from the gallery?
Finally I'm finding the simultaneous retired from board but still posting schtick fairly entertaining.
-
bluehillside
Thank you for posting. I think I shall be adding Sword of the Spirit's name to those that I scroll past! The air of somewhat smug triumphalism is, I think, almost worse than Vlad's dafter responses. In Vlad's case there was, though, one mitigating factor during the pre-referendum threads, where he was, in my opinion, on the right track!:)
:You are still young of course, so probably don't have time to post on other forums, but I find it interesting that the other three I go to are sort of similar but have different styles.
In fact, I had written what I thought was quite a smart response to one of Sword's posts yesterday, but when I tried to post, the IE came up with one of those 'IE cannot display the page' notices. I went back a page, highlighted and copied, but then did a re-start without remembering to save it somewhere! Ah, well!
-
Musical notes aren't manufactured or designed by humans though: they occur naturally. That humans manufacture devices to make sounds of certain pitches (A=440 etc) and then organise them into arrangements we call music is just one example of emergent properties - as is the symbolic representations that we use to convey meaning and sound.
Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?
You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc
(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)
So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.
-
How does one identify "something happens that goes against the way the natural world works". Suppose you are at the cutting edge of what is known, a scientist working at CERN say, and you see a collision debris pattern you have not seen before, do you call it supernatural because it appears to defy previously known experimental data ?
No. If it defies previously known experimental data, it could be an undiscovered natural phenomenon. However, if it contradicted what was known, one would have to see where the investigations lead.
An example: I drop a 1 kg weight out of a window. Instead of falling to the ground, it moves up. Would I assume a supernatural cause. Not at this stage. But, from what is known of gravity and the conservation of mechanical energy, I would know that a force would have to act on the weight for it to move up, rather than down. So I'd be investigating the nature of the force and see where that leads.
-
This sounds like a regurgitated Intelligent Design argument from about 15 years ago. Biologists have no such problems as you describe. Why should it be a problem for you if it is not for those working in the field ?
Because in the former case, only natural causes are assumed.
Given that there are natural explanations for X, what is the best explanations
I have the option of considering natural, or non-natural causes.
-
I thought that a mutation by definition adds information; but this is only part of the process, since mutations can be selected for, as the environment also introduces new information. Thus, recent studies on Darwin's finches (Galapagos), have shown that beak size (which affects which kinds of seeds can be eaten), is affected by climate. Periods of drought or el Nino conditions favour finches with different size beaks, and the others tend to die out. But beak size is continually oscillating via genetic variation, and is heritable.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/10/965.full
No problem with this wigginhall. However beaks remain beaks, so what is happening is that what is already present is being adapted, in this case the beaks.
-
The text you seem to be alluding to is from St Paul, who had a very different view of the Resurrection from the gospel accounts.
In what way?
-
Just because you - and , yes, large numbers of others, believe that there **must have been** a creator of some sort does not make it true.
Agreed, but I have chosen to believe it by faith for reasons I'm given on this thread, previous threads and I'm sure the Christians who have been posting here over the years have given reasons from their perspective.[/quote]
Why should non-believers take on your faith in this belief
They don't have to take on my faith in this belief. They can study for themselves and reach their own conclusion. What I don't get is that if you are so opposed to religious belief, why do you and others here devote so much of your time talking about it?
-
No. If it defies previously known experimental data, it could be an undiscovered natural phenomenon. However, if it contradicted what was known, one would have to see where the investigations lead.
An example: I drop a 1 kg weight out of a window. Instead of falling to the ground, it moves up. Would I assume a supernatural cause. Not at this stage. But, from what is known of gravity and the conservation of mechanical energy, I would know that a force would have to act on the weight for it to move up, rather than down. So I'd be investigating the nature of the force and see where that leads.
You are on the right lines then, in principle; you just need to follow that thinking through, there is never any benefit from classifying an apparently perplexing phenomenon as supernatural. Doing so closes the door to enquiry; 'supernatural' is an attitude problem not a genuine insight. Findings coming out of quantum theory are baffling, particles being in two places at once, particles communicating instantaneously across space and so forth, these do not fit our intuitions nor classical physics; yet we do not call them supernatural, rather we keep on trying to understand. By calling something supernatural, we are saying that it can never been understood; how can we be so bold as to say never ?
-
Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?
You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc
(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)
So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.
If that is your claim then it begs the question of what is the intended purpose, and you would need to be able to justify that in order for your claim to be taken seriously.
What is wrong with the simpler explanation that we are adapted to profit from the information patterns in sound wavelengths ?
-
Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?
You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc
(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)
So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.
This is everything to do with your religious belief, into which you are desperately trying to shoehorn everything else in a vain attempt to make it 'fit' your preferred conclusion of 'creation'.
The above is just as plain silly as any of the other 'intelligent design' creationist twaddle we've encountered and is just an expression of you being utterly overwhelmed by your own personal incredulity, from which a feast of fallacies freely flow.
Either that or you are wumming.
-
Agreed. Therefore if something with similar characteristics can be observed elsewhere, why is it not reasonable to reach the conclusion that something of an intellligent nature is responsible?
You sound like you may know some detail about how musical notes are arranged? Are you aware that the chromatic scale used in Western music is logarithmic? So using the frequency for the ‘A’ you cited, the ‘A’ that is an octave above is 880 Hz (440 x 2). The ‘A’ two octaves above is 1760 Hz (440 x 2 x 2). Since there are twelve notes in each octave, the frequencies for the following notes would be as follows:
A: 440 Hz
Bb: 440 x 2^(1/12)
B: 440 x 2^(2/12)
C: 440 x 2^(3/12), etc
(2^ = 2 to the power of, and 1/12 is the fraction one twelfth, etc)
So here is something quite sophisticated that is used as the blueprint for music. From my perspective, I see something similar with DNA. Leaving aside its origin, the organizing of the letters A,C,T,G for living organisms suggest to me a comparable level of design. Even Wikipedia uses words like genetic instructions, which suggests design. Instructions are written for a purpose and it is known in advance what the instructions are for. Others may reach a different conclusion, but this is mine. Nothing to do with any religious beliefs.
This "argument" is as old as toast. It's special pleading to argue for design for something specific like DNA, while simultaneously believing everything else is designed too. You have removed all contrast - you have no background to stand this "design" up against. The concept has become meaningless.
-
Yes. If Jesus Christ didn't rise from the dead, no Christian faith.
Well he didn't. So that just about wraps it up for God.
-
No problem with this wigginhall. However beaks remain beaks, so what is happening is that what is already present is being adapted, in this case the beaks.
Your posts remind me of the old joke: 'there must be a God, because I don't know how things work'.
-
Sword of the Spirit
One of the reasons I come hereis to help to counter faith beliefs which are entirely without evidence so that those who browse or lurk realise that a large number of posters here are well, not ill, informed about reality and truth.
-
, from which a feast of fallacies freely flow.
Are those fallacies Gordon or things which are indistinguishable from fallacies?...................HeHeHe.
-
Are those fallacies Gordon or things which are indistinguishable from fallacies?...................HeHeHe.
They're fallacies, Vlad - Sword is adept at them, and you're not so bad at them yourself.
-
They're fallacies, Vlad - Sword is adept at them, and you're not so bad at them yourself.
Feel free to make good that claim Gordon......................... HoHoHo
-
...... I think I shall be adding Sword of the Spirit's name to those that I scroll past! The air of somewhat smug triumphalism.....
What??.... smh
I see no "air of somewhat smug triumphalism"..... rather, only someone that is expressing a different point of view to your point of view....
....... maybe SwordOfTheSpirit could scroll past your posts, Susan. ;)
-
Feel free to make good that claim Gordon......................... HoHoHo
Certainly will: you are to strawmen, Vlad, what tonic is to gin.
I take it the chuckles mean you are a very happy Vlad at present: be careful it doesn't wear off.
-
Certainly will: you are to strawmen, Vlad, what tonic is to gin.
That's just another claim Gordon.......care to make it good?
-
That's just another claim Gordon.......care to make it good?
I think the evidence is in your posting history, Vlad, since I've commented on it previously: your portrayal of 'philosophical naturalism' comes to mind.
When I get time I promise to dig out a couple of examples of fully-fledged Vladisms.
-
In what way?
The gospel accounts speak of witnesses to a physical being* (albeit not immediately recognisable as Jesus, as in the Road to Emmaus episode). St Paul (depending on which account you read) seems to have experienced a being of blinding light - which apparently did blind him - and hearing a voice (which those around may or may not have heard, again according to which account you read).
If there's any truth in all of this, it reads more like a psychotic episode, which may have resolved some of the conflicts in the deeply disturbed younger Saul, who was so distressed at being unable to keep the Jewish Law in its entirety.
Returning to your earlier assertion that Christianity contains its own falsification test, I would suggest that such an assertion is utter bollocks until you can establish what exactly it is that the NT is saying about the 'Resurrection' in the first place. The hard atheists are in a sense complicit with you in this, since they accept that what you seem to be saying is that there was a revivifying of a corpse (and we know that dead bodies stay dead). Of course, the said revivified corpse was then supposed to have vanished at a later date into thin air. And the point at which this is supposed to have happened is given two different dates by the same author, if you believe Luke wrote Acts as well as the gospel attributed to him. Until you can actually, unequivocally, state exactly what you mean, you'd best not start playing around with philosophical concepts such as inductive or deductive methods.
You say you have faith - faith in just what out of this farrago of contradictory and fantastical word-spinning?
*Of course, Mark doesn't mention any such witnesses at all, in the earliest available manuscripts.
-
I think the evidence is in your posting history, Vlad, since I've commented on it previously: your portrayal of 'philosophical naturalism' comes to mind.
When I get time I promise to dig out a couple of examples of fully-fledged Vladisms.
A couple? That's hardly going to demonstrate this hyperbole
''you are to strawmen, Vlad, what tonic is to gin.'' remember typing that Gordon?..............you aren't terribly good at this are you?
-
I think the evidence is in your posting history, Vlad, since I've commented on it previously: your portrayal of 'philosophical naturalism' comes to mind.
When I get time I promise to dig out a couple of examples of fully-fledged Vladisms.
Will those be examples or indistinguishable from examples?
-
Will those be examples or indistinguishable from examples?
When I get around to it - busy day in Modland today. I'm confident there will be no shortage of examples.
-
When I get around to it - busy day in Modland today. I'm confident there will be no shortage of examples.
show us the money.
-
show us the money.
Here, for instance - check #143 & 144 where I've noted your strawman.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12122.msg619233#msg619233
I'm sure there are plenty more but this one illustrates the point nicely.
-
Here, for instance - check #143 & 144 where I've noted your strawman.
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12122.msg619233#msg619233
I'm sure there are plenty more but this one illustrates the point nicely.
Number 141 you claim the Kalam cosmological argument is fallacious. I'm asking you to demonstrate it
-
Number 141 you claim the Kalam cosmological argument is fallacious. I'm asking you to demonstrate it
In #143 you say this:
By all means demonstrate Gordon rather than just say there are are alternative arguments
to which I repond in #144
A straw man to start the day, Vlad, since I haven't claimed any alternative arguments.
Which I think is an example that is sufficient to illustrate my point.
-
In #143 you say this:
to which I repond in #144
Which I think is an example that is sufficient to illustrate my point.
Wrong. KCA was not demonstrated as fallacious. Arguments put by other people which was what we were talking about previous to these could therefore only be alternative arguments rather than demonstrations of fallacy.
Others were therefore making the arguments about alternatives. I wasn't even thinking of you although you went ahead and claimed that others were claiming KCA was fallacious rather than what they were doing which was putting alternatives to KCA. If the context is understood correctly then you appear as a victim of your own confirmation bias...............Try another.
-
In what way?
I'd be interested to see the differences in the Pauline as opposed to the gospel writers views of the resurrection as well.
-
I'd be interested to see the differences in the Pauline as opposed to the gospel writers views of the resurrection as well.
Those discussions and/or differences are purely academic though, aren't they? What is so astonishing is that so many people in this modern day and age still believe, actually believe, that such a thing could happen.
-
Wrong. KCA was not demonstrated as fallacious. Arguments put by other people which was what we were talking about previous to these could therefore only be alternative arguments rather than demonstrations of fallacy.
Others were therefore making the arguments about alternatives. I wasn't even thinking of you although you went ahead and claimed that others were claiming KCA was fallacious rather than what they were doing which was putting alternatives to KCA. If the context is understood correctly then you appear as a victim of your own confirmation bias...............Try another.
Nope - the KCA is fallacious, which has been pointed often, and the only thing to do when presented by fallacious arguments is to reject them out-of-hand, since they are bad arguments, rather than counter them with an alternative argument.
That, however, isn't the issue we are discussing. You portrayed my comment as indicating that I thought there were alternative arguments to the KCA and yet I made no reference to any alternative arguments in my post (which iirc was my first in that thread) since, as noted above, fallacies need only be rejected as bad arguments and not countered.
That is what the exchange shows: on that note I think we've derailed enough on this.
-
Those discussions and/or differences are purely academic though, aren't they? What is so astonishing is that so many people in this modern day and age still believe, actually believe, that such a thing could happen.
Those discussions and/or differences are purely academic though, aren't they? What is so astonishing is that so many people in this modern day and age still believe, actually believe, that such a thing could happen. [/quote - Why is it 'astonishing'?
-
Nope - the KCA is fallacious, which has been pointed often, and the only thing to do when presented by fallacious arguments is to reject them out-of-hand, since they are bad arguments, rather than counter them with an alternative argument.
That, however, isn't the issue we are discussing. You portrayed my comment as indicating that I thought there were alternative arguments to the KCA and yet I made no reference to any alternative arguments in my post (which iirc was my first in that thread) since, as noted above, fallacies need only be rejected as bad arguments and not countered.
That is what the exchange shows: on that note I think we've derailed enough on this.
The KCA is an argument for the existence of God. If the argument is fallacious (which it is), the only consequence is that we cannot be certain that God exists. We don't need to provide an alternate argument if we are prepared to accept that particular consequence. This is a concession that atheists are perfectly happy with.
So I really don't know what Vlad is asking for.
-
The KCA is an argument for the existence of God. If the argument is fallacious (which it is), the only consequence is that we cannot be certain that God exists. We don't need to provide an alternate argument if we are prepared to accept that particular consequence. This is a concession that atheists are perfectly happy with.
So I really don't know what Vlad is asking for.
A demonstration that it's fallacious might be a start.
-
...... I think I shall be adding Sword of the Spirit's name to those that I scroll past! The air of somewhat smug triumphalism.....
What??.... smh
I see no "air of somewhat smug triumphalism"..... rather, only someone that is expressing a different point of view to your point of view....
Thank you for your support SweetPea :)
Mind, you, if I did want to take a triumphalist approach, I could learn from the poster who said this:
One of the reasons I come hereis to help to counter faith beliefs which are entirely without evidence so that those who browse or lurk realise that a large number of posters here are well, not ill, informed about reality and truth.
Or perhaps this (to bluehillside)
My dear bh,
Please, please don't let the moronic posts of some members of this board drive you away.
Most thinking people recognise the non-existence of the god brigade's "arguments", but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.
Your contributions are some of the most cogent and persuasive to achieve this.
Sincerely,
Leonard.
perhaps also from this argument from incredulity:
I'd be interested to see the differences in the Pauline as opposed to the gospel writers views of the resurrection as well.
Those discussions and/or differences are purely academic though, aren't they? What is so astonishing is that so many people in this modern day and age still believe, actually believe, that such a thing could happen.
-
perhaps also from this argument from incredulity:
Which aren't arguments from incredulity: I suspect this philosophy stuff has you well and truly stumped.
-
One person's philosophy is another's gibberish!
-
One person's philosophy is another's gibberish!
Not really Floo - philosophy itself is fine, but the misuse of philosophy generally isn't.
-
Not really Floo - philosophy itself is fine, but the misuse of philosophy generally isn't.
I agree, my previous comment was tongue firmly in cheek. :D
-
Sword of the spirit
The trouble is that you have only faith beliefs about God etc. Just substantiate one with a fact an, like akaleidoscope, the whole world pattern will change, producing a pattern that is not only beautiful but completely harmonious too plus being in tune with reality.
-
A demonstration that it's fallacious might be a start.
That's easy. Let's take Craig's version
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2 The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3 The universe has a cause.
Neither 1 nor 2 are known to be true. The argument is therefore unsound.
-
That's easy. Let's take Craig's version
1 Whatever begins to exist has a cause;
2 The universe began to exist;
Therefore:
3 The universe has a cause.
Neither 1 nor 2 are known to be true. The argument is therefore unsound.
I don't know about that since they could both be true. You seem to be turning a maybe into a definitely not. In other words you seem to be giving greater validity to things not observed(The suspension of cause and effect and things popping up out of nothing). I'm not sure that helps you when you make those appeals to evidence and the need for evidence base.
-
I don't know about that since they could both be true. You seem to be turning a maybe into a definitely not. In other words you seem to be giving greater validity to things not observed(The suspension of cause and effect and eternal entities). I'm not sure that helps you when you make those appeals to evidence and the need for evidence base.
It is an example of begging the question.
-
It is an example of begging the question.
How?
-
I don't know about that since they could both be true.
Could both be true is not good enough. The argument fails because one or both statements could be false.
You seem to be turning a maybe into a definitely not.
No I'm not and I have explicitly said so. If you look at my previous reply, you'll see that I wrote:
If the argument is fallacious (which it is), the only consequence is that we cannot be certain that God exists.
In other words you seem to be giving greater validity to things not observed(The suspension of cause and effect and things popping up out of nothing). I'm not sure that helps you when you make those appeals to evidence and the need for evidence base.
I'm not giving validity to anything. All I am saying is that the mere possibility that the Universe is eternal or that cause and effect doesn't always apply destroys the KCA. But destroying the KCA is not equivalent to proving there is no god.
-
Could both be true is not good enough. The argument fails because one or both statements could be false.
No I'm not and I have explicitly said so. If you look at my previous reply, you'll see that I wrote:
I'm not giving validity to anything. All I am saying is that the mere possibility that the Universe is eternal or that cause and effect doesn't always apply destroys the KCA. But destroying the KCA is not equivalent to proving there is no god.
Agreed.
You still seem to be appealing to those things which have no evidence as having greater value than that with evidence namely a mediocre universe of cause and effect and a big bang.
Also following your logic about mere possibilities destroying arguments.............. that would mean that the mere possibility of God destroys any argument for naturalism.
-
How?
The usual reason in respect of that fallacy.
-
The usual reason in respect of that fallacy.
And that is...........?
-
Agreed.
You still seem to be appealing to those things which have no evidence as having greater value than that with evidence namely a mediocre universe of cause and effect and a big bang.
I'm not appealing to anything. It is a fact that one or both of the premises may be false.
Also following your logic about mere possibilities destroying arguments.............. that would mean that the mere possibility of God destroys any argument for naturalism.
When has anybody made a purely deductive argument for naturalism?
-
Jeremy dealt efficiently with kalam. Discussion of it has generated some interesting talking points, these are a few of them.
1. Talking of causation before the universe seems incoherent, since if time began with the universe, then there can be no cause, and no 'before'.
2. 'Begins to exist' is presumably designed to exempt God from having a cause, but it has its own problems. If you see energy as constantly forming and reforming, then there is no beginning of something. For example, the sun was formed from a cloud of dust and gas, under the influence of gravity, but then where did that cloud come from? Partly from exploding stars, which themselves were formed as clouds of dust and gas ...
3. The universe beginning to exist is also problematic. You can argue that the Big Bang is not an event, and of course, it is not the only explanation of the universe today.
4. There is an old argument about composition: if cause/effect is described inside the universe, this does not mean that it can be described outside it. In other words, you can't just add everything up that goes on inside, and assert that that applies to the whole thing (fallacy of composition).
5. Of course, there is the old critique, how can something immaterial be a cause?
-
I'd be interested to see the differences in the Pauline as opposed to the gospel writers views of the resurrection as well.
I dealt with some of these matters in #147.
-
Sword of the spirit
The trouble is that you have only faith beliefs about God etc. Just substantiate one with a fact an, like akaleidoscope, the whole world pattern will change, producing a pattern that is not only beautiful but completely harmonious too plus being in tune with reality.
That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! :) Let me explain why:
Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.
You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview? Because one person thinks but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.
In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothing problems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!
You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
• Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
• An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
• That which has a beginning has a cause.
For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing something scenario.
In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon. It may even inspire them to think for themselves and conduct their own investigation, as opposed to being told how to think by comments like this:
Most thinking people recognise the non-existence of the god brigade's "arguments", but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.
(*1): Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The third trial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48) (watch from 3:21 in)
-
The fallacy-fest continues.
That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! :) Let me explain why:
Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.
Here we have an argument from authority in referencing Hebrews for what is no more than a deepity. Leaving aside that Indiana Jones is entertaining fiction it shows nothing more than a calculated risk taken by the hero who, surprise surprise, survives: since if he didn't the film is less than 4 minutes long and unlikely to attract many paying customers.
You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview?
Here we have confirmation bias, plus a recurrence of the 'worldview' strawman.
In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothing problems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!
You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
• Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
• An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
• That which has a beginning has a cause.
Here we have arguments from both personal incredulity and from ignorance (yours), plus an example of begging the question by referencing the KCA.
For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing something scenario.
Now you are repeating yourself, fallacy-wise.
In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith
Those drawn to the fallacies you expound, which isn't all Christians here, haven't countered 'arguments against their faith' since nobody is making such arguments - simply pointing out your use of fallacies to you is sufficient in these circumstances without advancing an argument.
but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon.
What position? Merely pointing out to you the fallacies you keep falling into does not a 'position' make: and that you clearly don't understand the philosophy you are attempting to make use of is self-evidently a problem you have, as this recent post of yours ably demonstrates.
-
Sword of the Spirit
You have, as Leonard and others will no doubt also observe, missed the whole point as usual.
-
That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! :) Let me explain why:
Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.
You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview? Because one person thinks but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.
In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothing problems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!
You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
• Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
• An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
• That which has a beginning has a cause.
For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing something scenario.
In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon. It may even inspire them to think for themselves and conduct their own investigation, as opposed to being told how to think by comments like this:
(*1): Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: The third trial (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48) (watch from 3:21 in)
A nice long post, thanks. I'll just point out a couple of points that seem nonsensical to me.
1. Why does a god solve the something from nothing problem ? Unless you can say where god came from it does not address the problem, it merely obscures it.
2. Even if there is a creator god, that is a long way short of an interventionist god listening telepathically to selected human's prayers and acting on them. This leaves you with a capricious god reacting to some prayers but ignoring others, this in itself contradicts the notion of a just or fair god.
-
I'm also puzzled by what the 'something from nothing scenario' refers to. Does this refer to various cosmological theories, or to the origin of life?
It sounds like more incredulity - since we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. This is the Thor argument, imagine people a few thousand years ago, since we don't know how thunder happens, therefore Thor.
Or, compare it with gravity - since scientists are not clear as to how gravity operates, therefore God pulls things down. And, you can't prove that he doesn't!
-
Sword,
That’s actually quite a colourful picture of my faith, thank you! Let me explain why:
Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. This is illustrated brilliantly in the film Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade with the third trial(*1) that Indy has to navigate to get to the grail. That which is unseen (the walkway across the chasm) becomes seen when Indy takes the step of faith, expecting to fall into the chasm below.
You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe! Is it logical therefore to stop because some claim without proof that the God I believe in doesn’t exist and then hide behind philosophical excuses when asked to justify their worldview? Because one person thinks but much work still needs to be done to detox the minds of those still infected.
In terms of what you went on to say, what a beautiful picture of God’s creation!! The first plants, animals and human beings are created with reproductive ability, DNA being the blueprint for living organisms. Some may see this as evidence of common descent, I see it as evidence of common design, in the same way that letters are the blueprint for all written text, or notes (logarithmic scale by the way; hardly trivial Mathematics) for music, or computer language instructions . No problem with evolutionary explanations that explain variation as the ability for that variation is already there, so no something from nothingproblems, i.e. so-called emergent properties!
You mentioned reality. Observed realities include
• Plants grow from seeds produced by plants, which grew from seeds produced by plants, ...
• An individual was given birth to by their mother, who was given birth to by her mother, ...
• That which has a beginning has a cause.
For me, it’s simple. Either you can go down the route of nothing causing something, or something causing something. Human beings design and make things so there is no reason to think that there isn’t something else that is also capable of designing and making something, particularly when similar characteristics are seen in what is made. There may be disagreement about what the something is, but what is not consistent with reality is the nothing causing somethingscenario.
In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon. It may even inspire them to think for themselves and conduct their own investigation, as opposed to being told how to think by comments like this:…
I’ve stepped away from this mb now, in part because there’s little point in posting counter-arguments only to have you and others ignore or misrepresent them and repeat the same mistakes in thinking over and again. I did though say that’d I’d re-engage if and when new arguments were attempted. In this case your “Hebrews 11 v 1 says this: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen” is new-ish at least in that it’s used less often than the standard theistic playbook of logical fallacies.
It's unhelpful (at best) to you because while you are of course entirely free to “hope for” anything you like your hopes have no epistemic worth at all if you also want to argue for something. The problem is that theists generally overreach from “I hope god is” to just “god is” with no intervening logic to take them from the former to the latter, and so their “faith” is qualitatively different from that described in Hebrews.
As for the rest, it’s petty much a textbook model of bad thinking. If you want to argue that prayer works then you have to eliminate the effect of the availability heuristic, address the silent evidence of unanswered prayers, consider the arbitrariness of a just god behaving capriciously etc. If you want to argue that DNA is a top down, designed “blueprint” then you need to understand first something at least of information theory and of the nature of emergence. If you want to critique the theory of evolution then you at least need to grasp the difference between speciation and abiogenesis. If you want to argue causation then you need to avoid special pleading for “god”, understand something at least of the quantum world, grasp why “everything is caused” is the logical equivalent of “all swans are white” etc. If you want to rebut the arguments that undo you characterising them as “philosophical jargon” so as to dismiss them when in fact they’re actually points in logic that invalidate your arguments takes you not one step in that direction.
As we both know that you’ll ignore all this though there’s little point in discussing it.
-
1. Why does a god solve the something from nothing problem ?
Apply your argument to the statement human beings make computers. Does an explanation for human beings affect the truth (or otherwise) of the statement human beings make computers?
Unless you can say where god came from it does not address the problem, it merely obscures it.
Not in my opinion, for the reasons given above.
-
Apply your argument to the statement human beings make computers. Does an explanation for human beings affect the truth (or otherwise) of the statement human beings make computers?
Not in my opinion, for the reasons given above.
But I can make a decent fist of describing how humans make computers; can you do the same for 'God makes DNA'? It seems vacuous to me.
-
I'm also puzzled by what the 'something from nothing scenario' refers to. Does this refer to various cosmological theories, or to the origin of life?
It sounds like more incredulity - since we don't know how life began, therefore God did it.
Natural processes show that nothing does not cause something (think of all your Physics Conservation of XXX laws, for example). Therefore something was responsible for the creation of life. Do human beings design and make things? Yes. Are there any similarities between what human beings have designed and made? Yes. Ergo evidence for a creator. All of this can be done without any kind of religious belief.
The religious belief is that which explains who the creator might be (believed by faith)
No need for we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. Start with what we know, and see where it leads.
-
Evidence for the supernatural? Eh?
-
If you want to argue that prayer works then you have to eliminate the effect of the availability heuristic, address the silent evidence of unanswered prayers, consider the arbitrariness of a just god behaving capriciously etc.
Not in my opinion. That is a difference between understanding prayer (or even how prayer works), and the question, "does prayer work?" Remember, all that is needed to show that prayer works is one answered prayer, and I'd venture to suggest that every Christian posting here has had at least one prayer answered.
If you want to argue that DNA is a top down, designed “blueprint” then you need to understand first something at least of information theory and of the nature of emergence.
That, in my opinion is just a way of getting round the problem. From Wikipedia again:
DNA) is a molecule that carries the genetic instructions used in the growth, development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.
Ask anyone on the planet what instructions are used for and I bet they will all tell you that one use is to explain how something works or is intended to work. That implies intent and forethought.
If you want to critique the theory of evolution then you at least need to grasp the difference between speciation and abiogenesis.
Again, I believe that the separation is to get round the problem of having to address how life started. If life was created by a creator, it pretty much blows all of the common-descent evolutionary theories out of the water!!
It's amazing that on the one hand, God can't be used for any explanation because He needs an explanation, yet one does not need to know how life started in order to claim how it developed. If you cannot say how life started, how can you be sure what happened afterwards?
As we both know that you’ll ignore all this though there’s little point in discussing it.
It's not a case of ignoring it. Some people have reached a different conclusion.
-
I'd venture to suggest that every Christian posting here has had at least one prayer answered.
How do you judge that something happened in response to your prayer, due to God's intervention, rather than it just being something which would have happened anyway?
-
Natural processes show that nothing does not cause something (think of all your Physics Conservation of XXX laws, for example). Therefore something was responsible for the creation of life.
More personal incredulity: that abiogenesis is an unknown means, er, that it is unknown.
Do human beings design and make things? Yes. Are there any similarities between what human beings have designed and made? Yes.
So we can equate humans with, say, JCB bulldoers: a poor analogy since JCB bulldozers don't, for instance, reproduce.
Ergo evidence for a creator.
Ergo evidence of your hopeless reasoning.
All of this can be done without any kind of religious belief.
Perhaps, but only by someone who is as succeptible to fallacious reasoning as you are.
The religious belief is that which explains who the creator might be (believed by faith)
Nope - it claims but it doesn't explain, as your attempts to 'explain' confirm.
No need for we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. Start with what we know, and see where it leads.
It leads to we don't know how life began.
-
Things hoped for is no guarantee that they actually exist. When I was very young, my sister told me that fairies actually lived inside the castle inside the snowflake glass trinket she showed me. I did so hope it was true. :)
-
But I can make a decent fist of describing how humans make computers; can you do the same for 'God makes DNA'?
But the truth (or otherwise) of the statement is not affected by whether you can explain it, or not.
Incidentally, concluding that DNA was designed has nothing to do with my religious beliefs. Concluding that God was responsible does.
-
You asked for one fact. For me, one of those facts is answers to prayer. Now, I could say that it is e.g. just coincidence, but it does seem strange to me that the more I pray, the more coincidences I observe!
Hardly strange, since you're subconsciously expecting such things to appear (I know - I used to make quite a lot of mystical meaning out of 'coincidences). As Dr Johnson said to the lady who accused him of putting a lot of rude words in his dictionary: "You must have been looking for them, madam!"
In conclusion, and referring back to what you said in a previous post: Those who browse or lurk may wonder why the Christians here are able to defend their position and counter the arguments against their faith, but those countering Christian beliefs cannot defend their position without hiding behind philosophical jargon.
Oh the irony of it! How many times have we been exposed to the eternal mantra of Vlad with his "methodological or philosophical materialism". The atheists have often been forced to meet him on his own ground using similar language to correct his misapprehensions.
btw. you still haven't answered my point about your belief in the Resurrection being a falsifiable statement, since Christians (including the earliest) believe different things on this. Until you specify what you mean, your assertion is in itself meaningless (however, I suspect you are entirely unable to specify what you mean, any more than you can specify what you mean by 'God').
-
How do you judge that something happened in response to your prayer, due to God's intervention, rather than it just being something which would have happened anyway?
I couldn't prove it conclusively, but, particularly when I have been praying for other people and then I am indirectly used as part of the answer.
For example: There was one time I was praying for a family in the church I was attending (they were involved in work in the church and relied on donations). I sensed (consider it like a thought) that God was saying to me that I needed to give them some money. When I asked, "How much", the response was, "Enough for a good holiday". So I came up with a figure of what I thought a family of four would need for a good holiday.
When I went to church, I was a bit nervous about telling them this and looking a bit of an idiot, so didn't speak to them at the start of the service. At the end, I decided I had to go for it and spoke to them. I was then told that they were due to go on holiday, but their car had broken down. They had spent all of their spending money on getting it repaired, so what I gave them was virtually identical to what they had spent on the car. Now, I suppose it's possible I have some hidden skills which allow this to happen now and again, but for me, prayer is a better explanation!
-
It leads to we don't know how life began.
You don't know? Really?
Why then are you so against the possibility that it could have been created?
-
Things hoped for is no guarantee that they actually exist.
Agreed.
What is hoped for must be based on truth.
-
You don't know? Really?
Why then are you so against the possibility that it could have been created?
Even if it was created I bet it wasn't by the Biblical god, the creation story doesn't ring true to me.
-
btw. you still haven't answered my point about your belief in the Resurrection being a falsifiable statement, since Christians (including the earliest) believe different things on this.
From 1 Corinthians 15:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
What are the different things you are referring to? From what I can see, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't.
-
I couldn't prove it conclusively, but, particularly when I have been praying for other people and then I am indirectly used as part of the answer.
For example: There was one time I was praying for a family in the church I was attending (they were involved in work in the church and relied on donations). I sensed (consider it like a thought) that God was saying to me that I needed to give them some money. When I asked, "How much", the response was, "Enough for a good holiday". So I came up with a figure of what I thought a family of four would need for a good holiday.
When I went to church, I was a bit nervous about telling them this and looking a bit of an idiot, so didn't speak to them at the start of the service. At the end, I decided I had to go for it and spoke to them. I was then told that they were due to go on holiday, but their car had broken down. They had spent all of their spending money on getting it repaired, so what I gave them was virtually identical to what they had spent on the car. Now, I suppose it's possible I have some hidden skills which allow this to happen now and again, but for me, prayer is a better explanation!
I don't know whether this is evidence for the power of prayer, but it certainly makes your god look extremely parochial. I know a young lady, who as a child learned that her single mother was dying of cancer. Day after day, for weeks, she was on her knees praying that her mummy get better. Guess what - her mummy died. Little girl hadn't got the correct Christian belief, or wasn't saying her prayers in the right way? Or something?
All these arguments about 'God answering prayers' are completely worthless, since other explanations are available, and instances such as I've related above abound, and make such a God appear a monster who scatters his favours when he feels like it ( and doesn't do so when he also feels like it).
-
You don't know? Really?
Why then are you so against the possibility that it could have been created?
Where's it been said that he's against the possibility? Are you against the possibility that it could not have been created?
At the end of the day, it makes no difference whether we can explain something naturally or not because you can always stick a god on the end to explain that. A good shave with Occam's razor does away with that, however.
-
From 1 Corinthians 15:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
What are the different things you are referring to? From what I can see, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't.
Logic says he didn't if he was really dead.
-
Even if it was created I bet it wasn't by the Biblical god, the creation story doesn't ring true to me.
Fair enough Floo.
If one did conclude that it was created, the nature of the creator/cause could be a separate field of study. I don't see why this is such a big problem. After all, there appears to be no problem separating abiogenesis from common descent.
It seems inconsistent to me to say on the one hand that a creator-type cause must be ruled out until it can be explained, yet no-one says that we can't say how life developed until we can say how it started.
-
From 1 Corinthians 15:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
What are the different things you are referring to? From what I can see, either Jesus Christ rose from the dead, or He didn't.
Have you critically examined the accounts at all? St Paul was the first who put pen to paper, and his experience was purely psychological. The later accounts differ so much that it really is difficult to know exactly what any Christian is asserting about the Resurrection.
-
At the end of the day, it makes no difference whether we can explain something naturally or not because you can always stick a god on the end to explain that. A good shave with Occam's razor does away with that, however.
Which is just a euphemism for a commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. It really is pointless Christians trying to answer any more questions here until there is honesty about this. There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.
-
St Paul was the first who put pen to paper, and his experience was purely psychological.
Is this your opinion/belief, or are you claiming this as fact? If the latter, where's your proof?
-
Which is just a euphemism for a commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. It really is pointless Christians trying to answer any more questions here until there is honesty about this. There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.
I don't think that's true. If someone came up with a cogent supernatural explanation, with evidence to back it up, people would be very interested. But it never happens; instead we get vague assertions.
-
There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.
'Don't know' is perfectly servicable in situations where there is inadequate knowledge.
-
Which is just a euphemism for a commitment to a naturalistic philosophy. It really is pointless Christians trying to answer any more questions here until there is honesty about this. There is a need to have to come up with a naturalistic explanation.
No. Just no. You don't read what people put, do you. No gods are being ruled out, only there's no justification for ruling any in. We could have the natural explanation of everything that manifests in nature and that still wouldn't rule out the god/supernatural conjecture.
-
I don't think that's true. If someone came up with a cogent supernatural explanation, with evidence to back it up, people would be very interested. But it never happens; instead we get vague assertions.
But there are endless requests for evidence and the worldview used to interpret that evidence assumes natural causes and explanations, e.g. see the response to my answer to prayer (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12605.msg639656#msg639656) from Dicky Underpants above.
-
Is this your opinion/belief, or are you claiming this as fact? If the latter, where's your proof?
Ultimately, all we know of Paul's experience is what he himself said of it, and how he explained it to himself. As regards other people witnessing the experience of Paul's conversion, we have a few completely contradictory accounts*, which can be dismissed as having no historical worth whatsoever. Something happened in Paul's mind - something psychological.
*e.g. Acts says witnesses heard a voice, but saw no one. St Paul himself said "They did not hear the voice of him who spoke to me".
-
Natural processes show that nothing does not cause something (think of all your Physics Conservation of XXX laws, for example). Therefore something was responsible for the creation of life. Do human beings design and make things? Yes. Are there any similarities between what human beings have designed and made? Yes. Ergo evidence for a creator. All of this can be done without any kind of religious belief.
The religious belief is that which explains who the creator might be (believed by faith)
No need for we don't know how life began, therefore God did it. Start with what we know, and see where it leads.
As I see it, there is a huge and ever growing amount of evidence that humans are a product of evolution(basically an inductive process). So your analogy that because humans design and make things and therefore some form of creator was also responsible for the design and making of life, illustrates a fundamental problem. To continue your analogy, the creator must then also be a product of evolution, and therefore the question would remain, how and from where did this creator evolve to such a degree of complexity, that it was able to design and create life on this planet? Furthermore, until and unless we have evidence that this creator actually exists, it does seem to me a rather fruitless exercise. A much better approach, in my opinion, is to try to find out just how life actually began on this earth.
-
But there are endless requests for evidence and the worldview used to interpret that evidence assumes natural causes and explanations, e.g. see the response to my answer to prayer (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12605.msg639656#msg639656) from Dicky Underpants above.
I think it's rather that the evidence, when presented, always turns out to be very shoddy and full of holes. Nothing to do with worldviews, actually. How does God make DNA? If you can demonstrate that in some detail, I might get interested.
-
I think it's rather that the evidence, when presented, always turns out to be very shoddy and full of holes. Nothing to do with worldviews, actually. How does God make DNA? If you can demonstrate that in some detail, I might get interested.
This is the point. Saying goddidit isn't an explanation. A "how" god did it is required. There isn't a single natural explanation that can't be a how God did something, and that's why pandering to unknown natural explanations is an epic fail and also demonstrates special pleading.
-
How does God make DNA? If you can demonstrate that in some detail, I might get interested.
There no real answer to your question wigginhall.
Even if I were offered an explanation, it would be dismissed, in the same way the example of an answer to prayer was dismissed earlier. For example: How could it be proved that what I posted was correct?
btw. I don't know how God made DNA. I believe He did, but do not know how He did it.
-
There no real answer to your question wigginhall.
Even if I were offered an explanation, it would be dismissed, in the same way the example of an answer to prayer was dismissed earlier. For example: How could it be proved that what I posted was correct?
btw. I don't know how God made DNA. I believe He did, but do not know how He did it.
Why can't god create DNA the way science has described how DNA is created? Is your god too weak?
-
There no real answer to your question wigginhall.
Even if I were offered an explanation, it would be dismissed, in the same way the example of an answer to prayer was dismissed earlier. For example: How could it be proved that what I posted was correct?
btw. I don't know how God made DNA. I believe He did, but do not know how He did it.
I think your point about worldviews is wrong. Science is basically practical, and it works, and it often gets it wrong, but often corrects that. Thus, it's possible that God makes things fall down, and this is gravity, but I have never seen that demonstrated, whereas physicists are busy investigating how gravity works in different situations. They can also predict stuff, e.g. how gravity affects stars and other objects. Scientists who are religious also go along with this, and tend not to argue that God pulls everything down, because it's simply not predictive.
-
Agreed.
What is hoped for must be based on truth.
But so far you haven't given any 'truths' unless it is simply the fact that what you regard as 'truths' are those ideas which you have accepted personally without any evidence or reasoning to substantiate them to others. Anyone can and do say that certain things hoped for are based upon their particular version of 'truth' whatever that may be.
-
I couldn't prove it conclusively, but, particularly when I have been praying for other people and then I am indirectly used as part of the answer.
So you are using something which can't be shown to be a fact as evidence for the existence of God? Not a very sound approach i would say.
For example: There was one time I was praying for a family in the church I was attending (they were involved in work in the church and relied on donations). I sensed (consider it like a thought) that God was saying to me that I needed to give them some money. When I asked, "How much", the response was, "Enough for a good holiday". So I came up with a figure of what I thought a family of four would need for a good holiday.
When I went to church, I was a bit nervous about telling them this and looking a bit of an idiot, so didn't speak to them at the start of the service. At the end, I decided I had to go for it and spoke to them. I was then told that they were due to go on holiday, but their car had broken down. They had spent all of their spending money on getting it repaired, so what I gave them was virtually identical to what they had spent on the car. Now, I suppose it's possible I have some hidden skills which allow this to happen now and again, but for me, prayer is a better explanation!
Not sure why. Situations like this have happened to me without any praying going on. You know someone needs help and you offer it, and it turns out to be just what was needed. I'd expect something a bit more impressive if it is to be used as evidence for divine intervention to be honest.
-
Apply your argument to the statement human beings make computers. Does an explanation for human beings affect the truth (or otherwise) of the statement human beings make computers?
Not in my opinion, for the reasons given above.
That is a non sequitur.
Yes we all know that human make things, but it doesn't follow from that that there is a god that made humans. 'God' does not solve the something from nothing problem, you are simply not thinking things through.
-
Ask anyone on the planet what instructions are used for and I bet they will all tell you that one use is to explain how something works or is intended to work. That implies intent and forethought.
Lashings of cognitive bias here. We have an inherited tendency to see intentionality even when there isn't any.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_detection)
Similarly we are apt to see faces in rock formations, another inherited bias in cognitive perception.
If you see intentionality in the structure of DNA, then you might as well see the intention of gravity is to stop people floating off into space, you might as well see the intention of trees as being raw materials for furniture. You end up with blanket intentionality robbing you of any claim to evidence.
-
Things hoped for is no guarantee that they actually exist. When I was very young, my sister told me that fairies actually lived inside the castle inside the snowflake glass trinket she showed me. I did so hope it was true. :)
But this forum exudes hope Enki.......Hope that somewhere something exists without a cause...and that's not who you think it might be.....hope that somewhere there is a scientific explanation for pretty much everything is another one...hope for an unknown unknown to save an impossible situation in logic.
-
But this forum exudes hope Enki.......Hope that somewhere something exists without a cause...and that's not who you think it might be.....hope that somewhere there is a scientific explanation for pretty much everything is another one...hope for an unknown unknown to save an impossible situation in logic.
No Vlad. You're wrong. I agree that there are plenty of posters on here who have all sorts of hopes. I simply made the comment that hope isn't a guarantee(by itself) that what is hoped for will be realised(e.g. hope that there's an afterlife), not that hope doesn't exist, or should be somehow excluded. Speaking personally, I have and have had plenty of hopes, and usually the ones which come to fruition are the ones grounded to some degree on a probability factor of being realised.
-
Instructions in DNA remind me of covalent bonding in molecules. Hang on, maybe they're intelligent as well? Jesus wanted two little atoms of hydrogen to cuddle up to one atom of oxygen, and behold, water is wet, hallelujah!
-
Instructions in DNA remind me of covalent bonding in molecules. Hang on, maybe they're intelligent as well? Jesus wanted two little atoms of hydrogen to cuddle up to one atom of oxygen, and behold, water is wet, hallelujah!
Can one water molecule be wet?
One thing is for certain......Trillions of water molecules can piss on a bonfire.
-
Well, I have continued to read Sword of the Spirit's posts - more fool me, I suppose" - but in my opinion there is an air of smug, self-satisfaction about them which makes for a sucking in of teeth!
-
But this forum exudes hope Enki.......Hope that somewhere something exists without a cause
Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.
.....hope that somewhere there is a scientific explanation for pretty much everything is another one
which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.
...hope for an unknown unknown to save an impossible situation in logic.
Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.
No more sucking in of teeth for SusanDoris. :)
-
Sword,
Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.
Wrong.
which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.
Wrong.
Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.
Wrong.
I could of course tell you again why you're wrong, but as we both know that you'd just ignore the arguments that undo you and then repeat the same mistakes I've given up bothering.
-
Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.
which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.
Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.
No more sucking in of teeth for SusanDoris. :)
This reads a bit as though you think Vlad is opposing you, whereas he's firmly in the theist camp. Just in case you hadn't noticed.
btw, Vlad has his own interpretation of what 'scientism' means, and thinks this is the approach of every atheist (and probably every agnostic) on the forum. This is a ludicrous, extremely blinkered view.
-
This reads a bit as though you think Vlad is opposing you, whereas he's firmly in the theist camp. Just in case you hadn't noticed.
btw, Vlad has his own interpretation of what 'scientism' means, and thinks this is the approach of every atheist (and probably every agnostic) on the forum. This is a ludicrous, extremely blinkered view.
Fairs fair Dick. There's only about half a dozen who I would say are dyed in the wool scientismatists.
-
Fairs fair Dick. There's only about half a dozen who I would say are dyed in the wool scientismatists.
Do tell.
-
Do tell.
My criteria for being a scientismatist is explicit statement that one expects everything to be answered eventually by science, or implicitly arguing that the unknown will eventually be answered by science as happened with say, thunder.
Such posts have made it onto the forum
On one late lamented spirituality board there were also those who argued that if science couldn't answer a question that question wasn't worth answering.
-
Vlad,
Continuing with my theme of responding only when something different is attempted:
My criteria for being a scientismatist is explicit statement that one expects everything to be answered eventually by science, or implicitly arguing that the unknown will eventually be answered by science as happened with say, thunder.
To be fair, if you’ve now abandoned corrupting the term “scientism” to your own ends and have instead invented the neologism “scientismatism” then you at least get out from behind your persistent straw man problem. Your problem now then is to find someone who actually is a “scientismatist” – such a person may exist, though I’ve never come across one, least of all from the world of science.
The thunder point by the way is just an example of the mistake of arguing from personal incredulity and building a god of the gaps on it: “I don’t know how thunder happens, therefore Thor”. Even if someone never found out how thunder worked, the “therefore” fails regardless.
Such posts have made it onto the forum
Seems unlikely. Can you cite any?
On one late lamented spirituality board there were also those who argued that if science couldn't answer a question that question wasn't worth answering.
Also seems unlikely. Asking question that science can’t answer is what scientists do – and then they try to find the answers. The “not even wrong” problem tends to concern answers that are incoherent. If you think an answer is “God” how would you propose to define and test that conjecture?
-
Vlad,
Continuing with my theme of responding only when something different is attempted:
To be fair, if you’ve now abandoned corrupting the term “scientism” to your own ends and have instead invented the neologism “scientismatism” then you at least get out from behind your persistent straw man problem. Your problem now then is to find someone who actually is a “scientismatist” – such a person may exist, though I’ve never come across one, least of all from the world of science.
Blue
You can rest assured that I choose the word scientismatist to distinguish such people from scientists.
A good scientist recognises the limits of science and knows the difference between
science and scientism.
-
Vlad,
You can rest assured that I choose the word scientismatist to distinguish such people from scientists.
A good scientist recognises the limits of science and knows the difference between
science and scientism.
A good scientist does, and so does anyone possessed of a dictionary. You however do not.
Shame really. I thought for one foolish minute that you'd dared to peek out from behind the wall of straw men you habitually hide behind to avoid honest discussion. As clearly though you intend to retain your position here as the Maharajah of Mendacity I'll leave you to it.
-
Vlad,
A good scientist does, and so does anyone possessed of a dictionary. You however do not.
Shame really. I thought for one foolish minute that you'd dared to peek out from behind the wall of straw men you habitually hide behind to avoid honest discussion. As clearly though you intend to retain your position here as the Maharajah of Mendacity I'll leave you to it.
A non sequitur, a literary flourish and the operatic faux indignation for a finale........
Typical Hillsidian post.
-
Which, if found would mean several of Newton's Conservation of XXX laws having to be rewritten, as you could potentially get:
- momentum from no momentum
- a coefficient of restitution greater than one (i.e. if I drop a ball from a height of one metre, it could bounce higher than one metre)
- kinetic energy from no kinetic energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
- potential energy from no potential energy (as opposed to the gain coming from a loss of some other form of energy)
etc.
which was my starting point when I first started posting, as it means that you can never see anything as evidence for religious belief, i.e. the worldview is not falsifiable. Feels like I've come full circle, lol.
Therefore, a good point to agree to disagree, and move on, at least for the time being.
This reads a bit as though you think Vlad is opposing you, whereas he's firmly in the theist camp. Just in case you hadn't noticed.
It will read that way Dicky Underpants, because you did not include Vlad's quotes that I responded to.
If anyone compares your #229 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12605.msg639803#msg639803) with my #227 (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12605.msg639794#msg639794), it will be seen in the latter case that I was backing up what Vlad wrote, along with examples.
-
Well, I have continued to read Sword of the Spirit's posts - more fool me, I suppose" - but in my opinion there is an air of smug, self-satisfaction about them which makes for a sucking in of teeth!
Perhaps you missed this offering from bluehillside to me:
I could of course tell you again why you're wrong, ...
What are your thoughts on this SusanDoris?
-
I have been reading bluehillside's posts, and those of the posters who have been since BBC days and I can absolutey assure you that I will always prefer his posts to yours!
-
I have been reading bluehillside's posts, and those of the posters who have been since BBC days and I can absolutey assure you that I will always prefer his posts to yours!
Which could surely be confirmation bias?
-
Sword,
What are your thoughts on this SusanDoris?
Susan is of course more than capable on answering for herself, but I'd hope her thoughts would be along the lines of, "blue has indeed posted various rebuttals to the arguments Sword has attempted only for Sword either to misrepresent or just to ignore those rebuttals and then to repeat his mistakes so, on balance, it's fair comment".
-
NS,
Which could surely be confirmation bias?
It could be, or it could be a reflection of the quality of the arguments each of us deploys.
Anyways, you didn't see me right?
-
NS,
It could be, or it could be a reflection of the quality of the arguments each of us deploys.
Anyways, you didn't see me right?
Surely the quality of arguments are not relevant to whether a poster comes across as smug?
-
NS,
Surely the quality of arguments are not relevant to whether a poster cones across as smug?
Of course they are. Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.
Anyways, stop it now - I'm retired remember? The nurses are going to wheel us over to the pond in a bit to feed the ducks, and Thursday night is bingo night so I have plenty to keep me occupied instead...
-
bluehilside
#241 <thumbs up> emoticon!!!
-
NS,
Of course they are. Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.
Anyways, stop it now - I'm retired remember? The nurses are going to wheel us over to the pond in a bit to feed the ducks, and Thursday night is bingo night so I have plenty to keep me occupied instead...
How can wrongness compound smugness? And aren't both of those subject to confirmation bias?
-
NS,
How can wrongness compound smugness? And aren't both of those subject to confirmation bias?
They can be, yes - but the wrongness of the arguments can also make the person attempting them appear even more mistakenly self-satisfied than if he was right. Either way, neither you nor I have a basis to determine whether someone prefers poster A to poster B because poster A makes arguments that validate what she thinks anyway (confirmation bias) or because she finds the logic of the arguments of poster A to be the more cogent.
Right, time for a nice cuppa and two garilbaldis I think before my nap...
-
NS,
They can be, yes - but the wrongness of the arguments can also make the person attempting them appear even more mistakenly self-satisfied than if he was right. Either way, neither you nor I have a basis to determine whether someone prefers poster A to poster B because poster A makes arguments that validate what she thinks anyway (confirmation bias) or because she finds the logic of the arguments of poster A to be the more cogent.
Right, time for a nice cuppa and two garilbaldis I think before my nap...
Which is irrelevant if the claim is about smugness
-
NS,
Which is irrelevant if the claim is about smugness
Not it isn't - it makes them appear even smugger.
Enough already!
-
How can wrongness compound smugness? And aren't both of those subject to confirmation bias?
{tongue-in-cheek} no, because anything bluehillside says is correct and anyone who disagrees with what bluehillside says in incorrect.
Seriously though: This is the quintessential point being made, therefore I think it's better agree to disagree, move on, not least because I'm worried about SusanDoris' teeth! ;)
disagree (n) The action of being wrong because what is being claimed is different to what bluehillside says is correct.
-
What is the 'quintessential point being made'?
-
What is the 'quintessential point being made'?
That bluehillside is right and anyone having a different opinion is wrong. It's why I've decided to agree to disagree and move on.
I've been accused of being smug by SusanDoris, because, allegedly arguing from a false position, I continue to do so with some sort of confidence.
Now: If I were to start the second lap of the circle, I could of course ask for evidence/proof from those arguing from this position of certainty, but cue arguments about shifting the burden of proof, etc.
-
That bluehillside is right and anyone having a different opinion is wrong. It's why I've decided to agree to disagree and move on.
I've been accused of being smug by SusanDoris, because, allegedly arguing from a false position, I continue to do so with some sort of confidence.
Now: If I were to start the second lap of the circle, I could of course ask for evidence/proof from those arguing from this position of certainty, but cue arguments about shifting the burden of proof, etc.
you seem confused. I haven't seen anyone make that 'quintessential point'. Nor have I seen Susan Doris state you are smug becauybecauysr you are arguing from a wrong position. If you were to start a second lap, I would suggest that getting what people have said incorrect will be an issue before shifting the burden of proof.
-
I haven't seen anyone make that 'quintessential point'.
Not directly, but that is the implication. Some examples:
#247
They can be, yes - but the wrongness of the arguments can also make the person attempting them appear even more mistakenly self-satisfied than if he was right.
#244
Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.
#241
"blue has indeed posted various rebuttals to the arguments Sword has attempted only for Sword either to misrepresent or just to ignore those rebuttals and then to repeat his mistakes so, on balance, it's fair comment".
misrepresent nothing! as for ignore those rebuttals, that's just a euphemism for I disagreed, had a different viewpoint and argued why.
but the best one for now, #228
I could of course tell you again why you're wrong, but as we both know that you'd just ignore the arguments that undo you and then repeat the same mistakes I've given up bothering.
So clearly, I am not allowed to disagree with bluehillside and argue my position, because bluehillside is right.
Nor have I seen Susan Doris state you are smug becauybecauysr you are arguing from a wrong position.
Not explicitly, but implicitly by her #245 to bluehillside's #241, quoted above.
-
Not directly, but that is the implication. Some examples:
#247
#244
#241misrepresent nothing! as for ignore those rebuttals, that's just a euphemism for I disagreed, had a different viewpoint and argued why.
but the best one for now, #228
So clearly, I am not allowed to disagree with bluehillside and argue my position, because bluehillside is right.
Not explicitly, but implicitly by her #245 to bluehillside's #241, quoted above.
No, that's simply people saying they disagree with you. Stop with the over dramatics.
-
Sword,
That bluehillside is right and anyone having a different opinion is wrong. It's why I've decided to agree to disagree and move on.
You're confused. It's not that one person is right and the other is wrong, but rather that some arguments are right and others are wrong. Who makes them is irrelevant, and it's quite possible that the same poster will make some arguments that are wrong and others that are right.
I've been accused of being smug by SusanDoris, because, allegedly arguing from a false position, I continue to do so with some sort of confidence.
Yes, and there's no "allegedly" about it. When the arguments you attempt have been falsified but you misrepresent of just ignore the rebuttals and then repeat the same falsified arguments the rebuttals stand. Only if and when you manage to counter-argue against the rebuttals will you be on firmer ground.
Now: If I were to start the second lap of the circle, I could of course ask for evidence/proof from those arguing from this position of certainty, but cue arguments about shifting the burden of proof, etc.
What position of certainty? You post the equivalent of 2+2=5. I post to the effect that 2+2=4, and moreover I explain why. You go quiet for a bit, then reply with either a straw man (of the, "so you think the Queen is a shape-shifting lizard do you?" type, a technique known around here as "vladism") or you just repeat the original 2+2=5.
I don't though claim that 2+2=4 is "certain" - just that it's the logically more cogent answer.
And it's because of your (and others') habitual vladism or indifference to the arguments that undo you that I've stopped bothering to post them.
-
No, that's simply people saying they disagree with you.
So where does the charge of smugness arise from if they are merely disagreeing with me?
-
So where does the charge of smugness arise from if they are merely disagreeing with me?
'they' appears to be Susan. She finds your posts smug. That she disagrees with you as well does not mean you 'aren't allowed to disagree with bluehillside' or because they think you are wrong. As I have already covered in discussion with bluehillside', finding someone smug is irrelevant to whether you agree with them. The smuggest smuggers of smuggerism I know are usually people I agree with.
-
Sword,
misrepresent nothing! as for ignore those rebuttals, that's just a euphemism for I disagreed, had a different viewpoint and argued why.
Stop lying. If you want to disagree that's fine, but just repeating the mistakes you make isn't disagreement - it's obtuseness.
So clearly, I am not allowed to disagree with bluehillside and argue my position, because bluehillside is right.
To the contrary, I want you to disagree with me. I'd love you to disagree with me. Really, if you'd finally actually respond to the arguments that undo you that'd be great because maybe we'd both learn something from it. What you actually do though is just to pretend the rebuttals aren't there and then plough on regardless by repeating the initial mistakes.
And that's dishonest.
-
You're confused. It's not that one person is right and the other is wrong, but rather that some arguments are right and others are wrong.
According to who?
It also depends on the worldview being used. 1+1=10 is wrong in base 10 but correct in base 2
You go quiet for a bit, then reply with either a straw man (of the, "so you think the Queen is a shape-shifting lizard do you?", a technique known around here as "vladism")
Right. Another poster who is not allowed to disagree with you, but because they have done so on numerous occasions, have a name given to their posting style? Maybe I'll go have a more detailed look at all their posts. I may learn something!
I don't though claim that 2+2=4 is "certain" - just that it's the logically more cogent answer.
According to your naturalistic worldview, the equivalent of say, base 10. Try another worldview, e.g. base 5 and 2+2=10.
The problem here is that you in particular seem unable to accept that e.g. religious believers have a different worldview and (perish the thought) may be just as (if not more!) valid as yours!
-
Stop lying. If you want to disagree that's fine, but just repeating the mistakes you make isn't disagreement - it's obtuseness.
Mistakes according to whom? You? You will never accept that your worldview is the problem, so no progress can ever be made.
Let me give you an example: If it is true that God created a human being, how will that human being prove that God created them? There may be lots of evidence, but even if they could go back in time and see God doing it, they could claim that e.g. it was a trick, a hallucination, etc. Would it be correct then to conclude that it is false that God created that human being?
You are in the position of doing the equivalent of asking for proof of something that has to be believed by faith, but for which there is supporting evidence. You refuse to accept this so put your faith in only that which you can see, can test, can prove, for which the evidence is empirical. Goodness only knows how many Christians would have told you this over the years, but you have reached a different conclusion which you believe is right.
-
Having checked my post where the word 'smugness' was used, it did, as I thought, refer to the posts which have an air of smugness.
I would point out too that all posts are read in the same, good 'old Synthetic Dave voice!!
-
Can I suggest before you go down the worldview rabbit hole, Sword, that you deal with the multifarious questions you have been asked about it that up till now you seem to have ignored?
-
Can I suggest before you go down the worldview rabbit hole, Sword, that you deal with the multifarious questions you have been asked about it that up till now you seem to have ignored?
It strikes me that there is a commitment to a naturalistic (i.e. natural causes/explanations only) way of looking at things. This may not be true of you, but I would definitely say it is true of e.g. bluehillside, SusanDoris. That's their choice, but there's not much point challenging religious belief with it because you are asking for evidence for something and then interpreting that evidence with a worldview that is looking for natural causes/explanations.
-
Sword,
According to who?
Not "who", "what". Either the logic is cogent or it isn't. We can discuss the hermeneutics of how we interpret what we think we know if you like, but for this purpose when the logic for "2+2=4" is more cogent than that for "2+2=5" then the former is "right" and the latter is "wrong".
It also depends on the worldview being used. 1+1=10 is wrong in base 10 but correct in base 2
A good example of you just ignoring the rebuttal that undoes you. It's a wrong argument because it has nothing to do with your "worldview" at all. The context for either answer is the same - logic. You don't get different answers because you use the worldview of logic for one and the worldview of studying chicken feet or something for the other - they're the same context, and only reason you get different answers is because you change the opening conditions from one to the other (ie, which base you're using).
I've explained this to you several times already, but you've just ignored that and repeated your (mistaken) position.
Why?
Right. Another poster who is not allowed to disagree with you, but because they have done so on numerous occasions, have a name given to their posting style? Maybe I'll go have a more detailed look at all their posts. I may learn something!
Yes you may - that habitually misrepresenting what your interlocutor says in order to attack your own straw man version of it is fundamentally dishonest. You do it a bit (though your preferred method is just to ignore the rebuttals), whereas Vlad does it consistently - hence the eponym.
Oh, and speaking of straw men - of course people are "allowed" to disagree with me. I actively want them to do it! What I don't want to engage with is dishonesty posing as disagreement.
According to your naturalistic worldview, the equivalent of say, base 10. Try another worldview, e.g. base 5 and 2+2=10.
Wrong. Both are correct using the same approach (logic) but wth different starting conditions. It's a stupid argument for reason I've explained before and above, but that you've just ignored.
The problem here is that you in particular seem unable to accept that e.g. religious believers have a different worldview and, perish the thought may be just as (if not more!) valid as yours!
No, the problem here is that "the religious" sometimes claim the conclusions their "worldview" delivers for them to be facts for the rest of us to without any of the foundational reasoning that delineates fact from conjecture.
-
From Sword:
You will never accept that your worldview is the problem, so no progress can ever be made.
Exactly the same could be said of you.
Let me give you an example: If it is true that God ....
That word IF is the stumbling block. if you expect an atheist like me to believe that, then first you have the problem of defining God and then providing reasons why you believe, as I presume you do, that there is such a God and that it did indeed do any creating. How do you dismiss all the other scientifically based reasons and understandings about how things happen naturally, following what we now call the laws of physics?
-
It strikes me that there is a commitment to a naturalistic (i.e. natural causes/explanations only) way of looking at things. This may not be true of you, but I would definitely say it is true of e.g. bluehillside, SusanDoris. That's their choice, but there's not much point challenging religious belief with it because you are asking for evidence for something and then interpreting that evidence with a worldview that is looking for natural causes/explanations.
Mmm I still think you are struggling with any clear definition of worldview here, as previously you have linked it to atheism as being a worldview, and when asked about that have not, as far as I have seen answered it.
The point here is not about worldview but about a method. I understand the naturalist methodology and despite your assertion that induction, a naturalist methodology, somehow works for supernatural claims, I haven't seen anything more on that other than assertion.
-
Sword,
It strikes me that there is a commitment to a naturalistic (i.e. natural causes/explanations only) way of looking at things. This may not be true of you, but I would definitely say it is true of e.g. bluehillside, SusanDoris. That's their choice, but there's not much point challenging religious belief with it because you are asking for evidence for something and then interpreting that evidence with a worldview that is looking for natural causes/explanations.
No, the problem isn't a "commitment" to naturalism to the exclusion of all other possibilities at all. That's just your straw man again. Rather the problem is that naturalism provides answers that are verifiable, whereas faith on the other hand provides conjectures with no means of testing or verification whatever. Why should anyone take your faith claim "God" more or less seriously than someone else's faith claim "Thor"?
Only when you can answer that will you see the real problem here.
-
A good example of you just ignoring the rebuttal that undoes you. It's a wrong argument because it has nothing to do with your "worldview" at all.
The context for either answer is the same - logic.
And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.
2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.
The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?
-
And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.
2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.
The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?
Binary/decimal are surely not worldviews? I can calculate using both, and have done. If they were worldviews that shouldn't work?
-
Sword,
And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.
2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.
The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?
You really, really aren't getting this are you?
If you think that confidence in logical cogency is a "worldview", then fine - my "worldview" is that logically cogent arguments are probabilistically more likely to be correct than logically incoherent arguments because I can map both to the observable world and compare the results. Your mistake though is to equate applying different bases to a maths question with the same "worldview" - logic - as if that were in some way equivalent to equating a logic-based answer to a faith belief.
It's not - not by any stretch. And that's why it's a false analogy or, more properly, a category error.
-
Mmm I still think you are struggling with any clear definition of worldview here, as previously you have linked it to atheism as being a worldview, and when asked about that have not, as far as I have seen answered it.
I see the type of atheism that argues against religious belief (as opposed to being an absence of belief) as being a product of it, Nearly Sane.
I understand the naturalist methodology and despite your assertion that induction, a naturalist methodology, somehow works for supernatural claims, I haven't seen anything more on that other than assertion.
I did start a thread on it and tried to deal with the many questions there.
Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12577.0)
It was based on the 'Cold-case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread.
-
And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.
2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.
The problem is that you seem to be implying that there is only one way to think, therefore if you think this way, this is the logical conclusion. Fair enough if that is the process being used, but what if it isn't?
So - if I acquire a calculator I also acquire a 'worldview', or indeed several depending on how I decide to approach the arithmetic?
Sounds like simplistic bollocks to me.
-
NS,
Of course they are. Being smug and right is one thing, but when someone is demonstrably wrong (and just misrepresents or ignores all explanations of why he's wrong) the wrongness compounds the smugness.
Anyways, stop it now - I'm retired remember? The nurses are going to wheel us over to the pond in a bit to feed the ducks, and Thursday night is bingo night so I have plenty to keep me occupied instead...
Beware those nurses - they steal your trousers when you're asleep, you know!
-
DU,
Beware those nurses - they steal your trousers when you're asleep, you know!
Ah, thanks old friend - I'd assumed it was Vlad doing it to replace all those pairs he'd ruined of his own.
-
So - if I acquire a calculator I also acquire a 'worldview', or indeed several depending on how I decide to approach the arithmetic?
Sounds like simplistic bollocks to me.
Poor analogy.
If you put the calculator in stats mode and try and do something not appropriate for that mode, it isn't going to work, is it?
-
I see the type of atheism that argues against religious belief (as opposed to being an absence of belief) as being a product of it, Nearly Sane.
The rejection of fallacious arguments is not arguing against religious belief: it is no more than just rejecting bad arguments.
-
Poor analogy.
If you put the calculator in stats mode and try and do something not appropriate for that mode, it isn't going to work, is it?
No, this emphasises why your own analogy binary = worldview is flawed
-
I see the type of atheism that argues against religious belief (as opposed to being an absence of belief) as being a product of it, Nearly Sane.
I did start a thread on it and tried to deal with the many questions there.
Faith & Belief: Induction vs Deduction (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12577.0)
It was based on the 'Cold-case Christianity (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12570.0) thread.
Yes, I read them, they aren't methods they are assertions. And you still haven't defined a worldview.
-
Gordon,
The rejection of fallacious arguments is not arguing against religious belief: it is no more than just rejecting bad arguments.
Quite so. That the religious will often seek to validate their beliefs by hitching them to bad arguments is a separate matter. A fallacious argument is a fallacious argument regardless of which beliefs happen to piggy-back on it.
-
Your mistake though is to equate applying different bases to a maths question with the same "worldview" - logic - as if that were in some way equivalent to equating a logic-based answer to a faith belief.
It's not - not by any stretch. And that's why it's a false analogy or, more properly, a category error.
And, as ever, I disagree. Essentially, you are claiming religious belief as illogical!
-
Poor analogy.
If you put the calculator in stats mode and try and do something not appropriate for that mode, it isn't going to work, is it?
Not really - your analogy was based on arithmetic, where you equated a different numeric bases to different 'worldviews': that a calculator has a stats function (and I'm quite familiar with statistics) is irrelevant to your analogy although I suppose, to follow your analogy, one could have a 'stats worldview': would that be parametric or non-parametric though?
-
And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.
2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.
I think you are causing confusion by being hung up on this worldview business. Trouble is, the term is poorly defined, and you are using it in a particular way that confuses people who use it in a more regular way. For instance, you say "Your logic comes out of your worldview". To my way of understanding these terms, that is completely wrong. Logic is not relative or subservient to any more profound epistemic system. Worldviews are personal and messy things that owe to cultural baggage, time and place. A worldview might derive, in part, from logic, but logic is logic is logic and it does not derive from a worldview. Your arithmetic base analogy is trivially misleading.
-
Sword,
And, as ever, I disagree. Essentially, you are claiming religious belief as illogical!
You're changing horses now - if you think that belief in "God" (by which presumably you mean the god in which you happen to believe rather than different gods in which others believe) is the result of logical argument what need have you of "faith"? Make the logically cogent argument for it and we can have it taught immediately in schools across the country alongside physics and maths and geography and...
Oh, and can you now at least see why your maths example is a category error? Both outcomes are logically arrived at, the only difference being different starting conditions. If you want to call confidence in logical cogency a "worldview" then it's the same worldview in each case.
-
DU,
Ah, thanks old friend - I'd assumed it was Vlad doing it to replace all those pairs he'd ruined of his own.
Meanwhile it's Jazz night down at the Antitheist and Shunters Club. Blue Hillside is about to get into his Set.
''Ok Ladies and gentlemen....here's a little number dedicated to Vlad a 1 and a 2.....I got you...under my skin........''
-
And this is why I keep on disagreeing with you! Logic is meaningless without a worldview.
2+2=10 is not logical if the worldview used is base 10. It is logical if the worldview being used is base 5. Your logic comes out of your worldview.
I would just like to point out that 2+2=4 using Base 5.
Thank you and goodnight. ;D
-
Meanwhile it's Jazz night down at the Antitheist and Shunters Club.
Is that the club just down the street from the Anti-secularist and Turdpolishers Union.
The one where the hit song of the moment is Neil Diamond's 'Straw in the Wind'?
-
Is that the club just down the street from the Anti-secularist and Turdpolishers Union.
The one where the hit song of the moment is Neil Diamond's 'Straw in the Wind'?
...No Seb it's the one opposite the Jokerecyclers and plagiarists society.
-
...No Seb it's the one opposite the Jokerecyclers and plagiarists society.
So you frequent them both?
-
So you frequent them both?
No.... I'm just better informed than you.
-
No.... I'm just better informed than you.
See now you made me laugh there!
You can do it if you really try hard....before it wears off.
-
See now you made me laugh there!
You can do it if you really try hard....before it wears off.
That's a good one.........is it recycled?
-
Gordon's point there strikes me as quite common. I mean, that people start off with 'God', for whatever reason, and then look around for arguments to support it. You could argue, of course, that we all do that - for example, I can't stand Theresa May, in a kind of instinctive way, so then I look for reasons, like she gurns.
But what is weird is the claim that such and such arguments lead us to God belief. Really?
I don't know why but I like this post of yours wiggi.
ippy
-
I would just like to point out that 2+2=4 using Base 5.
Thank you and goodnight. ;D
I would also stress that in binary, 1+1=10 means exactly the same as 1+1=2. The same logic applies to both. It is simply a different way of representing the same process. It is not a different worldview by any stretch of the imagination. Incidentally, in binary mode, 10 does not mean represent the word 'ten', of course. That would be to confuse it with the decimal system.
-
And, as ever, I disagree. Essentially, you are claiming religious belief as illogical!
I have a certain amount of sympathy for you Sword, I get treated in a similar way about my belief in 'Star Trek'.
ippy
-
I can't possibly address all SotS's fevered ratiocination, but one point that he made on page one must be answered. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim; thus it is incumbent on theists to defend their belief, otherwise atheism wins by default. Occam's razor.
-
That has been pointed out so many times on this board and remains true in this case too.
Why do people keep making the same error?. it beats me.
Yes , I'm new here, hello everyone.
-
That has been pointed out so many times on this board and remains true in this case too.
Why do people keep making the same error?. it beats me.
Yes , I'm new here, hello everyone.
Hi Walter, welcome to the RE board. We have a thread for people to introduce themselves if interested :
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=3.msg639281#new (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=3.msg639281#new)
-
I can't possibly address all SotS's fevered ratiocination, but one point that he made on page one must be answered. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim;
That has been pointed out so many times on this board and remains true in this case too.
Why do people keep making the same error?. it beats me.
Which is what I said in my very first post on Page 1:
Up to a point, I agree. However, I think that the burden of proof should lie with the one making the claim. If I were to make a statement about the Christian faith, e.g. Jesus Christ rose from the dead, then the onus is on me to demonstrate why I believe this. However, if I went up to a Muslim and said, “Mohammed was not God’s final messenger”, then the onus should be on me to back up my claim, not expect the Muslim to affirm why he or she believes that particular tenet of their religion.
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.
-
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.
Wrong: you've been told this before - if a statement is fallacious it can just be dismissed.
-
I can't possibly address all SotS's fevered ratiocination, but one point that he made on page one must be answered. The burden of proof is always on the person making the positive claim; thus it is incumbent on theists to defend their belief, otherwise atheism wins by default. Occam's razor.
I think the problem here is with the definition of positive claim. For example Donald Trump isn't in the room is equally as ''positive a declaration'' as Donald Trump is in the room''.
Atheism is never the default since God can always be assigned a universally creative role. Sagan knew it, the Deists knew it it is only the axe grinding atheist linguistic string orchestra, who made linguistic fiddling popular, who seemed to forget it.
-
Atheism is never the default since God can always be assigned a universally creative role.
What's that got to do with it?
Sagan knew it, the Deists knew it it is only the axe grinding atheist linguistic string orchestra, who made linguistic fiddling popular, who seemed to forget it.
If people are born without a belief in God or gods then atheism is the default position surely. Are you defining atheism as some positve claim here (again)?
-
Which is what I said in my very first post on Page 1:
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.
you seem very confused to me. Try again and make it simple.
thank you
-
Gordon,
Wrong: you've been told this before - if a statement is fallacious it can just be dismissed.
Just to clarify, the statement is what’s produced by the argument(s). It’s arguments that are either fallacious or sound, and it’s the fallacious arguments that can be dismissed. The statements that fall out of fallacious arguments could still be true though just as a matter of dumb luck.
Thus “God is” could still be true (leaving aside for now the definitional problems with “God”) but none of the panoply of bad arguments theists often rely on demonstrate "God".
-
errmm
had to read that a few times but got there in the end .
well said, I think!
-
What's that got to do with it?
If people are born without a belief in God or gods then atheism is the default position surely. Are you defining atheism as some positve claim here (again)?
That's a big if which betrays an uneducated ignorance of the claims of religion which talk about things like ''experiencing the presence'' and the ''fellowship'' and other experiences not dependent on any linguistic framework.
Yes one has to put atheism as a positive claim unless there is some qualification to atheism such as the much pushed pseudo-position of ''Agnostic Atheism'' AKA having one's cake and eat it.
-
Hi Walter - welcome to this mb.
errmm
had to read that a few times but got there in the end .
well said, I think!
Try this:
"To ensure that I had egg and chips for tea last night I walked all the way home without once treading on a crack in the pavement.
When I got home, Mum had cooked me egg and chips.
Therefore avoiding the cracks in the pavements causes me to have egg and chips for tea."
The argument (crack avoiding being causal of egg and chips for tea) is clearly fallacious, but it's still a fact that I had egg and chips for tea. Thus while falsifying the arguments theists attempt for "God" (the NPF, reification, personal incredulity etc etc) renders them irrelevant, it cannot eliminate at least the possibility of "God" however remote that possibility might be.
-
Vlad,
AKA having one's cake and eat it.
What else would you do with a cake?
-
That's a big if which betrays an uneducated ignorance of the claims of religion which talk about things like ''experiencing the presence'' and the ''fellowship'' and other experiences not dependent on any linguistic framework.
Yes one has to put atheism as a positive claim unless there is some qualification to atheism such as the much pushed pseudo-position of ''Agnostic Atheism'' AKA having one's cake and eat it.
Not sure why that is a pseudo-position. It distinguishes knowledge from belief, hence agnostic, (someone doesn't actually know if there is a God or not), but atheist (lacking a belief in God).
Just seems precise to me.
-
Vlad,
What else would you do with a cake?
Shove it up one's arse?
-
Not sure why that is a pseudo-position. It distinguishes knowledge from belief, hence agnostic, (someone doesn't actually know if there is a God or not), but atheist (lacking a belief in God).
Just seems precise to me.
If what you say is true then there are none on this forum even though we have some who claim to be as I seem to recollect.
-
Wiggs,
Not sure why that is a pseudo-position.
It isn't.
Now you'll have to excuse me - I'm planning to "experience the presence" of Colin, the grand panjandrum of the leprechauns later in "fellowship" with my co-believers and I really must pick out something suitable to wear for the occasion. Kitten heels maybe?
-
Wiggs,
It isn't.
Now you'll have to excuse me - I'm planning to "experience the presence" of Colin,
That'll involve cake no doubt.
-
Blue, I love egg and chips and I always avoid the cracks, well, not all cracks.
-
Wiggs,
It isn't.
It's a faith of course along the lines of ''I don't know there is or isn't a God but I commit myself to acting as if there wasn't.''
-
Walter,
Blue, I love egg and chips and I always avoid the cracks, well, not all cracks.
Steady on old son! Besides, Vlad is the Viceroy of Vulgar around here (and the Mogul of Mendacity too by the way) so you'd have big shoes to fill in that department.
-
Walter,
Steady on old son! Besides, Vlad is the Viceroy of Vulgar around here (and the Mogul of Mendacity too by the way) so you'd have big shoes to fill in that department.
That's rich coming from our Royal 'Roule'..er.
-
Gordon,
Just to clarify, the statement is what’s produced by the argument(s). It’s arguments that are either fallacious or sound, and it’s the fallacious arguments that can be dismissed. The statements that fall out of fallacious arguments could still be true though just as a matter of dumb luck.
Thus “God is” could still be true (leaving aside for now the definitional problems with “God”) but none of the panoply of bad arguments theists often rely on demonstrate "God".
True: my excuse is I'd come from direct from Sword's 'lemon' argument on another thread, so my response here was perhaps more briefly bitter that it should have been. :)
-
Walter,
Steady on old son! Besides, Vlad is the Viceroy of Vulgar around here (and the Mogul of Mendacity too by the way) so you'd have big shoes to fill in that department.
oops. I stand corrected, as the man said in his surgical boots.
-
It's a faith of course along the lines of ''I don't know there is or isn't a God but I commit myself to acting as if there wasn't.''
How do you act as if there wasn't?
-
Maeght,
How do you act as if there wasn't?
Less genuflecting.
Yeah, definitely less genuflecting.
Also, you'll probably be less judgmental about people who are "other" too.
-
How do you act as if there wasn't?
Er, contribute to one particular faction on a forum like this?
-
Maeght,
Less genuflecting.
Yeah, definitely less genuflecting.
Also, you'll probably be less judgmental about people who are "other" too.
I never genuflect. Antitheists are particularly judgmental......it must be their moral irrealism.
-
I never genuflect. Antitheists are particularly judgmental......it must be their moral irrealism.
Hey, I will judge whoever I like, in fact theres a bloke coming round taking names
-
Which is what I said in my very first post on Page 1:
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement can be established in the affirmative, or disproved by showing that something that contradicts it is true.
you seem very confused to me. Try again and make it simple.
thank you
Ok. In base 10, I claim that 2+2=5. I can show that this is wrong
- directly (2+2=4, not 5)
- indirectly via a contradictory claim being shown to be true (2+3=5, not 2+2)
Since the arguments from Christians are never deemed satisfactory, I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims. If all causes have natural explanations, this invalidates any supernatural claims by default.
It's not a popular request!!
-
Ok. In base 10, I claim that 2+2=5. I can show that this is wrong
- directly (2+2=4, not 5)
- indirectly via a contradictory claim being shown to be true (2+3=5, not 2+2)
Since the arguments from Christians are never deemed satisfactory, I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims. If all causes have natural explanations, this invalidates any supernatural claims by default.
It's not a popular request!!
It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence. If I say there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden you would expect me to provide proof of that statement, you wouldn't expect to have to provide proof they aren't there would you?
-
Sword,
I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims.
No-one does that.
It's not a popular request!!
Presumably because it's a dishonest one.
-
Sword,
WTF
How many more times does it need explaining to you. The reason its not a popular request is because its STUPID!
No offence....
-
Since the arguments from Christians are never deemed satisfactory, I have gone down the alternative route of inviting those who commit to a naturalistic philosophy (i.e. there are only natural causes and explanations) to substantiate their claims. If all causes have natural explanations, this invalidates any supernatural claims by default.
It's not a popular request!!
You should be able to deduce then that nobody here adopts this stance: but you've been told this before.
-
If I say there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden you would expect me to provide proof of that statement
Frankly Scarlett..... I couldn't give a Damn
-
It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists ...
So you and others keep on saying. The burden of proof lies with the one making the claim. So when you say
as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence.
That is a positive statement. It presupposes that you would know what kind of evidence would convince you. It certainly assumes that you know the nature of the claim for which you are claiming there is no evidence. So, I try one more time. What kind of evidence would convince you? Or are you going to claim again that if God exists, it is His responsibility to convince you?
If I say there are fairies living at the bottom of my garden you would expect me to provide proof of that statement
Ah, the variant on the Celestial Teapot strikes again!! :)
I would be interested in why you would be claiming this, e.g. did you really believe this? If so, what were your reasons. Let's face it. I don't really need to go there, do I? No. Some have an impression of what religious belief is (i.e. made up) so they make up something that doesn't exist (teapots in space, bluehillside's dancing pixies on keyboards) and compare it with religious belief. There is no common frame of reference unless the starting point is that there is no evidence and no reasoning behind or for religious belief.
-
What kind of evidence would convince you? hat there is no evidence and no reasoning behind religious belief.
Can you define God first.
-
Sword,
There is no common frame of reference unless the starting point is that there is no evidence and no reasoning behind religious belief.
Wrong.
I've told you why it's wrong several times now but as you just ignore the rebuttal and repeat the mistake I see no reason to do so again.
-
Jeez it IS made up, ALL OF IT
-
You should be able to deduce then that nobody here adopts this stance: but you've been told this before.
Nobody adopts any stance.
This whole forum is for some an exercise in not being pinned down. The rest of us wonder why that should be.
-
Nobody adopts any stance.
This whole forum is for some an exercise in not being pinned down. The rest of us wonder why that should be.
In which Vlad bemoans the fact that no-one has actually signed up to the straw men he constructs in order to critique them.
-
Can you define God first.
It is not for me to define God first Maeght. This is what Floo said:
It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence.
So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.
-
Jeez it IS made up, ALL OF IT
Another positive claim!
Any chance of any evidence and/or proof of this?
-
Nobody adopts any stance.
This whole forum is for some an exercise in not being pinned down. The rest of us wonder why that should be.
Why is it important to be 'pinned down'?
-
Being stupid is not an offence but in your case it should be
good luck with your critical thinking skills though
-
It is not for me to define God first Maeght. This is what Floo said:
So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.
what has Floo's statement got to do with Maeght?
-
It is not for me to define God first Maeght. This is what Floo said:
Maeght asked you to define God: what Floo thinks is another matter entirely.
So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.
There's that 'proof' again: the rest is just the same incoherent nonsense you've been corrected on before.
-
Sword,
...it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence
No it doesn't. As you just ignore the rebuttals that undo you, see if you can work out for yourself why it doesn't...
(Clue: a logically false argument claimed as "evidence" is a logically false argument regardless of the conclusion it produces.)
-
Why does he persist with this nonsense. If it were me I would be hanging my head in shameful embarrassment .
-
Another positive claim!
Any chance of any evidence and/or proof of this?
You have been asked to provide proof your god exists, you haven't!
-
Oh I hope he does, I WANT TO BELIEVE its the real reason I came here.
-
So if Floo is claiming that there is no evidence for the existence of God, it stands to reason that she knows the nature of that for which she is claiming there is no evidence. It also means that (in the absence of proof for her claim), she should know what kind of evidence she would see as evidence for God.
Not really.
We could equally validly state that there is no evidence for a "*&*^"*£%^FD&". The reason being there will be no evidence for anything undefined. In principal we could say something about evidence from a definition but there is no real definition for a god except in the vaguest of terms; hence we know there cannot be any clinching evidence; hence there cannot be any real justification for holding a belief in god.
-
Sword,
No it doesn't. As you just ignore the rebuttals that undo you, see if you can work out for yourself why it doesn't...
(Clue: a logically false argument claimed as "evidence" is a logically false argument regardless of the conclusion it produces.)
Stop taking the piss Hillside. If one says X does not exist then that suggests that one knows what X is other wise one is talking Carp.
-
Not really.
We could equally validly state that there is no evidence for a "*&*^"*£%^FD&". The reason being there will be no evidence for anything undefined. In principal we could say something about evidence from a definition but there is no real definition for a god except in the vaguest of terms; hence we know there cannot be any clinching evidence; hence there cannot be any real justification for holding a belief in god.
Yes but there is a mountain of definition for God but "*&*^"*£%^FD&" is something you've just typed in......even though it's the most meaningful thing I've ever seen you post on here.
-
O M G
is the no end to this wrong headedness
-
Stop taking the piss Hillside. If one says X does not exist then that suggests that one knows what X is other wise one is talking Carp.
And the king of the straw men is among us again.
Now try reading what Floo actually said.
-
one thing is for sure, belief does not protect the believer from idiocy.
you know who you are ;)
-
Walter,
O M G
is the no end to this wrong headedness
Apparently not. Now he's claiming that there's a "mountain of definition" for "God". How he proposes to define something supernatural is anyone's guess, but it'll be fun watching him try I guess. So far all efforts have been either a CV ("He created the universe") or bad poetry ("the ground of all being") but let's be fair - if Vlad is the first one ever to provide a meaningful definition he should at least be in line for a Templeton prize...
-
hahahaha a Templeton Prize. I love it.
-
Yes but there is a mountain of definition for God but "*&*^"*£%^FD&" is something you've just typed in......even though it's the most meaningful thing I've ever seen you post on here.
What does a mountain of definition mean?
-
Maeght,
What does a mountain of definition mean?
It means that Vlad is lying.
Again.
-
one thing is for sure, belief does not protect the believer from idiocy.
you know who you are ;)
Old antitheists, new antitheists.....they never get any better.
-
What does a mountain of definition mean?
A lot of in comparison to some spurious and random string of letters, numbers beloved of the likes of Bluehillside and Torridon and indeed former owners of the ZX spectrum.....goodness those guys are so Eighties.
-
Walter,
Apparently not. Now he's claiming that there's a "mountain of definition" for "God". How he proposes to define something supernatural is anyone's guess, but it'll be fun watching him try I guess. So far all efforts have been either a CV ("He created the universe") or bad poetry ("the ground of all being") but let's be fair - if Vlad is the first one ever to provide a meaningful definition he should at least be in line for a Templeton prize...
.......A down on the Templeton prize.....You been at the Dawkins again Hillside?
-
Vlad, no improvement is required. All we require is EVIDENCE its that simple.
off you go then.....
-
Vlad, no improvement is required. All we require is EVIDENCE its that simple.
off you go then.....
First of all there is the sense of alienation abroad in the world. When Douglas Adams talked about puddles fitting holes in the ground he either misunderstood, was ignorant of or wanted to deliberately forget that religion is about dealing with alienation. Just as acquisitive materialism deals with spending one's way out of thinking about it...without actually dealing with it.
So a sense of alienation is part of the evidence.
-
Oh FFS
you poor little martyr. You might think that constitutes evidence .... you know what , it doesn't even warrant further comment, pathetic.
-
Oh FFS
you poor little martyr. You might think that constitutes evidence .... you know what , it doesn't even warrant further comment, pathetic.
What are you talking about? Are you trying to say there is no such thing as alienation in the world?
-
WHAT?...
-
A lot of in comparison to some spurious and random string of letters, numbers beloved of the likes of Bluehillside and Torridon and indeed former owners of the ZX spectrum.....goodness those guys are so Eighties.
Yes, I know thet 'a mountain of ...' means 'a lot of ...' - but how can you have a lot of definition?
-
Its just bollox Maeght
-
First of all there is the sense of alienation abroad in the world. When Douglas Adams talked about puddles fitting holes in the ground he either misunderstood, was ignorant of or wanted to deliberately forget that religion is about dealing with alienation. Just as acquisitive materialism deals with spending one's way out of thinking about it...without actually dealing with it.
So a sense of alienation is part of the evidence.
In which Vlad:
1. Utterly fails to grasp the point of Adams' puddle - which was merely an adroit way of addressing the anthropic principle and had nothing whatever to do with "alienation";
2. Fails to notice that, even if religion does attempt to "deal with" alienation, that says nothing at all to whether there's a word of truth in it's factual claims; and
3. So utterly corrupts the term "evidence" that it now encompasses any aspect of the lived experience being evidence for any conjecture he or anyone else may happen to dream up.
Apart from that though....
-
In which Vlad:
1. Utterly fails to grasp the point of Adams' puddle - which was merely an adroit way of addressing the anthropic principle and had nothing whatever to do with "alienation";
2. Fails to notice that, even if religion does attempt to "deal with" alienation, that says nothing at all to whether there's a word of truth in it's factual claims; and
3. So utterly corrupts the term "evidence" that it now encompasses any aspect of the lived experience being evidence for any conjecture he or anyone else may happen to dream up.
Apart from that though....
1: Adroit? He fucked up by charicaturing religion.
2: It goes a lot further in addressing the issue of alienation than any Dawkinsian, Darwinian or Hillsidian/Pisstakeian vantage point.
3: Why don't you just say that it does not constitute evidence.....you know you want to but dare not for some reason.
-
Blue. re your 637
you have far more patience than me, well done.
-
oops 367
-
Walter,
Blue. re your 637
you have far more patience than me, well done.
Thanks, but actually I'd intended to step away from the idiocy posted here. I guess sometimes when it's off the scale Vladiocy though even the most determined of us will succumb from time-to-time darn it.
-
I've never heard of suspected message board addiction described like that before.
very good Vlad, an almost well thought out coherent sentence with a touch of humour.
-
Walter,
Apparently not. Now he's claiming that there's a "mountain of definition" for "God". How he proposes to define something supernatural is anyone's guess,
God: Intelligent being that created theUniverse.
Wow, I just defined God. It wasn't that hard in the end.
-
God: Intelligent being that created theUniverse.
Wow, I just defined God. It wasn't that hard in the end.
Define 'being' in this context, then.
Trouble is, we can say nothing about the nature of the being that would lend itself to observation and hence evidence. We can say nothing about its location, mass, nature, speed, structure, provenance, substance or any of the properties that could be identified to characterise a being's existence. How can a being be said to exist if it has no measurable existential properties ?
-
First of all there is the sense of alienation abroad in the world. When Douglas Adams talked about puddles fitting holes in the ground he either misunderstood, was ignorant of or wanted to deliberately forget that religion is about dealing with alienation. Just as acquisitive materialism deals with spending one's way out of thinking about it...without actually dealing with it.
So a sense of alienation is part of the evidence.
That's just anthropomorphism. Have astronomers studying interstellar nebulae noticed some nebulae to be alienated ? Have ecologists discovered alienated frogs in the jungles of south America ? I think you are trying to define God in terms of a projection of the needs of the human psyche which is probably fair enough from a psychologist's point of view but says nothing about the objective existential nature of God independent of this one particular species of African ape.
-
That's just anthropomorphism. Have astronomers studying interstellar nebulae noticed some nebulae to be alienated ? Have ecologists discovered alienated frogs in the jungles of south America ? I think you are trying to define God in terms of a projection of the needs of the human psyche which is probably fair enough from a psychologist's point of view but says nothing about the objective existential nature of God independent of this one particular species of African ape.
Irrelevant since you are fallaciously linking scale with existence of.
People are alienated and perform actions around that alienation. This leads to the loss of species which is significant but more importantly real
Secondly God is portrayed once again in your piece as a psychological crutch for the needy.
That certainly is not the picture gleaned from the biographies of at least Christian and Jewish converts to God.
Your objection on this score is therefore blown somewhat and is itself an act of wilful ignorance.
-
do you blindly pull words out of bag like a bingo caller?
-
Define 'being' in this context, then.
Trouble is, we can say nothing about the nature of the being that would lend itself to observation and hence evidence. We can say nothing about its location, mass, nature, speed, structure, provenance, substance or any of the properties that could be identified to characterise a being's existence. How can a being be said to exist if it has no measurable existential properties ?
sounds a bit like you are describing dark matter
-
Irrelevant since you are fallaciously linking scale with existence of.
People are alienated and perform actions around that alienation. This leads to the loss of species which is significant but more importantly real
Eh ?
Can anyone translate Vladerian into English please ?
Secondly God is portrayed once again in your piece as a psychological crutch for the needy.
That certainly is not the picture gleaned from the biographies of at least Christian and Jewish converts to God.
Eerm, well it was you that brought up alienation, a psychological state, as a form of evidence. But that fits with my theory of God as a projection of human needs and desires; it always struck me that kindly people believe in a loving god, nasty people believe in a vengeful god, jihadists believe in a god that will reward their destruction of infidels in paradise and so forth. People create a god to suit their individual psychological profile.
-
torri,
Can anyone translate Vladerian into English please ?
Ah, the age-old mystery: is the apparent gibberish of Vladdish hiding deep and cogent meaning, or is it just - well - gibberish?
Me, I reckon his relentless misunderstandings of the terms he attempts and the re-invention of words to suit his purpose (see "atheism". "philosophical materialism", "scientism" etc) is Vlad "speaking in tongues".
Oh hang on though, that is gibberish isn't it.
Oh well.
-
Eh ?
Can anyone translate Vladerian into English please ?
Eerm, well it was you that brought up alienation, a psychological state, as a form of evidence. But that fits with my theory of God as a projection of human needs and desires; it always struck me that kindly people believe in a loving god, nasty people believe in a vengeful god, jihadists believe in a god that will reward their destruction of infidels in paradise and so forth. People create a god to suit their individual psychological profile.
Yes, alienation is a psychological state but the effects of it can be seen on a global scale.
In terms of projection of human needs you seem to be specially pleading A need for God or some view other than your reductionism. That unlike sex or a good meal a need for God is a special need that goes unmet and is somehow a special false need or a bad need. But hey I feel you maybe building up to a Darwinian finale.......You know the one about everything being ultimately about getting your leg over.
-
torri,
Ah, the age-old mystery: is the apparent gibberish of Vladdish hiding deep and cogent meaning, or is it just - well - gibberish?
Me, I reckon his relentless misunderstandings of the terms he attempts and the re-invention of words to suit his purpose (see "atheism". "philosophical materialism", "scientism" etc) is Vlad "speaking in tongues".
Oh hang on though, that is gibberish isn't it.
Oh well.
I'm thinking smokescreen; it's his penchant to create cover out of carefully crafted confusion; something like zebra stripes confuse lions; either way I don't know why he hasn't yet changed his moniker to Vlad the Impenetrable as I think that would suit nicely
-
I'm thinking smokescreen; it's his penchant to create cover out of carefully crafted confusion; something like zebra stripes confuse lions;
If your thinking of yourself and Hillside as lions then I'm afraid it's got to be Lenny and Clarence.
-
It is down to the people who make positive claims for things like the existence of god who have to provide the proof, not those of us who don't think it exists as there is no evidence to substantiate its existence.
So if you are claiming that there is no evidence to substantiate the existence of God, why are you asking for proof?
What exactly are you looking for?
-
Alienation as evidence for God? Wow, that's a new one, and no better than the others. It's only evidence if you first assume that there is a God, and that we have become alienated from him. But just being alienated in the Marxist or Satrean sense might tell us something about human society and psychology. Reaching into my creaky memory, Marx argued that relations between humans have been replaced by relations between things, which has been an influential idea.
-
Alienation as evidence for God?
I've been struggling to work that out too.
-
In fact, ironically, Marx argues that religion is a result of human alienation from their own existence and from nature, so that their estrangement is mirrored in religious images; religion 'is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality'.
-
Alienation as evidence for God? Wow, that's a new one, and no better than the others. It's only evidence if you first assume that there is a God, and that we have become alienated from him. But just being alienated in the Marxist or Satrean sense might tell us something about human society and psychology. Reaching into my creaky memory, Marx argued that relations between humans have been replaced by relations between things, which has been an influential idea.
But you can't become alienated from nature since we are nature. So it must be something else we are alienated against
-
But you can't become alienated from nature since we are nature. So it must be something else we are alienated against
Well, capitalism is part of nature, but it tends to reduce humans to things. Or if you take Sartre's view of 'bad faith', humans are very capable of projecting a false image of themselves, and even believing in it. It seems quite 'natural' to be become estranged from oneself or others; no God required.
-
Well, capitalism is part of nature, but it tends to reduce humans to things. Or if you take Sartre's view of 'bad faith', humans are very capable of projecting a false image of themselves, and even believing in it. It seems quite 'natural' to be become estranged from oneself or others; no God required.
Again if it is natural where is the problem with it?....You know, the problem people recognise with it.
-
Vlad
if you feel alienated have you ever thought it might be because you have illogical thought processes that aggravate people who don't?
-
Again if it is natural where is the problem with it?....You know, the problem people recognise with it.
Eh? I can't believe that you are saying that the natural is good. That is the naturalistic fallacy, or ought/is. Plenty of natural things are lousy. If people get depressed, it's no good saying, ah well, it's natural.
-
Eh? I can't believe that you are saying that the natural is good. That is the naturalistic fallacy, or ought/is. Plenty of natural things are lousy. If people get depressed, it's no good saying, ah well, it's natural.
Are you saying alienation is a problem or not Wigginhall?
If you are in what context is it a problem? Nature does not recognise the lousy nor the problematical so in a natural sense there can be no alienation. Therefore I put it to you again.......in what context is there alienation?
-
Are you saying alienation is a problem or not Wigginhall?
If you are in what context is it a problem? Nature does not recognise the lousy nor the problematical so in a natural sense there can be no alienation. Therefore I put it to you again.......in what context is there alienation?
Correct me if I'm wrong, Vlad, but isn't this alienation idea yours?
-
Are you saying alienation is a problem or not Wigginhall?
If you are in what context is it a problem? Nature does not recognise the lousy nor the problematical so in a natural sense there can be no alienation. Therefore I put it to you again.......in what context is there alienation?
Hang on. You are the one who's saying that alienation is evidence for God, not me. So what do you mean by it?
-
Vlad
you brought it up in the first place and its still makes no sense, so let it drop PLEASE
-
Hang on. You are the one who's saying that alienation is evidence for God, not me. So what do you mean by it?
You seemed quite happy to go along with it for a few posts. What's your problem?
-
You seemed quite happy to go along with it for a few posts. What's your problem?
The problem is that you always try to reverse arguments. You put forward a position, but then demand that someone else justify theirs.
-
The problem is that you always try to reverse arguments. You put forward a position, but then demand that someone else justify theirs.
No I'm perfectly consistent in that alienation is not a concept or experience drawn from nature it is something we are therefore experiencing in the supernatural........just like matter cannot be moral or immoral but humans can be super materially.
-
No I'm perfectly consistent in that alienation is not a concept or experience drawn from nature it is something we are therefore experiencing in the supernatural........just like matter cannot be moral or immoral but humans can be super materially.
This is very close to presuppositionalism, which argues that there can be no distinctions, whether conceptual or moral, without God. They seem to be less common than they used to be, so maybe you can argue for it. In fact, I think they argue that there can be no reason without God, this was the line taken by Van Til. It's really a gigantic tu quoque, I think.
-
This is very close to presuppositionalism, which argues that there can be no distinctions, whether conceptual or moral, without God. They seem to be less common than they used to be, so maybe you can argue for it. In fact, I think they argue that there can be no reason without God, this was the line taken by Van Til. It's really a gigantic tu quoque, I think.
I don't believe God is mentioned in your quote of me.
I use the word supernatural partly as an antidote to the sloppy and totalitarian use of the term natural.
-
Moderator:
We seem to wandering into issues unrelated to teapots, celestial or otherwise, so I'm going to remove all the posts which revolve around conduct before matters escalate and hope that the thread gets back to something resembling issues rather than people.
Will lock while I do this and unlock afterwards.
Update: done that, so could we move on now please.
-
..... naturalism provides answers that are verifiable
But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Nor is there a way to verify that the initial conditions in our universe occurred by chance.
And we are a long way off verifying that chemical activity alone can generate self awareness.
Nor can we verify that our apparent free will is an illusion, driven entirely by deterministic activity.
And can anyone verify that the source of all existence has a natural explanation?
So if we stick to what is verifiable, there is a substantial amount of faith needed to support the view that everything must have a natural explanation.
-
But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Ah the good old NPF rolled out once more for an airing.
Did you know that the NPF is Satan's way of making Christians look stupid?
-
But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Nor is there a way to verify that the initial conditions in our universe occurred by chance.
And we are a long way off verifying that chemical activity alone can generate self awareness.
Nor can we verify that our apparent free will is an illusion, driven entirely by deterministic activity.
And can anyone verify that the source of all existence has a natural explanation?
So if we stick to what is verifiable, there is a substantial amount of faith needed to support the view that everything must have a natural explanation.
NPF shot all the way through just like a stick of Scarboro rock.
But even if there were some supernatural cause for the above, there would be no way to establish or verify that. Positing supernatural is a waste of time therefore.
-
Define 'being' in this context, then.
"sentient thing" in this context.
Trouble is, we can say nothing about the nature of the being that would lend itself to observation and hence evidence. We can say nothing about its location, mass, nature, speed, structure, provenance, substance or any of the properties that could be identified to characterise a being's existence. How can a being be said to exist if it has no measurable existential properties ?
Don't ask me. I don't believe God does exist.
-
sounds a bit like you are describing dark matter
Actually, we can detect dark matter by its effect on the matter we can see.
-
mmm, that's why I said 'a bit' . I was hoping someone would make that important observation. thanks
-
celestial teapot? :o
Another way of coming at it
Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.”
So your beliefs do not define who you are – your actions do, IMO.
So if one person has Jesus, another a celestial teapot, I'm not worried ;)
It's actions that move the universe, and that's the bit that really matters, IMO.
If people concentrated on their actions more, perhaps the world might be a better place.
It's no good having a celestial teapot, if it don't make a good cuppa!
;)
-
Rose,
celestial teapot? :o
Another way of coming at it
Your beliefs don’t make you a better person, your behavior does.”
So your beliefs do not define who you are – your actions do, IMO.
So if one person has Jesus, another a celestial teapot, I'm not worried ;)
It's actions that move the universe, and that's the bit that really matters, IMO.
If people concentrated on their actions more, perhaps the world might be a better place.
It's no good having a celestial teapot, if it don't make a good cuppa!
While I agree with the sentiment, you've missed the point of the analogy. It's just a device to illustrate why "you can't disprove it" is not an argument for something (see Alan Burns's latest effort for an extended attempt at it).
Non-falsification is a necessary condition for truth, but not a sufficient one. Some here utterly miss the point too with their "but the celestial teapot idea is ridiculous" response, again failing to grasp that the object of the argument - "God", the teapot, whatever - has no relevance to the argument itself.
-
Rose,
While I agree with the sentiment, you've missed the point of the analogy. It's just a device to illustrate why "you can't disprove it" is not an argument for something (see Alan Burns's latest effort for an extended attempt at it).
Perhaps the reason why the point keeps on being missed is because the analogy keeps on being misused, hence why you have completely misunderstood Alan Burns' #403 above. Where has he said or even implied that failure to prove one thing means that something else is therefore true? His post again in response to your post:
..... naturalism provides answers that are verifiable
But there is no way of verifying that the process of evolution had no intelligent guidance.
Nor is there a way to verify that the initial conditions in our universe occurred by chance.
And we are a long way off verifying that chemical activity alone can generate self awareness.
Nor can we verify that our apparent free will is an illusion, driven entirely by deterministic activity.
And can anyone verify that the source of all existence has a natural explanation?
So if we stick to what is verifiable, there is a substantial amount of faith needed to support the view that everything must have a natural explanation.
My understanding of his response to your quote is that what he has stated is not consistent with your claim that
..... naturalism provides answers that are verifiable
I would have expected you to present solutions to show how/why the things he mentioned are verifiable. You have failed to do so.
-
I would have expected you to present solutions to show how/why the things he mentioned are verifiable. You have failed to do so.
Nope - fallacious arguments can be dismissed on that basis. In addition to the dear old NPF, as was noted earlier, Alan is also indulging in another of his favourite fallacies: the argument from personal incredulity where the post of his you quoted is a splendid example.
Where an argument is so obviously fallacious there is no requirement to go beyond pointing out the fallacy.
-
But even if there were some supernatural cause for the above, there would be no way to establish or verify that. Positing supernatural is a waste of time therefore.
This should indicate a fundamental problem with your approach. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because one cannot prove it.
Using your approach, you would miss out on the truth of the matter if there was a supernatural cause.
-
Gordon,
well said . It strikes me SOTS is incapable of understanding or he is a very naughty boy.
-
This should indicate a fundamental problem with your approach. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because one cannot prove it.
Using your approach, you would miss out on the truth of the matter if there was a supernatural cause.
I don't think so; it simply follows from the definition of supernatural. Anything supernatural is not amenable to investigation or analysis; there is no way we could recognise it as such.
-
This should indicate a fundamental problem with your approach. If something is true, it doesn't stop being true because one cannot prove it.
Using your approach, you would miss out on the truth of the matter if there was a supernatural cause.
As ever you misunderstand the point you are responding to, as your use of terms like 'truth', 'prove' and 'cause' demonstrates.
-
It puzzles me why people continue to use the same arguments over and over when its been pointed out to them so many times that they are wrong.
as the saying goes; you can have your own opinions but not your own facts.
-
SotS's posts seem to me to lack any modesty, or the remotest acknowledgement that he could, just possibly, you know, like, er, be wrong!
-
Ah the good old NPF rolled out once more for an airing.
Did you know that the NPF is Satan's way of making Christians look stupid?
If you read this in context, you should realise that I was contesting BH's claim that faith is not needed to support naturalism.
-
If you read this in context, you should realise that I was contesting BH's claim that faith is not needed to support naturalism.
in context both this and your previous post are implying that bluehilsside is a stating a philosophical naturalist position. Since he doesn't why are you lying about his position twice?
-
If you read this in context, you should realise that I was contesting BH's claim that faith is not needed to support naturalism.
....by using the NPF?
I must try that sometime.
-
I think this thread's got a knot in it now!
-
in context both this and your previous post are implying that bluehilsside is a stating a philosophical naturalist position. Since he doesn't why are you lying about his position twice?
This is what bluehillside said:
"Rather the problem is that naturalism provides answers that are verifiable, whereas faith on the other hand provides conjectures with no means of testing or verification whatever. "
My post simply shows that naturalism does not provide verifiable answers to the points I raised.
-
This is what bluehillside said:
"Rather the problem is that naturalism provides answers that are verifiable, whereas faith on the other hand provides conjectures with no means of testing or verification whatever. "
My post simply shows that naturalism does not provide verifiable answers to the points I raised.
But those points are implying philosophical naturalism, so why are you arguing he takes a position he does not?
-
Aside from the confusion of abiogenesis with the process of evolution itself, you need to be reminded that for believers there is always the question: "If God made the world, why did he make it so badly"
Evolution the unproved theory.
Life had nothing to come from given the scientists explanation of the ball of gases.
What is further proof is that some planets older than ours don't have life.
What is it about the obvious that so many 'millions' of planets and only one earth exists?
Whatever happened on earth had nothing to do with the make-up of the planet or it's original process of coming into being.
Because for such a thing to be possible many earths around us would need to exist.
God created the world and the universe we know. He put life on our planet and created a system to sustain that life.
If he destroyed it, everything would die.
-
Evolution the unproved theory.
Stick to theology Sassy because you just don't understand science.
-
Evolution the unproved theory.
Life had nothing to come from given the scientists explanation of the ball of gases.
What is further proof is that some planets older than ours don't have life.
What is it about the obvious that so many 'millions' of planets and only one earth exists?
Whatever happened on earth had nothing to do with the make-up of the planet or it's original process of coming into being.
Because for such a thing to be possible many earths around us would need to exist.
God created the world and the universe we know. He put life on our planet and created a system to sustain that life.
If he destroyed it, everything would die.
.. the original 'just-so' story. Naïve, superficial, mildly titillating perhaps, but ultimately inconsequential.
-
Stick to theology Sassy because you just don't understand science.
SCIENCE.... you mean there is evidence where the first life originated from?
What you mean to say, is :- "Stick to what you know Sassy, because we (being (you) and others who believe in science as the start of life) have no evidence or proof where life actually came from. You see evolution does not explain or give an explanation.
It is like building a wall without a foundation there is nothing to allow a wall to exist."
In everything there has to be a foundation. Life and how it came into being had to be the foundational truth in creation/evolution.
You have theories and nothing to support the theory because there is no science to explain the first life.
You cannot build a wall without laying the foundation to support the wall. Just as you cannot build an answer in science
regarding evolution or any part of creation without the foundational answer of how the first life came into existence.
It isn't rocket science and however much it sticks in your throat.
The facts are the facts... Science has no answers to how the first life came into existence.
Something has to have lived and died for life of any sought to have come from it. Like maggots on the flesh of dead animals etc.
The matter was originally a life force.
God is the life force which created man. Man cannot recreate it, or even explain it.
-
SCIENCE.... you mean there is evidence where the first life originated from?
What you mean to say, is :- "Stick to what you know Sassy, because we (being (you) and others who believe in science as the start of life) have no evidence or proof where life actually came from. You see evolution does not explain or give an explanation.
It is like building a wall without a foundation there is nothing to allow a wall to exist."
In everything there has to be a foundation. Life and how it came into being had to be the foundational truth in creation/evolution.
You have theories and nothing to support the theory because there is no science to explain the first life.
You cannot build a wall without laying the foundation to support the wall. Just as you cannot build an answer in science
regarding evolution or any part of creation without the foundational answer of how the first life came into existence.
It isn't rocket science and however much it sticks in your throat.
The facts are the facts... Science has no answers to how the first life came into existence.
Something has to have lived and died for life of any sought to have come from it. Like maggots on the flesh of dead animals etc.
The matter was originally a life force.
God is the life force which created man. Man cannot recreate it, or even explain it.
Again, showing your lack of understanding of science and what it tells us.
-
Evolution the unproved theory.
Life had nothing to come from given the scientists explanation of the ball of gases.
What is further proof is that some planets older than ours don't have life.
What is it about the obvious that so many 'millions' of planets and only one earth exists?
Whatever happened on earth had nothing to do with the make-up of the planet or it's original process of coming into being.
Because for such a thing to be possible many earths around us would need to exist.
God created the world and the universe we know. He put life on our planet and created a system to sustain that life.
If he destroyed it, everything would die.
The phrase 'not even wrong' somehow springs to mind!
-
In everything there has to be a foundation. Life and how it came into being had to be the foundational truth in creation/evolution.
You have theories and nothing to support the theory because there is no science to explain the first life.
You cannot build a wall without laying the foundation to support the wall. Just as you cannot build an answer in science
regarding evolution or any part of creation without the foundational answer of how the first life came into existence.
It isn't rocket science and however much it sticks in your throat.
The facts are the facts... Science has no answers to how the first life came into existence.
Sassy: Here's one you (and other Christians here) may be interested in: In the ten plagues of Egypt, Pharaoh's magicians could replicate the first and second plague, but not the third (Exodus 8:16-18). Ask yourself why couldn't they replicate the third plague (if you don't already know)? How did Pharaoh's magicians respond?
-
The purpose of the magicians replicating the actions causing the plagues was to show Moses and Aaron to be frauds. All looked good for two but their inability to do the same with the third plague onwards showed the magicians to be frauds or at least to have limited powers. When they failed at the third task they cried out to Pharoah that the power Moses demonstrated was from God.
-
Sassy: Here's one you (and other Christians here) may be interested in: In the ten plagues of Egypt, Pharaoh's magicians could replicate the first and second plague, but not the third (Exodus 8:16-18). Ask yourself why couldn't they replicate the third plague (if you don't already know)? How did Pharaoh's magicians respond?
Assuming of course that the events of Exodus are faithfully recorded in the Pentateuch which shows heavy 'editing' in the6th and 5th centuries BC.
Sorry, SOTS. but the Pentateuch is unreliable as a historical account - there is no timescale, no name - and the word 'Pharaoh' did not become applicable as a title before 945 BC (King Siamun, dyn XXI)
The term was used as a generalisation for the royal authority during Hatshepsut's term as king, because the Egyptians could not easily adapt male to female tuitulary.
-
Presumably because the magicians could not create life as only Aaron could do this by creating lice from the dust of Egypt by using God's power. Mind you, I think the magicians might have had a good excuse because there was no dust then left in Egypt, of course. ;) Instead, as the story goes, they then realised that God had much more power than they had.
-
The purpose of the magicians replicating the actions causing the plagues was to show Moses and Aaron to be frauds. All looked good for two but their inability to do the same with the third plague onwards showed the magicians to be frauds or at least to have limited powers. When they failed at the third task they cried out to Pharoah that the power Moses demonstrated was from God.
Some good observations there Brownie. Thanks
-
Again, showing your lack of understanding of science and what it tells us.
You know that is a red herring.
Because the truth is that had you real knowledge of Science you would not require such an excuse.
But the truth is that if you set out to prove science you find the truth that when it comes to life and creations beginning, it does not have an answer.
So please by all means give us the answer to the origins of life or admit science doesn't have one.
-
Sassy: Here's one you (and other Christians here) may be interested in: In the ten plagues of Egypt, Pharaoh's magicians could replicate the first and second plague, but not the third (Exodus 8:16-18). Ask yourself why couldn't they replicate the third plague (if you don't already know)? How did Pharaoh's magicians respond?
The finger of God is elementary for believers... There is no higher power. Only God can create life from dust. The life of the lice was created from the dust. No man can take dust or anything which is dead matter and create life.
You can bring something back to life or change elements to kill things. But God turned dust into a living thing.
Only God can create and give life.
-
You know that is a red herring.
Its not, you have no understanding of science, yet you were posting about it.
Because the truth is that had you real knowledge of Science you would not require such an excuse.
Nonsense - and I have a scientific degree.
But the truth is that if you set out to prove science you find the truth that when it comes to life and creations beginning, it does not have an answer.
So please by all means give us the answer to the origins of life or admit science doesn't have one.
Science does not currently know how life started on this planet and no scientist claims to know.
-
The finger of God is elementary for believers... There is no higher power. Only God can create life from dust. The life of the lice was created from the dust. No man can take dust or anything which is dead matter and create life.
You can bring something back to life or change elements to kill things. But God turned dust into a living thing.
Only God can create and give life.
Your evidence for that statement is lacking. ::)
-
Its not, you have no understanding of science, yet you were posting about it.
Prove it... Bring the science and show what I science I was referring to and prove beyond doubt it ain't a theory. ( Anyone seen Jesus yet? You have more chance of his return that Maeght proving the point.)
Nonsense - and I have a scientific degree.
A scientific degree will not allow you to know more than is taught or change theories to fact.
Ask them who wrote the papers and taught the science for your degree.
Science does not currently know how life started on this planet and no scientist claims to know.
At last science has no answers and therefore admits it is all theory.
I rest my case I told you and I have always said this fact. I didn't need a degree in science to know the truth. Yet you took your time to admit yet again that science had no answers only theories when it comes to life.
-
At last science has no answers and therefore admits it is all theory.
I rest my case I told you and I have always said this fact. I didn't need a degree in science to know the truth. Yet you took your time to admit yet again that science had no answers only theories when it comes to life.
yes, science is all theory. Even evolution, the most evidenced of all science theories, is still called the Theory of Evolution. Therein lies the strength of science; by retaining the humility that we don't have all the answers, we remain open to new learning and improvement on old knowledge; eschewing certainties and authority makes it easier to accept when we were wrong before, and easier to change our thinking. This is a central virtue in the ethos of science, all knowledge is provisional until better data comes to light.
-
Sassy,
Prove it... Bring the science and show what I science I was referring to and prove beyond doubt it ain't a theory.
Science doesn’t deal in proofs. That’s why it’s the theory of gravity, the theory of germs causing disease, the theory of evolution etc. The reason is that, while scientific theories are hugely well argued and well-evidenced, science allows for the possibility of further and better particulars emerging one day that would cause the theory to be amended or junked.
That’s its strength by the way, and it compares favourably with the views of the religious in particular who tend to deal in “sure and certain” truths that cannot respond to new information.
-
Prove it...
You prove it every time you say stuff like 'Evolution the unproven theory'. You won't understand why that shows you know nothing about science though.
..bring the science and show what I science I was referring to and prove beyond doubt it ain't a theory. ( Anyone seen Jesus yet? You have more chance of his return that Maeght proving the point.)
There you go again.
A scientific degree will not allow you to know more than is taught or change theories to fact.
Ask them who wrote the papers and taught the science for your degree.
This was in response to your comment 'Because the truth is that had you real knowledge of Science'. Again, your comment about turning theories into facts shows you understand nothing about science.
At last science has no answers
Science has never claimed to know how life began on this planet so not sure why you say 'At last'.
.. and therefore admits it is all theory.
And there you go again.
I rest my case ...
Pretty poor effort.
... I told you and I have always said this fact. I didn't need a degree in science to know the truth.
You comment on science yet have no understanding of it. A science degree would certainly help there.
Yet you took your time to admit yet again that science had no answers only theories when it comes to life.
And your point is?
-
Sassy,
Science doesn’t deal in proofs. That’s why it’s the theory of gravity, the theory of germs causing disease, the theory of evolution etc. The reason is that, while scientific theories are hugely well argued and well-evidenced, science allows for the possibility of further and better particulars emerging one day that would cause the theory to be amended or junked.
That’s its strength by the way, and it compares favourably with the views of the religious in particular who tend to deal in “sure and certain” truths that cannot respond to new information.
Sassy has had this explained many times but either doesn't get it or doesn't want to or both.
-
Sassy has had this explained many times but either doesn't get it or doesn't want to or both.
TELL US HOW LIFE STARTED?
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES EVOLUTION IF FACT.
OH, YOU CAN'T THAT'S RIGHT.
NOW WHO REALLY NEEDS THE TRUTH EXPLAINING TO THEM? YOU AND ALL WHO HIDE BEHIND SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
AN ANSWER IN SCIENCE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED.
So now you sulk off into your corner and you lick your wounds because you have NO ANSWER but GOD. Your excuses are as pathetic as your claim to KNOW SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU TOOK A COURSE AND AN EXAM WHERE YOU WERE TOLD WHAT TO THINK NOT GIVEN EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
Clear now and so much better. Seems science cannot give you what you need. TRUTH.
-
TELL US HOW LIFE STARTED?
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES EVOLUTION IF FACT.
OH, YOU CAN'T THAT'S RIGHT.
NOW WHO REALLY NEEDS THE TRUTH EXPLAINING TO THEM? YOU AND ALL WHO HIDE BEHIND SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
AN ANSWER IN SCIENCE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED.
So now you sulk off into your corner and you lick your wounds because you have NO ANSWER but GOD. Your excuses are as pathetic as your claim to KNOW SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU TOOK A COURSE AND AN EXAM WHERE YOU WERE TOLD WHAT TO THINK NOT GIVEN EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
Clear now and so much better. Seems science cannot give you what you need. TRUTH.
Oh look, if you type stuff in caps that makes it really, really real and that's a FACT.
::) ::) ::) :P
-
TELL US HOW LIFE STARTED?
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES EVOLUTION IF FACT.
OH, YOU CAN'T THAT'S RIGHT.
NOW WHO REALLY NEEDS THE TRUTH EXPLAINING TO THEM? YOU AND ALL WHO HIDE BEHIND SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
AN ANSWER IN SCIENCE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED.
So now you sulk off into your corner and you lick your wounds because you have NO ANSWER but GOD. Your excuses are as pathetic as your claim to KNOW SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU TOOK A COURSE AND AN EXAM WHERE YOU WERE TOLD WHAT TO THINK NOT GIVEN EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
Clear now and so much better. Seems science cannot give you what you need. TRUTH.
We might never know the exact pathways that led to life on this particular planet, but that doesn't justify us in inventing magic beliefs to cover that up. What we can do, and what we are doing, is investigating what happens between chemistry and biology, how we get from one to the other, filling in the gaps in our knowledge.
-
TELL US HOW LIFE STARTED?
No one knows.
SHOW US THE EVIDENCE THAT PROVES EVOLUTION IF FACT.
Don't be so lazy, look it up.
OH, YOU CAN'T THAT'S RIGHT.
I could but you wouldn't accept it nor understand it. Don't be so lazy, do some research and study. And try to work out what facts and theories mean in science.
NOW WHO REALLY NEEDS THE TRUTH EXPLAINING TO THEM?
You clearly.
YOU AND ALL WHO HIDE BEHIND SOMETHING THAT DOES NOT EXIST.
Talking to yourself now are we?
AN ANSWER IN SCIENCE FOR ANYTHING TO DO WITH HOW LIFE FIRST STARTED.
And repeating yourself when you have been told about this.
So now you sulk off into your corner and you lick your wounds
You think you've inflicted wounds? That's funny.
...because you have NO ANSWER but GOD.
If you have a belief in God then you will see God as an answer but that is down to belief. nothing else.
Your excuses are as pathetic as your claim to KNOW SCIENCE BECAUSE YOU TOOK A COURSE AND AN EXAM WHERE YOU WERE TOLD WHAT TO THINK NOT GIVEN EVIDENCE TO PROVE IT.
You clearly don't understand how a university education works. Another thing to add to your list.
Clear now ...
You've certainly made your lack of knowledge and discussion skills a lot clearer, yes, thanks.
..and so much better.
What is?
Seems science cannot give you what you need. TRUTH.
It answers questions about the physical world around us, which we all need.
-
We might never know the exact pathways that led to life on this particular planet, but that doesn't justify us in inventing magic beliefs to cover that up. What we can do, and what we are doing, is investigating what happens between chemistry and biology, how we get from one to the other, filling in the gaps in our knowledge.
Torri
don't waste your typing finger , she's not worth engaging with.
-
Oh look, if you type stuff in caps that makes it really, really real and that's a FACT.
::) ::) ::) :P
Pity you can't answer the content of the post...with or without capitals..
::)
-
Pity you can't answer the content of the post...with or without capitals..
::)
If thre was any actual content in you post then I might consider it! ::)