Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walter on October 30, 2016, 03:21:02 PM
-
give us a chance to evaluate your claims once and for all, we might even get some converts.
off you go..
-
Sorry Walter, but this same ploy has been tried before and proved fruitless as no-one on your side of the debate was willing to treat evidence provide with any honesty.
-
Hope
what debate are you referring to?
-
Hope
what debate are you referring to?
we have had 3 or 4 similar threads on this board over the years, and - as I said - on none of them did any of those on your side of the debate referred to in your thread title even attempt to answer any of the evidence.
-
we have had 3 or 4 similar threads on this board over the years, and - as I said - on none of them did any of those on your side of the debate referred to in your thread title even attempt to answer any of the evidence.
Hope, If anyone on your, so called, side of this non argument did come up with totally credible evidence, the world would be saying things like; "do you remember the days when we had atheists"?
Instead of the way things are actually going; "do you remember the days when we had god believers"?
ippy
-
we have had 3 or 4 similar threads on this board over the years, and - as I said - on none of them did any of those on your side of the debate referred to in your thread title even attempt to answer any of the evidence.
THERE IS NO DEBATE why do you keep using that term . Do you think it gives you some kind of credibility or something.
If so produce your credible evidence. Its so simple.
-
Sorry Walter, but this same ploy has been tried before and proved fruitless as no-one on your side of the debate was willing to treat evidence provide with any honesty.
So we are liars when we point out where evidence claims, which as I recall you most often cite as being made elsewhere and not here and where you seem reluctant to post them here, turn out to be spurious in one way or another?
-
OKAY. its a bit naughty of me to start this thread because we both know you have nothing and nobody likes being ridiculed.
But if you have the conviction of your faith, give it a go.
-
OKAY. its a bit naughty of me to start this thread because we both know you have nothing and nobody likes being ridiculed.
But if you have the conviction of your faith, give it a go.
The only "evidence" that Hope and the rest of the hopeless crowd of Christians has offered so far is, one, the Bible, and two, an interminable string of fallacious argument and blind assertions!
-
Sorry Walter, but this same ploy has been tried before and proved fruitless as no-one on your side of the debate was willing to treat evidence provide with any honesty.
That is because there is no evidence which can be substantiated
-
The only "evidence" that Hope and the rest of the hopeless crowd of Christians has offered so far is, one, the Bible, and two, an interminable string of fallacious argument and blind assertions!
yep, you'd think they'd be clamouring at the chance.
-
we might even get some converts.
No, you won't. I'll save you wasting your time.
Hebrews 11 v 6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Which you would probably call a confirmation bias among other things, perhaps.
If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48). Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.
-
No, you won't. I'll save you wasting your time.
Hebrews 11 v 6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Which you would probably call a confirmation bias among other things, perhaps.
I'll raise your confirmation bias with an argument from authority.
If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48). Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.
Congratulations: you may have invented the fallacy of 'in the movies the hero tends to survive all or most of the film by being told the plot first which is a confirmation of faith'. Do you realise how utterly silly your 'argument from Indy' actually is?
-
I'll raise your confirmation bias with an argument from authority.
Congratulations: you may have invented the fallacy of 'in the movies the hero tends to survive all or most of the film by being told the plot first which is a confirmation of faith'. Do you realise how utterly silly your 'argument from Indy' actually is?
Thank you, Gordon, that really made me laugh!! :D :D
-
Faith is something in which one believes without the necessarity of proof.
-
Hebrews 11 v 6: And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.
Which you would probably call a confirmation bias among other things, perhaps.
I'd call it circular reasoning.
-
If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48). Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.
So you'd be advising people to step off high ledges into thin air on the basis of a piece of Hollywood fantasy :o
-
SOTS
so your best shot at evidence is to refer me to another fictional character in a Hollywood fantasy film and quotes from a book which is in dispute.
you're having a laugh aren't you ? :)
-
Faith is something in which one believes without the necessarity of proof.
I'm aware of the definition, thanks anyway.
-
sorry about this
can somebody tell me how I quote just a sentence rather than the whole of someone else's post
it would be very helpful ,thank you.
-
sorry about this
can somebody tell me how I quote just a sentence rather than the whole of someone else's post
it would be very helpful ,thank you.
What I do is to click on quote and then delete the stuff I don't want!
-
thanks SD
any one else?
-
Left Click and hold it down in front of the first word in the passage and then drag along to highlight the part you want. Then right click and copy and then paste into your post.
-
Then right click and copy and then paste into your post.
yes it works thanks
-
Then right click and copy and then paste into your post.
yes it works thanks
And if you want the words to appear in a box click on the Quote icon above the screen and this appears [ quote ] [ / quote ] and simply paste between the 2 "quotes"
And if you want the words to appear in a box click on the Quote icon above the screen and this appears [ quote ] [ / quote ] and simply paste between the 2 "quotes"
-
And if you want the words to appear in a box click on the Quote icon above the screen and this appears [
-
nope!
-
If you click on Quote above the box containing the information you wish to include in your post then a new reply box appears in which you can compose your reply/contribution.
It will only contain the contribution made by the person who opened that box. Not any material he or she was quoting.
-
thanks HH I'm still not getting it though
-
thanks HH I'm still not getting it though
It's one of those things that's easier to show than explain in writing. So often the case with computers.
-
Too right mate
-
Hope, If anyone on your, so called, side of this non argument did come up with totally credible evidence, the world would be saying things like; "do you remember the days when we had atheists"?
Instead of the way things are actually going; "do you remember the days when we had god believers"?
ippy
Use of the word credible is unfortunate here Ippy because it's root Credo means belief.
Look. When ever Jesus is brought up Jesus is either a myth or an agglomeration of characters or a magician.
The gospels are always a work of fiction, or they were written after a supposed safe period of time to be taken seriously.....a period of time we can add not applied to any other histories. There is according to unbelievers no original idea or content, it does not add anything new which isn't already in religion, it is also berated for not being authentically jewish even though the Judaism in mind is post Christian rabbinic Judaism.
As well as that if we haven't covered most non believers Miracles never happen and when that is announced people who will happily bleat about the problem of induction remain mysteriously silent out of partiality for their atheist friends and if you can get one who hasn't bottled at the question of what would you do if you saw a resurrection they would probably say science will come up with a natural explanation.
Now yes all these amount cumulatively to a heavy duty bit of God Evading but they are you will note positive assertions but are never demonstrated beyond the assertion state and now there is a bit of a craze among he atheist colleagues to deny adherence to whichever point one wishes to argue!!!!!!
And then of course any philosophical approach is sneered at.
Now having said all that I think all the aforementioned would put even any reasonable non believer off association with this forum.
-
Use of the word credible is unfortunate here Ippy because it's root Credo means belief.
Look. When ever Jesus is brought up Jesus is either a myth or an agglomeration of characters or a magician.
The gospels are always a work of fiction, or they were written after a supposed safe period of time to be taken seriously.....a period of time we can add not applied to any other histories. There is according to unbelievers no original idea or content, it does not add anything new which isn't already in religion, it is also berated for not being authentically jewish even though the Judaism in mind is post Christian rabbinic Judaism.
As well as that if we haven't covered most non believers Miracles never happen and when that is announced people who will happily bleat about the problem of induction remain mysteriously silent out of partiality for their atheist friends and if you can get one who hasn't bottled at the question of what would you do if you saw a resurrection they would probably say science will come up with a natural explanation.
Now yes all these amount cumulatively to a heavy duty bit of God Evading but they are you will note positive assertions but are never demonstrated beyond the assertion state and now there is a bit of a craze among he atheist colleagues to deny adherence to whichever point one wishes to argue!!!!!!
And then of course any philosophical approach is sneered at.
Now having said all that I think all the aforementioned would put even any reasonable non believer off association with this forum.
Added to your particular brand mixture of bullshit, bollocks, sarcasm, and WUMishness? Yeah, pretty much.
What and whom you do not like you belittle, and without your assistance we would not be able to put off half as many people as we now do.
Thanks, Vlad, for your help in this endeavour, much appreciated.
-
Presumably this will have arguments for theists that they could use if they want to pay for them
http://www.atheistmovie.com
-
Presumably this will have arguments for theists that they could use if they want to pay for them
http://www.atheistmovie.com
I watched a short part of the film. It was cringe worthy. A total embarrassment wrapped up in a shiny commercial presentation, even worse than the banana episode. Any true Cristian would stay well clear of it.
-
If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48). Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.
So your faith is fiction just like that film. Is that what you are saying?
-
Presumably this will have arguments for theists that they could use if they want to pay for them
http://www.atheistmovie.com
Good movie - up to 3:48 seconds - then the bullshit arguments started - a book does not need God to produce it; it takes ink and paper and people!
If any of those who claimed to be atheists changed their minds because of this film they were either weak minded or not true atheists!
-
If you are really interested, here is the best visual demonstration of faith I've seen. It's Indy's third trial in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqT66AVml48). Watch from about 3:16 in. What is unseen becomes seen when the step of faith is taken.
To cut Sword some clack on this, if we peel back the layers of fantasy in this scene, we could say it is an analogy for an underlying truth common to all - that is for example, we don't know if we like something before we try it. Also in scientific method, searching for explanations involves setting up a hypothesis which can be a shot in the dark to be tested, just as Indie tests with his first footfall. What I don't buy is the extent to which believing something can alter objective reality goes anything beyond a placebo effect. Thus people having faith in a homeopathic remedy might actually get better as a result of their step of faith and likewise, people trying out a religious life might discover that it is to their taste.
-
beyond a placebo effect. Thus people having faith in a homeopathic remedy might actually get better as a result of their step of faith and likewise, people trying out a religious life might discover that it is to their taste.
could be, but it doesn't make it true though and that's where the problems start.
-
could be, but it doesn't make it true though and that's where the problems start.
But nor does that make it untrue, Walter. There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine. Quinine comes to mind.
There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue. Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.
-
Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue,
On what are you basing your assessment of probability here?
-
But nor does that make it untrue, Walter. There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine. Quinine comes to mind.
There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue. Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.
Since science is methodological naturalustic, and the quinine example is a naturalistic claim, all of the above us irrelevant to your supernatural claims. You need a supernaturalistic methodology, you know the one that despite being asked for hundreds of times, you never provide?
-
Since science is methodological naturalustic, and the quinine example is a naturalistic claim, all of the above us irrelevant to your supernatural claims. You need a supernaturalistic methodology, you know the one that despite being asked for hundreds of times, you never provide?
HOPE
either provide your method to test the supernatural (as you call it) or never mention it again .
-
To cut Sword some clack on this, if we peel back the layers of fantasy in this scene, we could say it is an analogy for an underlying truth common to all - that is for example, we don't know if we like something before we try it. Also in scientific method, searching for explanations involves setting up a hypothesis which can be a shot in the dark to be tested, just as Indie tests with his first footfall. What I don't buy is the extent to which believing something can alter objective reality goes anything beyond a placebo effect. Thus people having faith in a homeopathic remedy might actually get better as a result of their step of faith and likewise, people trying out a religious life might discover that it is to their taste.
This is something that baffles me - why can Christians not just accept that their faith gives them comfort, some wise words, and whatever? There are a set of symbols, which I find impressive, there are rituals, ditto, and so on. I don't understand why anyone wants to go beyond this, and argue that it's 'true', whatever that means. I was thinking of the Buddhist phrase, if you see Buddha on the road, kill him, which I take to mean that as soon as you have built a mental edifice of some kind, this is idolatry, and blocks out life.
-
Well , we are up to reply44 and I'm still no wiser.
If it were all true surly by now I would have become a follower of Christianity, Islam , Buddhism, Judaism or any other faith you care to mention but I havnt .Can anyone see what the problem is?
-
Given the earlier film didn't help, maybe this will help the theists. It's the site which covers the theories of the 'world's smartest man'
http://www.ctmu.org
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
-
Given the earlier film didn't help, maybe this will help the theists. It's the site which covers the theories of the 'world's smartest man'
http://www.ctmu.org
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_Langan
OH dear, oh dear. I saw him on the BBC with Michael Mosely.
Just another nutter. He reminds me of Deepak Chopra
-
Hope,
But nor does that make it untrue, Walter. There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine. Quinine comes to mind.
There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue. Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.
Hope-ism:
1. As articles of personal faith lots of people think lots of conjectures to be true.
2. Absent a method to investigate faith claims, those conjectures are not falsification apt.
3. Independent of the faiths of those who believe in them, sometimes the naturalistic tools of logic and science will verify some of those
conjectures.
4. Therefore – um – God!
What’s that you say – “what about step 3?”
Er, is that the time already? Must dash!
-
Blue,
you crack me up :)
-
OH dear, oh dear. I saw him on the BBC with Michael Mosely.
Just another nutter. He reminds me of Deepak Chopra
He's Deepak squared
-
But nor does that make it untrue, Walter. There have been a number of thinks that have been used in medicine over the centuries that have only been proved to be efficacious by modern medicine. Quinine comes to mind.
So what? That the chemistry of how substances once used as medicines 'worked' was once not known and is now better understood makes no difference to the known early efficacy of the substances in question, although more knowledge comes better understanding of these substances and of course the development of synthetic versions and classes of medicines not available until modern times.
There is this assumption on the part of some here (an assumption that has no evidentary support that I have ever been given) that says that science will ultimately show faith to be untrue.
Leaving aside the straw man here, since I don't think anyone is saying precisely that, the role of science is not to demonstrate that faith is 'untrue'. For example, one doesn't need science to reject fallacious arguments.
Science is as likely to prove faith true as it is to prove it untrue, especially when one remembers that they are dealing with two very different aspects of reality.
Then you misunderstand science, although we knew that anyway. So these two 'different aspects of reality' are what exactly?
-
JUST PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE...... PLEASE
OR admit you have none. I would rather accept that than the ridiculous arguments you think you have to support your claims.
You could say 'i have no proof ,I have no evidence, its purely unsupported faith in something I want to be true' A least that way you would be telling the truth.
-
Dear Walt,
You want evidence! Just go and look in a mirror, all the evidence you need, and yes! God does have a sense of humour.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Walt,
You want evidence! Just go and look in a mirror, all the evidence you need, and yes! God does have a sense of humour.
Gonnagle.
Dear Gonnagle
that was funny. thanks
did you know, when god created you he gave you a finite number of words. Use them wisely ;D
-
This is something that baffles me - why can Christians not just accept that their faith gives them comfort, some wise words, and whatever? There are a set of symbols, which I find impressive, there are rituals, ditto, and so on.
I have been trying to get this over for as long as I can remember on this forum.
I am, by the standards of some, a religious man.
I believe in my deities, unlike others I believe that there are more than one and they are of (at least) two sexes.
I believe that they are more worthy of my respect than Christ and his father because they do not set themselves up as being more perfect that or superior to we humans and happily show that they are prey to the same weaknesses and foibles as we.
Nor do they demand our unquestioning obedience and grovelling respect in order that our bodiesd be allowed to rest easy in our graves.
Yes, I believe that they possess powers that we do not, I believe that they control things like winds, seas and storms.
BUT! Bloody big BUT, I do not insist that they are the only deities that exist, they are neither superior to or inferior to any other deities.
I admit, and here is the biggest difference between my beliefs and those of the ULTRA-Christians of all sects and levels of belief here, I know that my beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are a matter of faith and not, so far as I, or, in my opinion, anyone else can show evidentially, factual/real.
Christians, especially several on here, call Christianity their faith but insist it is fact on the basis of a book that might just have been relevent 2,000 years ago, that has, over the centuries, had to be updated due to ever-increasing knowledge of our world and its history, but which had not been so updated for so long that it is no longer of an use outside belief/faith!
-
JUST PRODUCE YOUR EVIDENCE...... PLEASE
OR admit you have none. I would rather accept that than the ridiculous arguments you think you have to support your claims.
You could say 'i have no proof ,I have no evidence, its purely unsupported faith in something I want to be true' A least that way you would be telling the truth.
DO NOT HOLD YOUR BREATH WAITING FOR AN ANSWER! but, if you do, give us the details of your funeral so we can attend in respeect of your efforts to move an immoveable object! HOPE!
-
but which had not been so updated for so long that it is no longer of an use outside belief/faith!
Or an outside lav.
-
Owlswing - yes, that's it. Pagans generally don't seem to insist on the actual existence of their deities, well, not as Christians do, nor on arguments which demonstrate the 'truth' of their ideas.
I see religions as sets of symbols, which have different meanings, and may be interesting or not. I often give the example of my local shaman, who talks about power animals. I quite enjoy listening to her stuff, but I don't take it literally, but symbolically. For some reason, Christians never do this, not sure why. Maybe they were seduced by the scientific revolution, dunno.
-
Owlswing
I admire your honesty
thank you
-
I believe that they are more worthy of my respect than Christ and his father because they do not set themselves up as being more perfect that or superior to we humans and happily show that they are prey to the same weaknesses and foibles as we.
Could it be that they are just that - 'prey to weaknesses and foibles as we (are)' - that makes them unattractive to such as me, owl?
Nor do they demand our unquestioning obedience and grovelling respect in order that our bodiesd be allowed to rest easy in our graves.
Interestingly enough, The Christian God does none of this either, so what's the complaint?
BUT! Bloody big BUT, I do not insist that they are the only deities that exist, they are neither superior to or inferior to any other deities.
So, what makes them worth respecting ot treating in a worthy fashion?
I admit, and here is the biggest difference between my beliefs and those of the ULTRA-Christians of all sects and levels of belief here, I know that my beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are a matter of faith and not, so far as I, or, in my opinion, anyone else can show evidentially, factual/real.
Christians, especially several on here, call Christianity their faith but insist it is fact on the basis of a book that might just have been relevent 2,000 years ago, that has, over the centuries, had to be updated due to ever-increasing knowledge of our world and its history, but which had not been so updated for so long that it is no longer of an use outside belief/faith!
Might I point out, Owl, that the book you so happily disparage has never been 'up-dated' due to any 'ever-increasing knowledge of our world' - if anything that ever-increasing knowledge has simply added detail to what the Bible says. I accept that the language has had to change over the centuries, but that has more to do with the way in which language changes over time and the number of languages it has been translated into has grown than with any increased knowledge. I also think that you forget that Christians don't claim that their God is the only deity - the Bible is full of references to other deities. What is different is that this deity claimed that he is the only one who has the best for humanity at heart. The fact that some humans have used the faith that people have in said deity to their own ends is a different matter - and could probably apply in the case of your deities as well.
All that said, perhaps you would care to rephrase your complaints.
-
You could say 'i have no proof ,I have no evidence, its purely unsupported faith in something I want to be true' A least that way you would be telling the truth.
I suppose we could just say that, Walter, especially the highlighted bits but it would be lying - and you obviously don't want us to lie.
-
Could it be that they are just that - 'prey to weaknesses and foibles as we (are)' - that makes them unattractive to such as me, owl?
Interestingly enough, The Christian God does none of this either, so what's the complaint?
So, what makes them worth respecting ot treating in a worthy fashion?
I admit, and here is the biggest difference between my beliefs and those of the ULTRA-Christians of all sects and levels of belief here, I know that my beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are a matter of faith and not, so far as I, or, in my opinion, anyone else can show evidentially, factual/real.
Might I point out, Owl, that the book you so happily disparage has never been 'up-dated' due to any 'ever-increasing knowledge of our world' - if anything that ever-increasing knowledge has simply added detail to what the Bible says. I accept that the language has had to change over the centuries, but that has more to do with the way in which language changes over time and the number of languages it has been translated into has grown than with any increased knowledge. I also think that you forget that Christians don't claim that their God is the only deity - the Bible is full of references to other deities. What is different is that this deity claimed that he is the only one who has the best for humanity at heart. The fact that some humans have used the faith that people have in said deity to their own ends is a different matter - and could probably apply in the case of your deities as well.
All that said, perhaps you would care to rephrase your complaints.
Just quick poll on here of Christians, how many of you are polytheists like Hope?
-
Dear Walt,
I am being perfectly serious ( it's God that is having a laugh ) do you see the trillions of atoms that go to make you, no! Do you see the billions of neurons firing away between your lugoles!! No! Do you see that wonderful thing you/we call the imagination, no!! Do you see that wonderful uniqueness, no!! We are all unique! All the evidence you will ever need.
Of course, if you are a complete skeptic and the above does not convince you that we are more than just the sum of our parts then go and listen to our greatest composers or our greatest poets or even gaze upon a beautiful work of art, all evidence for God.
Now go and worship him/her/it, a simple thanks will suffice, or better still, go and help one of his less fortunate children, your place in heaven will be guaranteed.
Say Amen Brother, Amen.
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Walt,
I am being perfectly serious ( it's God that is having a laugh ) do you see the trillions of atoms that go to make you, no! Do you see the billions of neurons firing away between your lugoles!! No! Do you see that wonderful thing you/we call the imagination, no!! Do you see that wonderful uniqueness, no!! We are all unique! All the evidence you will ever need.
Of course, if you are a complete skeptic and the above does not convince you that we are more than just the sum of our parts then go and listen to our greatest composers or our greatest poets or even gaze upon a beautiful work of art, all evidence for God.
Now go and worship him/her/it, a simple thanks will suffice, or better still, go and help one of his less fortunate children, your place in heaven will be guaranteed.
Say Amen Brother, Amen.
Gonnagle.
and you say it all with a straight face , well done, that must be a skill.
-
Or an outside lav.
8) LOL! ::) ::)
-
Maybe they were seduced by the scientific revolution, dunno.
Are you saying, translated into basic language, science has fucked Christianity?
-
Are ypu saying, translated into basic language, science has fucked Christianity?
whatever he is saying the last part of your sentence is true.
-
Language Timothy ! ;D
-
whatever he is saying the last part of your sentence is true.
has it? How?
-
has it? How?
I think you are intentionally in denial if you have to ask that.
-
I think you are intentionally in denial if you have to ask that.
That's nice for you but it's not really an argument, is it?
-
Could it be that they are just that - 'prey to weaknesses and foibles as we (are)' - that makes them unattractive to such as me, owl?
Interestingly enough, The Christian God does none of this either, so what's the complaint?
So, what makes them worth respecting ot treating in a worthy fashion?
I admit, and here is the biggest difference between my beliefs and those of the ULTRA-Christians of all sects and levels of belief here, I know that my beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are a matter of faith and not, so far as I, or, in my opinion, anyone else can show evidentially, factual/real.
Might I point out, Owl, that the book you so happily disparage has never been 'up-dated' due to any 'ever-increasing knowledge of our world' - if anything that ever-increasing knowledge has simply added detail to what the Bible says. I accept that the language has had to change over the centuries, but that has more to do with the way in which language changes over time and the number of languages it has been translated into has grown than with any increased knowledge. I also think that you forget that Christians don't claim that their God is the only deity - the Bible is full of references to other deities. What is different is that this deity claimed that he is the only one who has the best for humanity at heart. The fact that some humans have used the faith that people have in said deity to their own ends is a different matter - and could probably apply in the case of your deities as well.
All that said, perhaps you would care to rephrase your complaints.
I will not rephrase one sentence or change one word!
Why?
Because I am totally fed up with you and your everlasting dismissal of what I say about my beliefs and faith because you and the rest of your pathetic, insecure, bunch of Christians cannot stand to admit that your beliefs are just that. You claim a truth and respect that you and your religion, because of this refusal, deserve neither.
You have had the speciousness of your arguments pointed out to you a million or more times on here by dozens of posters and still you refuse to budge one inch toward what is really the truth and not the bullshit version of the 'truth' peddled by your religion and its adherents.
As I have said here before and am not sorry to repeat, I would hope that there is more truth on your claims for a world wide circle of friends of high educational levels and of all classes and religions, even Kevin Carlyon (King of the White Witches - in his own imagination - every other witch thinks he is an arse), if I remember rightly (if not I apologise) and your world travels and that your career as a teacher was more filled with proven truths than your posts here as if your teaching was as accurate as your posts I dread to think how your students fared in the real world.
You may now re-join Sassy on my list of posters not worth responding to (there are two on it atthe moment) as they never bother listening to anyone but the voice of their God in their ears telling them that what everyone else posts is rubbish to be ignored.
-
That's nice for you but it's not really an argument, is it?
do you want to get into an argument, NS?
-
do you want to get into an argument, NS?
a discussion, where to justify your position you would put forward an argument or set of arguments, would be more interesting to me than you just making statements and not engaging when asked to justify them.
-
Dear Sane,
I think what Wigs is referring to is this,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/12/religion-christianity-belief-science
But during the modern period, scientific logos became so successful that myth was discredited, the logos of scientific rationalism became the only valid path to truth, and Newton and Descartes claimed it was possible to prove God's existence, something earlier Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologians had vigorously denied. Christians bought into the scientific theology, and some embarked on the doomed venture of turning their faith's mythos into logos.
Although I could be completely wrong, it is the Sainted Wigs we are dealing with :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Sane,
I think what Wigs is referring to is this,
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2009/jul/12/religion-christianity-belief-science
Although I could be completely wrong, it is the Sainted Wigs we are dealing with :o
Gonnagle.
Yes, I think that is what he is talking about too, Gonzo. But I don't think he would be of the opinion that 'science has fucked Christianity'
-
Yes, I think that is what he is talking about too, Gonzo. But I don't think he would be of the opinion that 'science has fucked Christianity'
OK - I use the tense of the post I was quoting - maybe I should have said that science is fucking Christianity.
The more science discovers the less relevant, or true, some parts of the Bible clearly are, the Flood for one.
-
Are you saying, translated into basic language, science has fucked Christianity?
Not really. It's as if an inferiority complex came over Christians, so that they had to justify their ideas via argument and evidence, as if it were a scientific proposition. This just produces nonsense usually.
The quote given by Gonners is quite good, from Karen Armstrong, about mythos and logos. I tend to use the word 'symbolic', but it's the same really. Armstrong also stresses practice, rather than belief, or in the old saying, praxis not doxis.
But I'm guessing really. I don't know why Christians get so tied up in the effort to prove their ideas 'true'; maybe they're useful (to some), and leave it at that.
-
OK - I use the tense of the post I was quoting - maybe I should have said that science is fucking Christianity.
The more science discovers the less relevant, or true, some parts of the Bible clearly are, the Flood for one.
Even though the idea of a literal global flood is, of course, nonsense even a grizzled old atheist like me can see that if the tale is allegorical and not literal then its 'value' isn't aimed at likes of me.
-
OK - I use the tense of the post I was quoting - maybe I should have said that science is fucking Christianity.
The more science discovers the less relevant, or true, some parts of the Bible clearly are, the Flood for one.
which is only relevant to Biblical literalists, there are many others who don't take the literal position, and indeed the literal position is in many ways a relative novelty.
-
a discussion, where to justify your position you would put forward an argument or set of arguments, would be more interesting to me than you just making statements and not engaging when asked to justify them.
unfortunately I'm not going to engage in any arguments that revolve around peoples' religious beliefs, that only implies that what they say has any value . I will make statements though (as you put it). It is not up to me to do the justifying.
thank you.
-
unfortunately I'm not going to engage in any arguments that revolve around peoples' religious beliefs, that only implies that what they say has any value . I will make statements though (as you put it). It is not up to me to do the justifying.
thank you.
Your claim, your burden of proof. To quote the St Christopher of Hutchens, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
-
Not really. It's as if an inferiority complex came over Christians, so that they had to justify their ideas via argument and evidence, as if it were a scientific proposition. This just produces nonsense usually.
The quote given by Gonners is quite good, from Karen Armstrong, about mythos and logos. I tend to use the word 'symbolic', but it's the same really. Armstrong also stresses practice, rather than belief, or in the old saying, praxis not doxis.
But I'm guessing really. I don't know why Christians get so tied up in the effort to prove their ideas 'true'; maybe they're useful (to some), and leave it at that.
As you know, I'm in agreement with you on this. The obsession that some seem to have to go down the resemblance of the scientific method send to miss the point of both science and religion.
-
Your claim, your burden of proof. To quote the St Christopher of Hutchens, that which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
dead right NS ,oh and btw its Hitchens and he's no saint
-
dead right NS ,oh and btw its Hitchens and he's no saint
Which, therefore, means that since you are unwilling to put forward any argument for your position, you agree that your position should be dismissed.
-
Which, therefore, means that since you are unwilling to put forward any argument for your position, you agree that your position should be dismissed.
You are confusing position with claim . I make no claims , my position can be validated if you care to find the information.
-
You are confusing position with claim . I make no claims , my position can be validated if you care to find the information.
To go back to what I asked to you to justify?
Owlswing wrote:
'Are ypu saying, translated into basic language, science has fucked Christianity?'
To which you replied:
'whatever he is saying the last part of your sentence is true.'
Stating something to be true here is both a position and a claim. A claim that you are refusing to justify. Therefore since you think Hitchens was right, you think your own position should be dismissed. Asking others to prove it true or false us simply a shifting the burden of proof.
-
which is only relevant to Biblical literalists, there are many others who don't take the literal position, and indeed the literal position is in many ways a relative novelty.
how do you arrive at that conclusion ? relative novelty.
-
To go back to what I asked to you to justify?
Owlswing wrote:
'Are ypu saying, translated into basic language, science has fucked Christianity?'
To which you replied:
'whatever he is saying the last part of your sentence is true.'
Stating something to be true here is both a position and a claim. A claim that you are refusing to justify. Therefore since you think Hitchens was right, you think your own position should be dismissed. Asking others to prove it true or false us simply a shifting the burden of proof.
oh dear, it is not my claim, as in Evolution does not belong to Darwin. It is plain to see what science has done to Christianity, you can find that information for yourself if you want to
-
how do you arrive at that conclusion ? relative novelty.
It's a description rather than a conclusion, and it's one that was qualified so I'll expand on it. It is clear that it has not been Christianity's sole opinion that everything in the Bible is literally true, as we can see given that Augustine warned against such thinking. That said, there is obviously some ideas that have been challenged which have essentially been seen as literally true e.g. the idea that the sun orbited the earth, though teven there sine of the strength of reaction against that idea cane from the high regard for Aristotle. Further, the Copernican revolution, came from a strong Christian.
It's then when as covered in wigginhall and Gonnagle's posts on here you get a set, and sects. Of Christianity who react in two ways to the scientific revolution. One set going down the rational apologetics route, and creating 'rational' arguments for Christianity, arguably starting with Descartes, and nowadays most prominently represented by William Lane Craig (which I cannot but help think is a sad decline). The other set became in reaction to the challenge fixed on the idea that science could be in opposition to the Bible as they read and had to then be challenged, and this is definitely clear and known in the late 1700s.
Now whether that qualifies as relative novelty over the course of 2 thousand years, and with the strand of thought extant before that in Judaism that the OT was allegorical, is a matter if opinion and perspective but certainly is what it seems to me.
-
oh dear, it is not my claim, as in Evolution does not belong to Darwin. It is plain to see what science has done to Christianity, you can find that information for yourself if you want to
Evasion and continued lack of evidence, along with repeated assertion noted.
-
Evasion and continued lack of evidence, along with repeated assertion noted.
Only just now?
-
Evasion and continued lack of evidence, along with repeated assertion noted.
we seem to be getting into a muddle here NS .I refer you to the OP
And I'm not evading anything and any assertions I make can be backed up with evidence open to all. Anybody can look it up
-
we seem to be getting into a muddle here NS .I refer you to the OP
And I'm not evading anything and any assertions I make can be backed up with evidence open to all. Anybody can look it up
He asserted.
-
We seem to be getting into a muddle here NS. I refer you to the OP
And I'm not evading anything and any assertions I make can be backed up with evidence open to all. Anybody can look it up
Walter
My I offer you a piece of advice?
Beware of NS! He is a long time denizen of this forum and is a Devil's Advocate of considerable experience and skill!
He can sit on a 5-row barbed wire fence in his shreddies and feel no pain and experience no injury!
-
Walter
My I offer you a piece of advice?
Beware of NS! He is a long time denizen of this forum and is a Devil's Advocate of considerable experience and skill!
He can sit on a 5-row barbed wire fence in his shreddies and feel no pain and expeience no injury!
You say the sweetest things, dear old wol.
-
Walter
My I offer you a piece of advice?
Beware of NS! He is a long time denizen of this forum and is a Devil's Advocate of considerable experience and skill!
He can sit on a 5-row barbed wire fence in his shreddies and feel no pain and expeience no injury!
I have no fear, but thanks anyway.
-
Walter,
Blue,
you crack me up
Thanks (I think!).
Sadly, levity aside, it's exactly Hope-ism, which is presumably why he's just ignored it. I'll readily bet you though my last Rolo that after going quiet for a bit he'll return yet again with an NPF "argument". He is it seems addicted to it.
-
You say the sweetest things, dear old wol.
Why, thank you, kind Sir!
-
Walter,
Thanks (I think!).
Sadly, levity aside, it's exactly Hope-ism, which is presumably why he's just ignored it. I'll readily bet you though my last Rolo that after going quiet for a bit he'll return yet again with an NPF "argument". He is it seems addicted to it.
He is addicted to anything that he thinks will turn his opponents arrows of truth astray!
-
Walter,
I'll readily bet you though my last Rolo that after going quiet for a bit he'll return yet again with an NPF "argument". He is it seems addicted to it.
I haven't been checking, or keeping a record, but I think Sword of the Spirit might be doing a similar thing.
-
I haven't been checking, or keeping a record, but I think Sword of the Spirit might be doing a similar thing.
You only think? Blimey, you are hard to convince!
-
Susan,
I haven't been checking, or keeping a record, but I think Sword of the Spirit might be doing a similar thing.
Yup, he too just ignores the rebuttals that undo him and repeats his original errors - which is why I don't bother now with the rebuttals.
-
Susan,
Yup, he too just ignores the rebuttals that undo him and repeats his original errors - which is why I don't bother now with the rebuttals.
Does anyone? Bother with rebuttals, I mean!
-
Owls,
Does anyone? Bother with rebuttals, I mean!
Some at least try to engage with them, yes. Hope, Sword et al on the other hand post the equivalent of "2+2=5", have the errors corrected, then post "2+2=5" in reply - over and over again.
-
Hope, Sword et al on the other hand post the equivalent of "2+2=5", have the errors corrected, then post "2+2=5" in reply - over and over again.
Ok, being as you brought this up...
2+2≠5. Can you prove this, or do you need to hide behind you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming what 2+2 equals, or some other.
If you can prove it, why do you have a problem justifying your position? There are enough claims on this thread implying religious belief is wrong, so over to those doing so to prove it. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for criticizing any religious believer.
I outlined when I first started posting here one approach you and others could use but all I got were excuses. What's the betting I will return later and find a smorgasbord of more excuses? 100% perhaps? ;)
-
Not really. It's as if an inferiority complex came over Christians, so that they had to justify their ideas via argument and evidence, as if it were a scientific proposition.
That would be regrettable indeed.....being spooked by a handful of guys who have got to think that what they do for a job, methodological naturalism, is in fact the way the world is.....philosophical naturalism.
We have to remember too that many who don't really know about science but as the old Guinness advert went, like the men who drink it and mistook science for PN.
-
Ok, being as you brought this up...
2+2≠5. Can you prove this, or do you need to hide behind you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming what 2+2 equals, or some other.
If you can prove it, why do you have a problem justifying your position? There are enough claims on this thread implying religious belief is wrong, so over to those doing so to prove it. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for criticizing any religious believer.
I outlined when I first started posting here one approach you and others could use but all I got were excuses. What's the betting I will return later and find a smorgasbord of more excuses? 100% perhaps? ;)
Really Sword - you are beginning to sound like Stanley Unwin!
-
Sword,
Ok, being as you brought this up...
2+2≠5. Can you prove this, or do you need to hide behind you can't prove a negative, the burden of proof lies with the one claiming what 2+2 equals, or some other.
Depends what you mean by “prove”, but essentially yes.
If you can prove it, why do you have a problem justifying your position?
I don’t.
There are enough claims on this thread implying religious belief is wrong…
Just to correct you here (again) – what they actually “imply” is that there’s no reason to think they’re right, a fundamentally different matter (essentially the meaning of a-theism). Any guess might be right just by dumb luck, but you have all your work ahead of you still to build a logical path from the guess (or as you’d call it, “faith”) “God” to “more probably right than wrong”, let alone to “certainly right”.
…so over to those doing so to prove it. Until then, you are in a position unsuitable for criticizing any religious believer.
A straw man you’ve attempted many times despite having pointed out to you may times that it is a straw man. Why then persist with it?
I outlined when I first started posting here one approach you and others could use but all I got were excuses. What's the betting I will return later and find a smorgasbord of more excuses? 100% perhaps?
No you didn’t. What you actually got was logically cogent rebuttals that you just ignored, following which you repeated your mistakes.
Why not instead finally engage with the rebuttals?
-
You're not worth it pall
Id rather reason with a dish cloth at least it has a use
No you wouldn't, otherwise you wouldn't have responded to my post.
-
Really Sword - you are beginning to sound like Stanley Unwin!
Two responses to my post. Zero proof.
You guys always avoid anything that would call your stance into question.
2+2≠5. Can you prove that?
-
Sword,
Two responses to my post. Zero proof.
You guys always avoid anything that would call your stance into question.
2+2≠5. Can you prove that?
Again, you'll need to tell us what you mean by "proof" but in its usual mathematical sense then yes. Why is this difficult for you?
-
Again, you'll need to tell us what you mean by "proof" but in its usual mathematical sense then yes. Why is this difficult for you?
Ok then, outline your proof (in the mathematical sense) here. I want to see your approach before proceeding.
-
I remember vaguely a very long proof that 1 + 1 = 2. I think it took Russell and Whitehead 300 pages, but then they began with very sparse axioms. Or, for 2 + 2 = 4:
S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))
-
I remember vaguely a very long proof that 1 + 1 = 2. I...
Ok, I'll change the question slightly. Show/demonstrate that 2+2≠5.
-
Sword,
Ok, I'll change the question slightly. Show/demonstrate that 2+2≠5.
Why? There are plenty of books on algebra, and it's trivially easy to do. In response though I suspect you'd just dive down your usual rabbit hole of bad reasoning, and round we'd go again. Changing the starting conditions for example can produce a different answer but the "worldview" employed would still be logic, and it would say nothing whatever about conjectures on the supernatural ("God" etc) in any case.
-
I remember vaguely a very long proof that 1 + 1 = 2. I think it took Russell and Whitehead 300 pages, but then they began with very sparse axioms. Or, for 2 + 2 = 4:
S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))
Wiggs don't allow this idiot to make you perform like a circus act just for his perverted amusment
-
Wiggs don't allow this idiot to make you perform like a circus act just for his perverted amusment
S'OK, I'm doing it for my own perverted amusement.
-
Ok, I'll change the question slightly. Show/demonstrate that 2+2≠5.
First, please define '2', '≠', '+', and '5'.
-
First, please define '2', '≠', '+', and '5'.
Assume base 10.
The numerals 2 and 5.
+: The mathematical operation add
≠: Not equals to.
Does that help?
-
First, please define '2', '≠', '+', and '5'.
ill leave you to it then, 8)
-
ill leave you to it then, 8)
2+2≠5. I could go to the primary school down the road and just about every child will have no problem answering this question. What skill do they possess that some on this forum don't?
-
Assume base 10.
The numerals 2 and 5.
+: The mathematical operation add
≠: Not equals to.
Does that help?
Not really. You need to define what numerals are. Thus, using Peano axioms, 2 = S(S(0)), and so on. Now we are getting closer, since S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))), and not S(S(S(S(S(0))))).
-
2+2≠5. I could go to the primary school down the road and just about every child will have no problem answering this question. What skill do they possess that some on this forum don't?
There is one thing that all the children I ever taught were not and that is smug.
-
I admit, and here is the biggest difference between my beliefs and those of the ULTRA-Christians of all sects and levels of belief here, I know that my beliefs are just that, beliefs, they are a matter of faith and not, so far as I, or, in my opinion, anyone else can show evidentially, factual/real.
Haaaa-llelujah hallelujah hallelujah Haaaalle-lujah [imagine the tune of the relevant chorus from Handel's Messiah].
If you had said this from the off instead of banging on about the alleged evidence in the gospel accounts etc, many a discussion on this forum would have been far shorter.
-
Not really. You need to define what numerals are. Thus, using Peano axioms, 2 = S(S(0)), and so on. Now we are getting closer, since S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S(S(S(S(0)))), and not S(S(S(S(S(0))))).
So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?
2+2≠5
6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.
-
There is one thing that all the children I ever taught were not and that is smug.
When you asked a child a question, did they always avoid giving you a straight answer?
You seem to look for any excuse to avoid answering the question. Why is that?
-
I am being perfectly serious ( it's God that is having a laugh ) do you see the trillions of atoms that go to make you, no! Do you see the billions of neurons firing away between your lugoles!! No! Do you see that wonderful thing you/we call the imagination, no!! Do you see that wonderful uniqueness, no!!
You can't see the atoms because they are too small. You can't see the neurones because they are both too small and on the inside of your skull. However these, and your imagination are all part of the natural world and there's no reason to suppose that the intervention of a god was necessary to make them exist.
We are all unique!
I'm not.
All the evidence you will ever need.
Evidence of what?
Of course, if you are a complete skeptic and the above does not convince you that we are more than just the sum of our parts then go and listen to our greatest composers or our greatest poets or even gaze upon a beautiful work of art, all evidence for God.
All of our greatest poets and artists were humans doing the best they could with a human brain. Why do you think a god was necessary for Beethoven to create his Ninth Symphony. You are doing a disservice to the power of the human mind (or some human minds, at any rate - I'm pretty sure that nobody posting on this board has created anything half as good as the Mona Lisa).
-
So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?
2+2≠5
6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.
I suspect that they think you are derailing the thread.
-
Sword,
So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?
2+2≠5
6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.
We can do it. We also know though that if we do you'll attempt some entirely specious response along the lines of, "but in this circumstance that proof can be shown to be wrong, therefore - ooh what's that flying past the window everyone? - God! Ta-daaaa!"
Your problem of course is that there's no logic of any kind to support your conclusion.
Incidentally, having corrected you earlier on your straw man version of atheism (ie, 'there's no way to distinguish between your faith claim and one that's just made up" vs "it's just made up") it wouldn't hurt for you to acknowledge the point so as to avoid making the mistake again in future.
-
2+2≠5. Can you prove that?
I can. Do you want a mathematical proof or an experiment that merely produces overwhelming evidence?
-
I remember vaguely a very long proof that 1 + 1 = 2. I think it took Russell and Whitehead 300 pages,
I think that was commutativity i.e. for all a and b a+ b = b + a.
but then they began with very sparse axioms. Or, for 2 + 2 = 4:
S(S(0)) + S(S(0)) = S( S(S(0)) + S(0) )
= S( S( S(S(0)) + 0 ) )
= S(S(S(S(0))))
The looks very much like TNT, are you a Hofstadter fan?
-
(ie, 'there's no way to distinguish between your faith claim and one that's just made up" vs "it's just made up")
Hillsides......Even hardened skeptics aren't impressed by the equation of fairies and Leprechauns with God....Pack it in.
-
Alex Jones is looking particularly gorgeous on the One Show tonight
A veritable latter day Gladys Pugh.
-
Hillsides......Even hardened skeptics aren't impressed by the equation of fairies and Leprechauns with God....Pack it in.
In which yet again Vlad fails to grasp the import of bluehillside's fourth maxim, namely: If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.
Naively I used to think it would sink in eventually, but now I'm pretty sure it never will.
Ah well.
-
Hillsides......Even hardened skeptics aren't impressed by the equation of fairies and Leprechauns with God....Pack it in.
Why should he/we "pack it in"? That would be like calling a ceasefire and allowing the opposition to keep firing! When your lot pack it in - see SOTS - so will we!
Until then - keep your head below the parapet Vlad!
-
Owls,
How in the name of all that is holy do you expect anything to sink into rock hard ferro-concrete?
Dunno. Osmosis? Rust? Thinking sure as hell ain't gonna do it though...
-
Why should he/we "pack it in"? That would be like calling a ceasefire and allowing the opposition to keep firing! When your lot pack it in - see SOTS - so will we!
Until then - keep your head below the parapet Vlad!
who are these 'opposition' and 'we' you are talking about?
-
In which yet again Vlad fails to grasp the import of bluehillside's fourth maxim, namely: If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.
Naively I used to think it would sink in eventually, but now I'm pretty sure it never will.
Ah well.
Be honest Hillside it only hits home if it's all arguments not just one argument.
You could easily substitute PN for God and where would that leave philosophical naturalism? Even your brand of PN Hillside which is the philosophical equivalent of a spiv.....a little bit wahay, a little bit woho.
-
Vlad,
Be honest Hillside it only hits home if it's all arguments not just one argument.
In which Vlad fails to grasp that it applies to any argument that works equally for "God" and for leprechauns. That there may or may not be different arguments that work only for god (or only for leprechauns) is a separate matter.
Thus you could throw, say, Hope's beloved NPF into the hopper, see that bluehillside's fourth maxim applies and so discard it immediately in favour of something else. Simples eh?
You could easily substitute PN for God and where would that leave philosophical naturalism?
In which Vlad tries to slip in his personal redefinition of a term he's had explained countless times in the hope that no-one notices the sleight of hand.
Even your brand of PN Hillside which is the philosophical equivalent of a spiv.....a little bit wahay, a little bit woho.
And then does it again, hoping that "my brand" carves out a different meaning from the standard definition even though they're one and the same.
-
Owls,
Dunno. Osmosis? Rust? Thinking sure as hell ain't gonna do it though...
LMAO!
-
who are these 'opposition' and 'we' you are talking about?
Opposition = Vlad/SOTS etc
We = any no-Christian who is trying to talk some kind of sense.
You do not have to join the 'we' if you do not wish to,
-
Opposition = Vlad/SOTS etc
We = any no-Christian who is trying to talk some kind of sense.
You do not have to join the 'we' if you do not wish to,
So no Christians talk sense?
-
So no Christians talk sense?
Not on this forum (when 'discussing' Christianity), no.
-
NS,
So no Christians talk sense?
Well, if "sense" is a naturalistic concept used to demonstrate a supernatural conjecture, can it still be sense?
I'll get me coat...
-
Not on this forum (when 'discussing' Christianity), no.
Ah well I will kindly absent myself from your 'we' as I have too much time for the likes of Gonzo, Brownie and Anchorman and their posting
-
Ah well I will kindly absent myself from your 'we' as I have too much time for the likes of Gonzo, Brownie and Anchorman and their posting
Ah yes. But they come from the moderate and not the Ultra wing and they find themselves spending far too much time repairing damage to the reputation of Christian thought wrought by the Ultra's
-
Ah yes. But they come from the moderate and not the Ultra wing and they find themselves spending far too much time repairing damage to the reputation of Christian thought wrought by the Ultra's
is this like the Sharks and the Jets? Will there be singing and dancing?
-
is this like the Sharks and the Jets? Will there be singing and dancing?
Goddess! I hope not!
-
Ah yes. But they come from the moderate and not the Ultra wing and they find themselves spending far too much time repairing damage to the reputation of Christian thought wrought by the Ultra's
By the Ultra's what?
-
By the Ultra's what?
Unnecessary apostrophe - guilty!
Sorry!
-
Ah well I will kindly absent myself from your 'we' as I have too much time for the likes of Gonzo, Brownie and Anchorman and their posting
Yes it is a mistake to think that Christians (or indeed any other grouping I can think of come to that) are homogenous.
-
Yes it is a mistake to think that Christians (or indeed any other grouping I can think of come to that) are homogenous.
or indeed that something like Christianity tells you much about a person at all
-
Opposition = Vlad/SOTS etc
We = any no-Christian who is trying to talk some kind of sense.
Still doesn't make "we" the correct word to use in your case Owls, since you rarely if ever talk sense.
-
Still doesn't make "we" the correct word to use in your case Owls, since you rarely if ever talk sense.
Pot and kettle, Gabby dear! ;D
-
Pot and kettle, Gabby dear! ;D
Sure, whatever that means in Flooland - thanks dear x
-
Write whatever you want to say in a reply. Then scroll down to the post which you want to quote, highlight the relevant bits and click on Quote.
You can also add something afterwards. The quote will be in its own box.
PS I have decided I am an Ultra Christian because one definition is "Far out", and I aspiring to being far out, man
(I'll get me coat).
-
Still doesn't make "we" the correct word to use in your case Owls, since you rarely if ever talk sense.
By your definition of sense, maybe, but some of your posts make little or no sense to me and that is what Floo's comment means, an english experession - the pot calling the kettle black - I am sure that your monumental intellect will soon work this one out.
-
Not really. It's as if an inferiority complex came over Christians, so that they had to justify their ideas via argument and evidence, as if it were a scientific proposition. This just produces nonsense usually.
The quote given by Gonners is quite good, from Karen Armstrong, about mythos and logos. I tend to use the word 'symbolic', but it's the same really. Armstrong also stresses practice, rather than belief, or in the old saying, praxis not doxis.
But I'm guessing really. I don't know why Christians get so tied up in the effort to prove their ideas 'true'; maybe they're useful (to some), and leave it at that.
Some Muslims these days also do the whole "true" or "logical" thing in relation to religious beliefs, but when pinned down some accept that just because you don't know what the first cause in the universe, if any, was, that does not prove the existence of any particular concept of God. It still remains a belief in a concept, defined in limited ways by different people as a statement of identity. I have no idea how prevalent this was a few centuries ago.
http://islam-science.net/does-islam-stand-against-science-2-3199/#
Harun Yahya seems to tap into the fears and uncertainties of various Muslim communities. But what do educated Muslims think about evolution? That’s the question Hampshire College’s Hameed is asking in an ambitious three-year study supported by the National Science Foundation. Now halfway through the survey, Hameed is interviewing physicians and medical students in five Muslim countries and three Muslim diasporas in the West.
He has found that attitudes about evolution vary greatly from country to country. For instance, most Pakistani doctors accepted evolution, even human evolution. “But in Malaysia, we were really surprised to find a major rejection of not only human evolution but evolution in general,” he says.
Hameed expected to find more acceptance of modern science because Malaysia has a sophisticated high-tech industry. He and his colleagues now speculate that Muslims are trying to carve out a cultural niche that’s distinct from the more educated Indians and Chinese in Malaysia. “We think the rejection of evolution has become part of their Muslim identity,” he says.
-
By your definition of sense, maybe, but some of your posts make little or no sense to me and that is what Floo's comment means, an english experession - the pot calling the kettle black - I am sure that your monumental intellect will soon work this one out.
Ok, so all you and Floo seem to be arguing here is that "sense" is based on each person's individual definition of the word "sense". As in what makes sense to you as you write it might not make any sense to anyone else; what makes sense to Floo as she writes it might not make sense to anyone else; what makes sense to me as I write it might not make sense to anyone else. We're all pots calling kettles black according to Floo if we label anyone else as not making sense, while claiming "we" make sense. Hence I said, whatever Floo's words means in Flooland - she probably knows what she meant - it probably made sense to her as she wrote it.
When you said "we" you did define it as people who were trying to talk sense - no mention of anyone succeeding. In that case we are all probably trying to talk sense.
-
So why is it that just about every child from probably 6 years old upwards can do what you can't?
2+2≠5
6 year old child. Can do no problem
Some atheists on this forum. Cannot answer the question.
Sword,
We can do it. We also know though that if we do you'll attempt some entirely specious response along the lines of, "but in this circumstance that proof can be shown to be wrong
No, I won't, otherwise why would I be saying that a 6 year old child can demonstrate why 2+2≠5 without any problem?
So, go ahead. I'm interested in how you answer the question (It's not an attempt to derail the thread, by the way). How would you show mathematically that 2+2≠5. You shouldn't need to go beyond Key Stage 1 Maths, if that helps!
-
In which yet again Vlad fails to grasp the import of bluehillside's fourth maxim, namely: If an argument for "God" works equally for leprechauns then it's probably a bad argument.
Naively I used to think it would sink in eventually, but now I'm pretty sure it never will.
Ah well.
Probably because, for the nth time, it is flawed.
Do you really believe leprechauns exist. If so, why? If not, why not?
-
Thus you could throw, say, Hope's beloved NPF into the hopper, ...
You keep on accusing Hope of this. Please provide evidence to show where he has ever claimed or implied that what he has said is true because it hasn't (or cannot) be disproved.
-
Probably because, for the nth time, it is flawed.
Do you really believe leprechauns exist. If so, why? If not, why not?
I'm what way do you think Blue's 4th maxim is flawed?
-
I'm what way do you think Blue's 4th maxim is flawed?
Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God. There is no common frame of reference unless the starting assumption is that all religious belief is made up, therefore also false by default.
-
You keep on accusing Hope of this. Please provide evidence to show where he has ever claimed or implied that what he has said is true because it hasn't (or cannot) be disproved.
Suggest you re-read Hope's posts, and responses to them, for a conglomeration of examples over a considerable period of time. If you wish to dispute where you think the NPF accusation is wrong then by all means quote the post and we can all review it.
-
Sword,
No, I won't, otherwise why would I be saying that a 6 year old child can demonstrate why 2+2≠5 without any problem?
So, go ahead. I'm interested in how you answer the question (It's not an attempt to derail the thread, by the way). How would you show mathematically that 2+2≠5. You shouldn't need to go beyond Key Stage 1 Maths, if that helps!
Yes you will – if you think that any six year old can demonstrate it then clearly you think my or anyone else’s demonstration will be flawed in some way. As your attempts so far to harness maths to support you have been fundamentally misplaced though (and despite your ignoring of the subsequent rebuttals) you have all your work ahead of you still to explain how whatever you have in your head demonstrates “God”.
Probably because, for the nth time, it is flawed.
Do you really believe leprechauns exist. If so, why? If not, why not?
A flaw you’ve yet to demonstrate, and a comment that betrays your continued fundamental misunderstanding of the argument. For the maxim to apply, you merely have to grasp that any argument that works equally for leprechauns and for “God” is probably a bad argument. Actual belief or non-belief in leprechauns is entirely irrelevant for that to be the case.
You keep on accusing Hope of this. Please provide evidence to show where he has ever claimed or implied that what he has said is true because it hasn't (or cannot) be disproved.
Read his posts. Hope is notorious for his repeated use of the “but you can’t disprove it” NPF as if that had anything whatever to say to the truthfulness of the conjecture he’s attempting. His most recent effort for example was a bog-standard NPF, only this time he added the (spurious) rider that sometimes science will verify subsequently some faith conjectures. It’s still the NPF though, whichever way you look at it.
-
#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking, never answering, questions put to him, or something like that.
-
#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking, never answering, questions put to him, or something like that.
You mean Sword is trying to usurp Gordon?
-
Sword,
Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God. There is no common frame of reference unless the starting assumption is that all religious belief is made up, therefore also false by default.
Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...
Whether leprechauns, "God", "X", pixies or anything else is made up is utterly irrelevant to the maxim. Really - made-upness has nothing to do with it: zip; nada; zilch; bugger all. My god, even Vlad was edging toward that realisation yesterday albeit that he then fell off the cliff by thinking that it would have to apply to all arguments rather than to just any of them.
What's being addressed here isn't the object of the belief ("God", leprechauns, whatever) at all. What is being addressed though is the argument(s) used to arrive at that object. Thus for example the NPF is still a very bad argument whether it's used to demonstrate "God", leprechauns or anything else.
To put it another way, even if I was a dyed-in-the wool hard core fundie Christian who thought that the belief "God" wasn't ridiculous at all, I'd still have no choice but to recognise that the NPF is a hopeless way to demonstrate it - especially when I realised that it worked equally for any other conjecture.
That's the point of the maxim. Surely even you can grasp this now can't you?
Can't you?
-
No, I won't, otherwise why would I be saying that a 6 year old child can demonstrate why 2+2≠5 without any problem?
So, go ahead. I'm interested in how you answer the question (It's not an attempt to derail the thread, by the way). How would you show mathematically that 2+2≠5. You shouldn't need to go beyond Key Stage 1 Maths, if that helps!
Sword,
Yes you will – if you think that any six year old can demonstrate it then clearly you think my or anyone else’s demonstration will be flawed in some way.
It isn't about a flaw in anyone's demonstration. As I was saying yesterday, the point is why can a six year old can answer the question directly, yet you keep on evading it? If a six year old could answer the question with key stage 1 Maths, don' t you think I would have to use the same arguments against whatever they came up with?
-
Read his posts. Hope is notorious for his repeated use of the “but you can’t disprove it” NPF as if that had anything whatever to say to the truthfulness of the conjecture he’s attempting. His most recent effort for example was a bog-standard NPF, only this time he added the (spurious) rider that sometimes science will verify subsequently some faith conjectures. It’s still the NPF though, whichever way you look at it.
I do read his posts.
In my opinion, I think you are arguing against a scenario you think is being claimed, but is not being claimed. If Hope has said, "but you can't disprove it", it doesn't follow that he is therefore claiming his stance as true, by default. I think that this is an assumption on your part, an incorrect one.
-
#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking, never answering, questions put to him, or something like that.
So I have never responded to any of your posts with an answer?
-
Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God.
This is special pleading on your part, you being a fan of 'God', and a demonstration that you dont understand Blue's point.
There is no common frame of reference unless the starting assumption is that all religious belief is made up, therefore also false by default.
So, what are these 'starting assumptions' for divine agency that you suggest provide a 'common frame of reference' for divine agents?
-
Sword,
It isn't about a flaw in anyone's demonstration. As I was saying yesterday, the point is why can a six year old can answer the question directly, yet you keep on evading it? If a six year old could answer the question with key stage 1 Maths, don' t you think I would have to use the same arguments against whatever they came up with?
I have no idea as you don't appear to have an argument. Your last effort crashed and burned when you tinkered with the starting conditions of a maths question by changing the base value, oblivious to the problem that any answer still relied on the same "world view" (as you would put it) of logic, and unaware that the "anything might be" you were attempting is an open door in any case that says nothing whatever to whether something probably is.
As you just ignored the rebuttals and repeated the error though, I have little expectation that you'll try to engage with it now.
-
Sword,
Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...
Whether leprechauns, "God", "X", pixies or anything else is made up is utterly irrelevant to the maxim. Really - made-upness has nothing to do with it: zip; nada; zilch; bugger all. My god, even Vlad was edging toward that realisation yesterday albeit that he then fell off the cliff by thinking that it would have to apply to all arguments rather than to just any of them.
What's being addressed here isn't the object of the belief ("God", leprechauns, whatever) at all. What is being addressed though is the argument(s) used to arrive at that object. Thus for example the NPF is still a very bad argument whether it's used to demonstrate "God", leprechauns or anything else.
To put it another way, even if I was a dyed-in-the wool hard core fundie Christian who thought that the belief "God" wasn't ridiculous at all, I'd still have no choice but to recognise that the NPF is a hopeless way to demonstrate it - especially when I realised that it worked equally for any other conjecture.
That's the point of the maxim. Surely even you can grasp this now can't you?
Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...
Is anyone here claiming that because their belief cannot be disproved, it is therefore true by default? In my opinion no. So no need for the NPF...ever!
Is anyone here asking for their belief to be disproved? On occasions, yes.
Does the failure to disprove it mean that they are claiming that their belief is true? No, because there is no proof on their side either. That is why it is a belief.
-
Sword,
I do read his posts.
In my opinion, I think you are arguing against a scenario you think is being claimed, but is not being claimed. If Hope has said, "but you can't disprove it", it doesn't follow that he is therefore claiming his stance as true, by default. I think that this is an assumption on your part, an incorrect one.
Then you think wrongly. Hope (and some others here) regularly use the NPF to imply that his/their conjecture "God" is thereby true. If he/they didn't think "but you can't falsify it" implied that why otherwise would they return to it over and over again?
-
Because he makes up things that do not exist, hence are false by default and then compares them with aspects of religious belief, e.g. the likely existence of God.
This is special pleading on your part, you being a fan of 'God', and a demonstration that you dont understand Blue's point.
And I could equally argue that he doesn't understand my point, because whenever I ask him a question, he never gives a direct answer.
I asked him if he believes that leprechauns exist, yes or no. He won't answer.
I asked him how he would show that 2+2≠5. He won't answer.
He is misusing the NPF so that he can accuse religious believers of doing something that they are not doing. That seems to be the only way he can justify his stance.
-
Sword,
Try really, really hard to focus here. Really hard...
Is anyone here claiming that because their belief cannot be disproved, it is therefore true by default? In my opinion no. So no need for the NPF...ever!
Yes. Hope and others imply that regularly. If that wasn't the implication, why bother with it?
Is anyone here asking for their belief to be disproved? On occasions, yes.
Does the failure to disprove it mean that they are claiming that their belief is true? No, because there is no proof on their side either. That is why it is a belief.
Evasion noted, even though I asked that you try really hard to focus on the rebuttal. I'll try one last time:
DO YOU NOW GRASP THAT BLUEHILLSIDE'S FOURTH MAXIM IS NOT IN ANY RESPECT FLAWED BECAUSE EITHER OR BOTH OF ITS OBJECTS ARE MADE UP AS YOU WRONGLY ASSERTED A FEW POSTS AGO?
Look, I even put it in capitals for you so you can't pretend this time that you didn't see it.
-
Sword,
And I could equally argue that he doesn't understand my point, because whenever I ask him a question, he never gives a direct answer.
I asked him if he believes that leprechauns exist, yes or no. He won't answer.
I asked him how he would show that 2+2≠5. He won't answer.
He is misusing the NPF so that he can accuse religious believers of doing something that they are not doing. That seems to be the only way he can justify his stance.
Stop lying - it's boorish.
Re leprechauns, I've explained that whether I or anyone else believes in them is entirely irrelevant but you just run away from the rebuttal.
Re maths, I've explained that your premise is false but you just run away from the rebuttal.
Re the NPF, I've explained that some religious believers here do use it to imply "God" but you just run away from the fact.
Either have a sudden rush of honesty and finally engage or don't - it's your call.
-
Is anyone here asking for their belief to be disproved? On occasions, yes.
Does the failure to disprove it mean that they are claiming that their belief is true? No, because there is no proof on their side either. That is why it is a belief.
Evasion noted, even though I asked that you try really hard to focus on the rebuttal.
Perhaps then you need to ask the question why some are asking for their belief to be disproved? You seem to be assuming that they are asking, so that if it isn't they can then claim that it is true.
The next time this happens, try asking the poster why they are asking the question. Their response may surprise you...and I bet it will have nothing to do with trying to claim that their belief is true.
-
And I could equally argue that he doesn't understand my point, because whenever I ask him a question, he never gives a direct answer.
I asked him if he believes that leprechauns exist, yes or no. He won't answer.
I asked him how he would show that 2+2≠5. He won't answer.
He is misusing the NPF so that he can accuse religious believers of doing something that they are not doing. That seems to be the only way he can justify his stance.
Sword
I'd suggest, Sword, the problem here is your lack of understanding of fallacies.
By the way I asked by eldest grandson, aged 14 and very good at maths, to do what you claim a 6 year-old can do, and he replied along the lines of it being a simplistic question in that it depended on what axioms were involved - or words to that effect- he is going to run it past his maths teacher so I'll let you know what reply he gets. I think you your 6-year old claim might be at risk.
-
Re leprechauns, I've explained that whether I or anyone else believes in them is entirely irrelevant but you just run away from the rebuttal.
Because it is not a rebuttal, it is an evasion. When you answer the question honestly, I'll explain why. Perhaps this is the reason you won't. However, I'll try again.
Do you believe that leprechauns exist, yes or no?
Re the NPF, I've explained that some religious believers here do use it to imply "God" but you just run away from the fact.
in which you failed to provide a single citation of said accusation. I've already explained that I think there is a misunderstanding of what is being said, so provide a link to a post...any post and I can go from there.
-
Sword,
Perhaps then you need to ask the question why some are asking for their belief to be disproved? You seem to be assuming that they are asking, so that if it isn't they can then claim that it is true.
I assume no such thing and, so far as I'm aware, no-one does that.
The next time this happens...
It hasn't.
..., try asking the poster why they are asking the question.
They don't.
Their response may surprise you...and I bet it will have nothing to do with trying to claim that their belief is true.
Their response would be, "why ask you asking me about something I've not said?"
What Hope and other actually do though is rely on the NPF to imply "God". They seem to think that non-falsifiability is an argument for something being true, when it's no such thing.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
-
I've already explained that I think there is a misunderstanding of what is being said, so provide a link to a post...any post and I can go from there.
You need to do some homework, Sword, since you are starting to look silly or intransigent, or both.
When someone deploys the NPF, or any other fallacy, they aren't actually making a valid argument no matter what they think - and when this is picked up their interlocutor is doing no more than simply rejecting their bad argument since there is no more to be said. That you interpret pointing out a fallacy is equivalent to saying 'religion is bollocks' is your lack of understanding showing through.
-
Ok, so all you and Floo seem to be arguing here is that "sense" is based on each person's individual definition of the word "sense". As in what makes sense to you as you write it might not make any sense to anyone else; what makes sense to Floo as she writes it might not make sense to anyone else; what makes sense to me as I write it might not make sense to anyone else. We're all pots calling kettles black according to Floo if we label anyone else as not making sense, while claiming "we" make sense. Hence I said, whatever Floo's words means in Flooland - she probably knows what she meant - it probably made sense to her as she wrote it.
When you said "we" you did define it as people who were trying to talk sense - no mention of anyone succeeding. In that case we are all probably trying to talk sense.
Terll you what Gabriella - go through a couple of dozen posts by such Christian luminaries as Sassy, Hope, Sword, Alan Burns. you could even go back as far as the posts of Oh My World and Bashful Anthony - these are some of those I refer to as the Ultras - see if their explanations of scripture, gospel, the Bible and the Christian religion's belief that everyone, everyone, without exception, MUST MUST MUST drop whatever theist or non-Christian theist beliefs they have and rush, lemming-like, over the precipice into the ocean of Christianity in order to ensure that they achieve their God's forgiveness and his acceptance of them into his Heaven.
If you can make sense of more that about 5% of it you will be doing better than I.
You might also try to work out why they cannot admit that their religion, like mine, is a matter of faith and not of fact.
Come back and let me know how you get on, please.
-
Sword of the spirit
Judging of course only from your posts, it seems to me that your belief in your own skill at the discussion format here is boundless.
By the way, have you heard of non-stamp-collectors?
-
Sword,
Because it is not a rebuttal, it is an evasion. When you answer the question honestly, I'll explain why. Perhaps this is the reason you won't. However, I'll try again.
Do you believe that leprechauns exist, yes or no?
No, it's a rebuttal because I explained to you why the made-upness of the object is irrelevant to the point the maxim makes. The only evasion here is your evasion of the rebuttal and your constant repetition of a question you now know to be irrelevant.
in which you failed to provide a single citation of said accusation.
First, even if no-one attempted it it would still be a bad argument, and second anyone who's spent any time here will tell you that it's tried regularly - most notably/relentlessly perhaps by Hope. If you want to trawl through his posts to find examples, help yourself.
I've already explained that I think there is a misunderstanding of what is being said, so provide a link to a post...any post and I can go from there.
And as I've explained to you, not it isn't. Why else do you think Hope et al would return to it over and over again but for thinking it supported their belief in "God"?
Oh, and I see that you've just run away again from the rebuttal of your misunderstanding of bluehillside's fourth maxim even though I put it in capital letters for you.
Oh well.
Incidentally, what you're attempting here is called a Gish Gallop - keep hammering away at the same irrelevant question rather than address the arguments that undo you, then accuse your interlocutor of dissembling for not answering them. William Lane Craig is in particular notorious for it, and it reflects just as badly on you.
-
#164
This post gives a strong impression of Sword of the Spirit in a self-appointed role as teacher and wise adviser to the poor, benighted denizens of R&E, using the Socratic way of teaching by only asking, never answering, questions put to him, or something like that.
In that case the vibration that I feel under my feet is probably Socrates spinning in his grave at gyroscopic speeds!
-
What are the chances sword has realised that repeatedly ejaculating into a sock is not going to make a baby
I have really and truly had to add this (insert expletive/insult of your choice) to my ignore list after my last post - his obtuseness and his inability to see anything that does not conform to his view of the religious world is enough to make a pacifist kick a hole in a stained glass window - if for no other reason thn to stop him kicking seven different shades of shit out of SOTS!
-
Sword,
Then you think wrongly. Hope (and some others here) regularly use the NPF to imply that his/their conjecture "God" is thereby true. If he/they didn't think "but you can't falsify it" implied that why otherwise would they return to it over and over again?
Which means you have no actual evidence that Hope (and some others) think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true - that's just your possibly faulty reasoning, as opposed to what they actually stated. Unless of course you can link to a post where Hope did state that NPF proves the objective truth of his god.
Equally Hope could simply be arguing that if you can't objectively disprove his god, he is free to carry on believing what he sees as evidence for his god as well as free to try to convince others, including children, to believe in it too. In other words it's true for him and could potentially be true for anyone else who sees it the way he sees it.
-
In that case the vibration that I feel under my feet is probably Socrates spinning in his grave at gyroscopic speeds!
Or it could be your person channelling the dynamic energy of the Lord, Owl.
(Been reading Nicholas Marks on another forum)
-
Which means you have no actual evidence that Hope (and some others) think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true - that's just your possibly faulty reasoning, as opposed to what they actually stated. Unless of course you can link to a post where Hope did state that NPF proves the objective truth of his god.
That is what is implied whenever the NPF is employed, which is usually in the form 'I believe x to be the case and you can't show that I'm wrong' where 'x' is an unfalsifiable conjecture. Post 403 by Alan Burns in the 'Atheism and the Celestial Teapot' contains some obvious examples where 'therefore God' is clearly being implied. The NPF can be justifiably cited whenever the form of the argument deployed involves this fallacy irrespective of the subject: so whether it involves the Christian God or one of the Greek or Roman examples is irrelevant since the fallacy involves the same form of (bad) argument.
Equally Hope could simply be arguing that if you can't objectively disprove his god, he is free to carry on believing what he sees as evidence for his god as well as free to try to convince others, including children, to believe in it too. In other words it's true for him and could potentially be true for anyone else who sees it the way he sees it.
'Objective' raises other issues, and until such times as 'God' can objectively be demonstrated in the first place without recourse to fallacies then any challenge to 'objectively disprove' claims of God would just be an example of the NPF. Hope can believe what he likes of course, and the 'true for me' approach is fine in personal terms, but when this involves unfalsifiable conjectures like 'God' and is extended to imply 'this is true for me so it must is also true for you/everyone too' then it is an example of the Relativist Fallacy and not the NPF.
-
Ok, so all you and Floo seem to be arguing here is that "sense" is based on each person's individual definition of the word "sense". As in what makes sense to you as you write it might not make any sense to anyone else; what makes sense to Floo as she writes it might not make sense to anyone else; what makes sense to me as I write it might not make sense to anyone else. We're all pots calling kettles black according to Floo if we label anyone else as not making sense, while claiming "we" make sense. Hence I said, whatever Floo's words means in Flooland - she probably knows what she meant - it probably made sense to her as she wrote it.
When you said "we" you did define it as people who were trying to talk sense - no mention of anyone succeeding. In that case we are all probably trying to talk sense.
;D ;D ;D
-
That is what is implied whenever the NPF is employed, which is usually in the form 'I believe x to be the case and you can't show that I'm wrong' where 'x' is an unfalsifiable conjecture. Post 403 by Alan Burns in the 'Atheism and the Celestial Teapot' contains some obvious examples where 'therefore God' is clearly being implied. The NPF can be justifiably cited whenever the form of the argument deployed involves this fallacy irrespective of the subject: so whether it involves the Christian God or one of the Greek or Roman examples is irrelevant since the fallacy involves the same form of (bad) argument.
'Objective' raises other issues, and until such times as 'God' can objectively be demonstrated in the first place without recourse to fallacies then any challenge to 'objectively disprove' claims of God would just be an example of the NPF. Hope can believe what he likes of course, and the 'true for me' approach is fine in personal terms, but when this involves unfalsifiable conjectures like 'God' and is extended to imply 'this is true for me so it must is also true for you/everyone too' then it is an example of the Relativist Fallacy and not the NPF.
Do you please have a link to the Atheism and the Celestial Teapot thread or can you let me know which board it's on or can you quote what Alan wrote. Do you have any links/quotes from Hope?
In your above statement you seem to be asserting what is clearly being implied by the NPF. I get that this is your understanding of what you think is clearly being implied. But presumably if other people understand it differently they will use the NPF to justify their belief based on the possibility of their belief being true.
So are you saying Hope has not committed the Relativist Fallacy and is not saying it must also be true for you because it is true for me?
-
I wonder if Gabby and Sass came out of the same celestial teapot as their posts have some similarities? ;D
-
Gabriella,
Which means you have no actual evidence that Hope (and some others) think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true - that's just your possibly faulty reasoning, as opposed to what they actually stated. Unless of course you can link to a post where Hope did state that NPF proves the objective truth of his god.
No, that's a straw man version of what I say. I don't say that Hope et al "think that the NPF objectively proves their god is true" because that's not the construction they use. What they actually do is first to assert "my god is true for you too" and, when asked for evidence to support the claim, respond with, "you can't disprove it". The implied "therefore I'm right" is usually left hanging rather than said outright, but the use of the NPF as the answer to the request for evidence is the giveaway. For them, the NPF is the evidence.
Equally Hope could simply be arguing that if you can't objectively disprove his god, he is free to carry on believing what he sees as evidence for his god as well as free to try to convince others, including children, to believe in it too. In other words it's true for him and could potentially be true for anyone else who sees it the way he sees it.
No, a "true for me only" god is no-one's business but his own. What's called into question here is his use of the NPF as his evidence for a "true for you too" god.
Incidentally, whether or not Hope or others here do this is in fact irrelevant to the underlying point in any case, namely that the NPF is logically flawed - and as it leads to "God" and to leprechauns with equal facility, that's obvious. Where Sword (and previously at least Vlad) have gone off the rails is to critique the maxim by complaining that leprechauns are just made up, which is of course entirely irrelevant to the thrust of the argument.
-
Do you please have a link to the Atheism and the Celestial Teapot thread or can you let me know which board it's on or can you quote what Alan wrote. Do you have any links/quotes from Hope?
It's on the R&E Board - examples from Hope can be had by reviewing his posts, but since there are many it might be easier to search for 'NPF' or 'Negative Proof Fallacy' in posts by the likes of myself, and others, which would probably get you to the posts being referred to more easily than by trawling through posts in general.
In your above statement you seem to be asserting what is clearly being implied by the NPF. I get that this is your understanding of what you think is clearly being implied. But presumably if other people understand it differently they will use the NPF to justify their belief based on the possibility of their belief being true.
That they've used the NPF (or any other fallacy for that matter) at all means they are attempting to justify their belief via a bad (fallacious) argument, and that they do so suggests they haven't recognised their own reasoning error. Remember too that committing a fallacy doesn't necessarily mean that their belief is false - they might well be correct: all it means that the particular argument they've used to justify their belief has failed where it is fallacious. Whether or not they can justify their beliefs using arguments that aren't fallacious is a separate matter.
So are you saying Hope has not committed the Relativist Fallacy and is not saying it must also be true for you because it is true for me?
No, but in this context I was pointing out that your portrayal of Hope's position would be an example of the Relativist Fallacy.
-
Do you please have a link to the Atheism and the Celestial Teapot thread or can you let me know which board it's on or can you quote what Alan wrote. Do you have any links/quotes from Hope?
Here it is Gabriella
Atheism and the Celestial Teapot! (http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=12605.0)
-
Gabriella,
Here it is Gabriella
Atheism and the Celestial Teapot!
Have a look at posts 1 & 2 from the link - you'll see that Sword fundamentally misunderstands that the NPF is a bad argument for something regardless of what that something happens to be. His straw man is to claim that the argument is, "you've used the NPF, therefore no god" whereas in fact it's, "you've used the NPF, therefore the argument on which you rely to get you to "God" does not get you there".
Whether there are other arguments for gods (or for leprechauns for that matter) that do get you to either is a separate matter, as is the possibility that there are no cogent arguments but gods/leprechauns happen to be real in any case just as a matter of dumb luck. Whatever. The point though of Russell's teapot is that it adroitly illustrates the fallaciousness of the NPF, and there's nothing flawed about that.
-
I wonder if Gabby and Sass came out of the same celestial teapot as their posts have some similarities? ;D
There is absolutely no comparison between the posts of Gabriella and Sassy, floo, can't quite believe you said that.
-
There is absolutely no comparison between the posts of Gabriella and Sassy, floo, can't quite believe you said that.
Hmmmmmmmmmm!
-
Floo,
Hmmmmmmmmmm!
You're being unfair. Sassy's posts are semi-literate eructations of bile and ignorance; Gabriella's posts are articulate and thoughtful, albeit that I happen to think she's wrong about most things. There's no comparison.
-
That is what is implied whenever the NPF is employed, which is usually in the form 'I believe x to be the case and you can't show that I'm wrong' where 'x' is an unfalsifiable conjecture.
Yes but that's a fact rather than a fallacy Gordon.
I, for instance cannot show philosophical naturalism to be wrong because it is unfalsifiable.
Some atheist got fed up of an inconvenient truth and pulled a fallacy rectally to ''prove'' it isn't said in polite company.
Other strange bollocks peddled as the knock down argument for naturalism is methodological naturalism......But it doesn't alter the fact that that methodology doesn't confirm or deny philosophical naturalism........and before you deny being one of those you haven't ever said anything ever outside the philosophical materialist box that I can recall.
-
Yes but that's a fact rather than a fallacy Gordon.
I, for instance cannot show philosophical naturalism to be wrong because it is unfalsifiable.
Some atheist got fed up of an inconvenient truth and pulled a fallacy rectally to ''prove'' it isn't said in polite company.
Other strange bollocks peddled as the knock down argument for naturalism is methodological naturalism......But it doesn't alter the fact that that methodology doesn't confirm or deny philosophical naturalism........and before you deny being one of those you haven't ever said anything ever outside the philosophical materialist box that I can recall.
In which Vlad yet again deploys on his own personal re-definition of the term "philosophical naturalism" apparently oblivious to the problem that, even if there was a term for his private version of it, and even if he could find someone who subscribed to it, that would at best give him a "OK, I'm guessing but then so are you" which would take him not one step closer to the conclusion "God".
Or leprechauns.
Oh well.
-
In which Vlad yet again deploys on his own personal re-definition of the term "philosophical naturalism"
As I didn't even give any definition of philosophical materialism in that post you've been caught making stuff up.
Oh well.
-
Vlad,
As I didn't even give any definition of philosophical materialism in that post you've been caught making stuff up.
Oh well.
In which the Raj of Re-definitions fails to grasp that his entire misbegotten "argument" rests on the same fundamental personal re-definition of the term(s) he's abused here for years, so if he did finally intend to revert to the correct meaning then that argument collapses in any case.
His choice is either a bad argument resting on a personal re-definitions of terms to suit, or the correct definitions and no argument of any kind.
Oh well indeed.
Enough already.
-
Ok - many thanks everyone for pointing me to the relevant thread, saying I am articulate etc. I have read the thread now - I am on holiday in South Africa so got side-tracked by 4 hrs of kloofing - highly recommend it if anyone gets out to Plettenberg Bay area where we did it. Brilliant fun.
Anyway - I get the NPF point being made by Gordon and BHS and a few others that saying you can't disprove something is a bad argument for trying to say that thing therefore exists - as in exists for everyone. Or the other version is you can't disprove my belief so it is a true belief for you too. And it doesn't matter what the subject matter of the belief is - it's a bad argument for celestial teapots and gods seems valid. As some of the atheists say - there could be other good arguments for gods and celestial teapots, which have not been presented yet.
Having read the Teapot thread I actually could not find an instance where a theist was saying that not being able to disprove God or Christianity means that God or Christianity becomes true for others. I found an example of SOTS and Alan specifically saying they were not saying that, especially Alan on the last couple of pages of the thread. NS seemed to pull him up on misrepresenting BHS as having adopted a philosophical naturalist position but seemed to accept Alan's statement that he was not saying being unable to disprove god makes god true?
So if theists on here are not stating that being unable to disprove their beliefs means that their belief is true for you as well as them, but are saying ok I have nothing more than belief in subjective evidence that can neither be empirically tested or a probability as to its truth being assigned but you can't disprove it so I am going to carry on believing anyway, does anyone have a problem with that?
Is anyone adopting the position that if a theist cannot prove their particular concept of god that is the subject matter of their particular interpretation of their religion - the theist should not continue to hold their belief or try and influence others to adopt or share their belief? If yes, I'd ask why? I mean I'm fine with someone telling me I should not hold a particular belief - they are of course entitled to express their opinion since I have the freedom to ignore their opinion. If they want to call me stupid for ignoring their opinion - that's fine too. But wondering if there are any atheists on here who really genuinely care if theists on this forum stop believing or if they are just here passing the time, enjoying themselves by pointing out there is no testable evidence for beliefs? Much like arguing for and against different morals or political positions or different shades of individualism.
All I can say is I am glad there are threads challenging theists to provide proof - I have learnt a lot about philosophy - Wiggs deserves a mention. Some of the atheists especially are good at explaining philosophy. Thanks. Enjoyable read. Would be really boring if the atheists left or the theists left and only one group was left. Will look in again when I get time.
In the meantime if anyone has a link to a theist actually saying, as opposed to all this implying stuff, that if it can't be disproved it points to it being true for you please link to it. My understanding is they are saying they will carry on with their particular belief as true for them, but if you want and you can get past the lack of testable evidence, lack of definition of concepts, contradictions etc you can give their belief a go too.
-
I accept much of what you say here, Gabs. I'm glad you're enjoying your time in SA. Kloofing sounds fascinating. I'm too old for that type of thing now, but I can remember descending parts of the Rift valley in Kenya, not as a recreational sport admittedly, but in order to see some of the wonderful birdlife that Kenya had to offer. Exhilarating experience!
However, you asked for a link in your last paragraph, so how about these two. Sassy seemed to be saying such things in the 'Heaven is for Real' Thread in the Christian Topic:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10477.0
For instance, in her post 23, where she responds to Floo, who suggests that Hope hasn't got any evidence for his assertions, by saying:
Where is your evidence that God and heaven DO NOT exist?
Or, 'In the Satan is having an easy time of it!', again in the Christian Topic areas, Sass responds to the accusation that some form of credible evidence is needed to show Jesus actually said the things he is supposed to have said, by saying, in post 25:
Prove Christ was not the Son of God... You see you are really ignorant when it comes to what FAITH is and how Faith and the word of Christ works.. What are Christs teachings about evidence for the individual?
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10367.25
-
So if theists on here are not stating that being unable to disprove their beliefs means that their belief is true for you as well as them, but are saying ok I have nothing more than belief in subjective evidence that can neither be empirically tested or a probability as to its truth being assigned but you can't disprove it so I am going to carry on believing anyway, does anyone have a problem with that?
That seems OK but there are many followers of various belief systems who just make assertions because of information which appears in religious scriptures and those, who do not blindly believe, are victimised as heretics. In answer to the topic of this thread, what you call 'subjective evidence' others might call 'personal experience' and to gain it, there are often followers who promote a method to that end. Some examples from your religion ......
Jalal-ud din Rumi [13th C Persian Dervish & Sufi poet] God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami [9th C Persian Sufi mystic] Forgetfulness of Self is remembrance of God. ..... and ..... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri [10th C Baghdad Sufi teacher] Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.
-
However, you asked for a link in your last paragraph, so how about these two. Sassy seemed to be saying such things in the 'Heaven is for Real' Thread in the Christian Topic:
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=10477.0
For instance, in her post 23, where she responds to Floo, who suggests that Hope hasn't got any evidence for his assertions, by saying:
Where is your evidence that God and heaven DO NOT exist?
I can see why that question was asked. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. The way evidence is treated on this forum by some, it sets up an infinite regression:
Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it (e.g. the naturalistic approach to evidence, which relies on the empirical)
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
...
-
Sword,
I can see why that question was asked. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. The way evidence is treated on this forum by some, it sets up an infinite regression:
Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it (e.g. the naturalistic approach to evidence, which relies on the empirical)
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
Nope. If you want to call something "evidence" for a belief you think to be true for others too then you need method of some kind to distinguish your claim from just guessing.
It's that simple. Really, it is.
Good luck with it.
-
I can see why that question was asked. Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it. The way evidence is treated on this forum by some, it sets up an infinite regression:
Evidence needs a worldview to interpret it (e.g. the naturalistic approach to evidence, which relies on the empirical)
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
That worldview must be supported by evidence, which in turn needs a worldview to interpret it.
...
Just no: if you are going to have a go at epistemology or philosophy you're going to have to some homework.
-
Having read the Teapot thread I actually could not find an instance where a theist was saying that not being able to disprove God or Christianity means that God or Christianity becomes true for others.
The key point here is that the NPF has been used, where the precise wording depends how the person using the fallacy expresses it. However, when this is used in unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency the element (however expressed) that says along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' surely implies that from the point of view of the person using the fallacy no 'wrongness' can ever be demonstrated. In addition that the NPF being cited doesn't, as you suggest above, imply that God or Christianity has been 'disproved' - all it means is that the argument being advanced has failed because it is fallacious.
So if theists on here are not stating that being unable to disprove their beliefs means that their belief is true for you as well as them...
They are implying that, and in doing so they are possibly also committing another fallacy.
... but are saying ok I have nothing more than belief in subjective evidence that can neither be empirically tested or a probability as to its truth being assigned but you can't disprove it so I am going to carry on believing anyway, does anyone have a problem with that?
I wouldn't, since provided they aren't using the NPF by challenging others to show they are wrong then it is their subjective personal opinion that they are right and couldn't be shown to be wrong.
Is anyone adopting the position that if a theist cannot prove their particular concept of god that is the subject matter of their particular interpretation of their religion - the theist should not continue to hold their belief or try and influence others to adopt or share their belief? If yes, I'd ask why?
I'd say no: I think adults and families are entitled to hold and express whatever religious views they want provided it doesn't involve proselytising within the state education system.
I mean I'm fine with someone telling me I should not hold a particular belief - they are of course entitled to express their opinion since I have the freedom to ignore their opinion.
Of course, in a secular society it is essential that people are free to practice religion just as much as others being free from religion.
If they want to call me stupid for ignoring their opinion - that's fine too. But wondering if there are any atheists on here who really genuinely care if theists on this forum stop believing or if they are just here passing the time, enjoying themselves by pointing out there is no testable evidence for beliefs? Much like arguing for and against different morals or political positions or different shades of individualism.
All I can say is I am glad there are threads challenging theists to provide proof - I have learnt a lot about philosophy - Wiggs deserves a mention. Some of the atheists especially are good at explaining philosophy. Thanks. Enjoyable read. Would be really boring if the atheists left or the theists left and only one group was left. Will look in again when I get time.
I'm not looking to convert anyone, and in any event I've nothing to convert them too! I suspect that for the most part what people enjoy here is stimulating discussions on subjects that interest them: I've learned a great deal here from both theists and atheists and enjoyed the light-hearted element that is also part of this place
In the meantime if anyone has a link to a theist actually saying, as opposed to all this implying stuff, that if it can't be disproved it points to it being true for you please link to it. My understanding is they are saying they will carry on with their particular belief as true for them, but if you want and you can get past the lack of testable evidence, lack of definition of concepts, contradictions etc you can give their belief a go too.
You can only deal with fallacies in terms of how they are expressed and when it is clear a fallacy has been used it is reasonable to consider what is implied by that use. After all if someone says along the lines of 'I believe x (where x is a non-natural claim) and you can't show I'm wrong' surely implies, as noted earlier, that this someone considers that since they think they can't ever be shown to be wrong then they must be right - even so the NPF fallacy doesn't confirm that x is wrong: it just highlights that the argument being used fails because it contains reasoning errors.
-
give us a chance to evaluate your claims once and for all, we might even get some converts.
off you go..
No matter what evidence is revealed, I confidently predict one of the following "explanations" will be used:
* Selection bias
* Coincidence
* The witness was mistaken or deluded
* The witness must be lying
* Lack of evidence
* Personal incredulity
* Why did it not make world news?
* It would have happened anyway
* It is not possible
* There must be a natural explanation, even though we have not found one
Then there is the greatest evidence of all - the miracle of our own existence. It is not just based on personal incredulity, but the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.
-
No matter what evidence is revealed, I confidently predict one of the following "explanations" will be used:
* Selection bias
* Coincidence
* The witness was mistaken or deluded
* The witness must be lying
* Lack of evidence
* Personal incredulity
* Why did it not make world news?
* It would have happened anyway
* It is not possible
* There must be a natural explanation, even though we have not found one
Then there is the greatest evidence of all - the miracle of our own existence. It is not just based on personal incredulity, but the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.
Only to the logic of someone so blind and biased as you.
So far no-one can work out exactly how it happened BUT this does not mean that the explanation that you and other theists propose, or insist upon, that God did it, does not hold water so long as none of you can prove the existence of God. Your rock solid belief in him does NOT prove his existence and never will. It remains faith not fact
-
the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.
Would you mind awfully showing your logic which makes your statement accurate?
-
Hii Enki
Good morning from Knysna. Heading back to Cape Town today. The Rift Valley sounds amazing too - yes been enjoying all the wildlife info and history the guides have to offer on our various trips. The local people I have encountered have been really friendly in SA - people at the golf club (I don't play but drove the golf cart because my husband wanted company), people on the road, people working at the hotel. Some guy we overtook on the motor-way from Cape Town to Knysna, sped up, flagged us down, stopped us on the side of the motor-way, got out of his Mercedes and opened and closed our rental SUV bonnet for us as he said it wasn't closed properly, which my husband suspected it wasn't.
Thanks for your links - I have to admit I don't read Sassy's posts beyond the first couple of lines if it is usually a reply telling someone how ignorant they are for not reading the Bible and automatically believing as she believes. Also too many Bible quotes. You may be right that Sassy uses NPF - her answer here though appears to be defensive. That's the part I am focusing on - there seem to be a lot of accusations of NPF off the back of responses by theists where IMO their answer seems to be defending their decision to continue believing even though they have no convincing arguments about the existence of gods or their particular interpretation of religion, rather than employing the NPF to try to say other people should believe too.
The trouble with NPF being asserted because someone thinks a statement that hasn't been made by a theist is being implied, is that the implied part is no different from guessing, unless the theist subsequently confirms that they were trying to imply a true for everyone argument because their claim can't be disproved.
-
That seems OK but there are many followers of various belief systems who just make assertions because of information which appears in religious scriptures and those, who do not blindly believe, are victimised as heretics.
Agreed - the victimisation is a consequence of people feeling entitled to judge someone else and put pressure on them, which happens in social and political situations as well, though that is based on political rather than religious beliefs - for example the vicitimisation of "Scabs" during the UK Miners Strikes in the 1980s.
In answer to the topic of this thread, what you call 'subjective evidence' others might call 'personal experience' and to gain it, there are often followers who promote a method to that end. Some examples from your religion ......
Jalal-ud din Rumi [13th C Persian Dervish & Sufi poet] God speaks to the ears of the heart of everyone but it is not every heart which hears Him; His voice is louder than the thunder and His light is clearer than the Sun - if only one could see and hear; in order to do that one must remove this solid wall, this barrier, this Self.
Bayazid al Bishtami [9th C Persian Sufi mystic] Forgetfulness of Self is remembrance of God. ..... and ..... The contraction of hearts consists in the expansion of Self and the expansion of hearts in the contraction of Self.
Abu l’Hasayn al Nuri [10th C Baghdad Sufi teacher] Union with God is separation from all else and separation from all else is union with Him.
Agreed. People do employ methods that result in what they regard as a positive experience, which they attribute to spirituality. And those people might feel these positive experiences feel different / better than the experiences provided by TV, alcohol, hobbies or any other coping mechanisms or distraction methods that non-theists employ.
-
No matter what evidence is revealed, I confidently predict one of the following "explanations" will be used:
* Selection bias
* Coincidence
* The witness was mistaken or deluded
* The witness must be lying
* Lack of evidence
* Personal incredulity
* Why did it not make world news?
* It would have happened anyway
* It is not possible
* There must be a natural explanation, even though we have not found one
I think you missed out logical fallacies, your personal favourites being negative proof fallacy and non-sequitur. If what you call evidence is riddled with the above, then it is not really evidence in any true sense.
Then there is the greatest evidence of all - the miracle of our own existence. It is not just based on personal incredulity, but the logical impossibility of a single entity of conscious awareness being generated from lots of individual, deterministic events, and the ability of this entity to exert control over events.
And as if just to hammer home the point you immediately fire up the personal incredulity engine once again. Your personal incredulity is not evidence, it is just your personal incredulity. Teams who are not beset by such incredulity problems are working in trying to understand consciousness right now and it is people like them who will deliver understanding ultimately.
But this thinking of yours reveals embodies a yet more profound logical flaw than incredulity, in that your proposed solution to a hard problem is a problem far harder still - not a solution at all really. It may be hard to see how a single unit of composite consciousness can emerge from trillions of tiny information interactions, but that is child's play compared to explaining how an unbodied ephemeral superbeing could exhibit this phenomenon from absolutely nothing with zero provenance. I think this is not just logical fallacy, it is an attitude problem; it is a matter of avoiding tackling difficult problems by hiding behind superficial and naive conjecture that only seems to address the problem so long as you don't scrutinise it honestly and in depth. It is just magic thinking proffered in the guise of reason and evidence.
-
The key point here is that the NPF has been used, where the precise wording depends how the person using the fallacy expresses it. However, when this is used in unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency the element (however expressed) that says along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' surely implies that from the point of view of the person using the fallacy no 'wrongness' can ever be demonstrated. In addition that the NPF being cited doesn't, as you suggest above, imply that God or Christianity has been 'disproved' - all it means is that the argument being advanced has failed because it is fallacious.
They are implying that, and in doing so they are possibly also committing another fallacy.
You can only deal with fallacies in terms of how they are expressed and when it is clear a fallacy has been used it is reasonable to consider what is implied by that use. After all if someone says along the lines of 'I believe x (where x is a non-natural claim) and you can't show I'm wrong' surely implies, as noted earlier, that this someone considers that since they think they can't ever be shown to be wrong then they must be right - even so the NPF fallacy doesn't confirm that x is wrong: it just highlights that the argument being used fails because it contains reasoning errors.
Surely it depends on if the person is saying they are justified in believing what they believe and inviting your agreement, or if they are saying they have the freedom to believe what they believe regardless of whether they can provide testable evidence and regardless of whether you agree with them or not? I am reading the theist responses as the latter but I could be wrong - as these are implied statements we are both guessing.
-
Surely it depends on if the person is saying they are justified in believing what they believe and inviting your agreement, or if they are saying they have the freedom to believe what they believe regardless of whether they can provide testable evidence and regardless of whether you agree with them or not? I am reading the theist responses as the latter but I could be wrong - as these are implied statements we are both guessing.
No- people are free to believe what they wish and to justify their belief in any terms that suit them: they may be right or they may be wrong. However, if they attempt to justify their beliefs via a fallacy: any of them, then they commit a reasoning error. So, in relation to the NPF when used in relation to unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency then when someone says along the lines of 'and you can't show I'm wrong' then, in effect, they are clearly implying that their position is correct, since they are saying they can't be shown to be wrong - neither they nor their interlocutors is implying any 'guessing' is involved.
However, and this is the key point, that the NPF says nothing about the subject of the argument (the divine agent) being true or false - it does no more than show that the argument being used fails because it involves reasoning errors.
The trouble with NPF being asserted because someone thinks a statement that hasn't been made by a theist is being implied, is that the implied part is no different from guessing, unless the theist subsequently confirms that they were trying to imply a true for everyone argument because their claim can't be disproved.
No, as noted above, the NPF involves a statement along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' and doesn't get as far as either 'so we are both guessing' or 'true for me and true for you too' - the argument fails due to the NPF with the 'you can't show I'm wrong' element, although it may be that other fallacies are then deployed.
-
If you haven't any faith then don't make the rules.
That is the problem with atheists and pagans. Both acknowledge there is no truth or real faith required for pagan beliefs.
They know they are void of any substance when it comes to belief.
However, when it comes to the believers in God and especially Christians they want to make up the rules about what 'evidence' really is.
The truth is the evidence Christians have is for those who have faith. They know God and Jesus Christ.
How can an atheist or pagan come to terms with something they are not willing to seek and don't care of it is true.
Somewhere the atheist/pagan has to accept that if they want evidence they need to want truth. It has to be a sincere
search because they want to accept the truth about God and Jesus Christ, otherwise their search is useless it contains no real
want of faith or truth.
-
If you haven't any faith then don't make the rules.
That is the problem with atheists and pagans. Both acknowledge there is no truth or real faith required for pagan beliefs.
They know they are void of any substance when it comes to belief.
However, when it comes to the believers in God and especially Christians they want to make up the rules about what 'evidence' really is.
The truth is the evidence Christians have is for those who have faith. They know God and Jesus Christ.
How can an atheist or pagan come to terms with something they are not willing to seek and don't care of it is true.
Somewhere the atheist/pagan has to accept that if they want evidence they need to want truth. It has to be a sincere
search because they want to accept the truth about God and Jesus Christ, otherwise their search is useless it contains no real
want of faith or truth.
Well, there are several fallacies on show here, although since the post is in parts incomprehensible it is difficult to be certain of how many.
There is at least: special pleading, non sequiturs, a straw man and arguments from ignorance and authority - there may be more!
-
Well, there are several fallacies on show here, although since the post is in parts incomprehensible it is difficult to be certain of how many.
There is at least: special pleading, non sequiturs, a straw man and arguments from ignorance and authority - there may be more!
Well give us the details of your claim...
The truth is you cannot. You do not know the faith of a Christian from a personal view or from the biblical view to be able to support the statement you have made. The above is basic repeat of accusations from other men which in themselves show no evidence. It is like saying someone committed murder but having no evidence at all, forensic or otherwise to support such a claim.
So if you want to say the above about what I have said then provide the evidence. Go through my post detail by detail and show that there is evidence for your answer. Otherwise it is an accusation void of any and all evidence.
-
Well give us the details of your claim...
The truth is you cannot. You do not know the faith of a Christian from a personal view or from the biblical view to be able to support the statement you have made. The above is basic repeat of accusations from other men which in themselves show no evidence. It is like saying someone committed murder but having no evidence at all, forensic or otherwise to support such a claim.
So if you want to say the above about what I have said then provide the evidence. Go through my post detail by detail and show that there is evidence for your answer. Otherwise it is an accusation void of any and all evidence.
The post you are commenting on involved me pointing out fallacies in your own post, which are self-evident, as is the case in the post of yours I'm quoting now.
I made no claims regarding Christianity: that would be your department.
-
The post you are commenting on involved me pointing out fallacies in your own post, which are self-evident, as is the case in the post of yours I'm quoting now.
I made no claims regarding Christianity: that would be your department.
I asked for evidence you have to point out the fallacies and provide proof. You did not point out any fallacy you made a blank statement without any references or any evidence./
Nothing is self-evident about your post. You have been caught otu. EXPLAIN FROM ORIGINAL POST OF MINE EACH FALLACY GIVING EVIDENCE.
Now whose belief really requires the faith and has no evidence. Do not use statements you cannot support with evidence.
-
I asked for evidence you have to point out the fallacies and provide proof. You did not point out any fallacy you made a blank statement without any references or any evidence./
Nothing is self-evident about your post. You have been caught otu. EXPLAIN FROM ORIGINAL POST OF MINE EACH FALLACY GIVING EVIDENCE.
Now whose belief really requires the faith and has no evidence. Do not use statements you cannot support with evidence.
Suggest you learn about fallacies first and then re-read your own posts: the ones I mentioned are quite obvious.
-
Hi Gabriella,
Glad you've having a great time (though I wouldn't generally recommend actually stopping when you're flagged down there...)
I'm just passing through here, but briefly:
The trouble with NPF being asserted because someone thinks a statement that hasn't been made by a theist is being implied, is that the implied part is no different from guessing, unless the theist subsequently confirms that they were trying to imply a true for everyone argument because their claim can't be disproved.
No, it's stronger than that. The NPF is sometimes used to answer the question, "what's your evidence for "God"?". That is, in these cases the person saying, "you can't disprove it" is so far as they're concerned providing evidence for their god.
As a separate matter, even if no-one had done that the NPF would still be a bad argument and so shouldn't be attempted regardless of the intent of the person essaying it.
-
Agreed - the victimisation is a consequence of people feeling entitled to judge someone else and put pressure on them, which happens in social and political situations as well, though that is based on political rather than religious beliefs - for example the vicitimisation of "Scabs" during the UK Miners Strikes in the 1980s.
Agreed. People do employ methods that result in what they regard as a positive experience, which they attribute to spirituality. And those people might feel these positive experiences feel different / better than the experiences provided by TV, alcohol, hobbies or any other coping mechanisms or distraction methods that non-theists employ.
Yes. In the quotes I provided, it is not just the individual 'self' which forms the barrier but also the collective 'self', no matter whether it has a religious label, philosophical label or social and political label. Faith is persisting with a method in the hope that it will facilitate a union with something greater than the individual or collective. If it happens then there is often the risk that the forces of the collective will crucify (in one form or another)that person as a troublesome outsider.
-
Would you mind awfully showing your logic which makes your statement accurate?
The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness. For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means. Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity. Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information. Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles. Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness. I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.
-
The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness. For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means. Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity. Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information. Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles. Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness. I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.
Son what's your method for that?
-
The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness. For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means. Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity. Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information. Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles. Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness. I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.
That is your belief and an assertion. Basing a logical deduction on that is not logical.
-
"Information alone cannot generate awareness" - from AB. How would you know that?
-
That is your belief and an assertion. Basing a logical deduction on that is not logical.
The logic is based upon the reality I see, which indicates that perception can't be defined by material properties. If the logic is flawed, then you are free to point out the flaw and offer an alternative explanation.
-
"Information alone cannot generate awareness" - from AB. How would you know that?
Indeed. Arguably, awareness is information flow.
-
Indeed. Arguably, awareness is information flow.
So does the information flow within a computer generate conscious awareness? ???
-
The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness. For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means. Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity. Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information. Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles. Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness. I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.
This ramble reads like an example of the fallacy of composition (and others).
-
The logic is based upon the reality I see, which indicates that perception can't be defined by material properties. If the logic is flawed, then you are free to point out the flaw and offer an alternative explanation.
It is based on your beliefs and is an assertion not a fact. Describing it as the reality you see does not change that. To base a logical argument on that is the flaw. I don't need to offer an alternative to point out that your argument is an assertion and a belief.
-
So does the information flow within a computer generate conscious awareness? ???
No, all lions are cats, but not all cats are not lions.
-
The logic is based on information flow and its direction.
Information alone can not generate awareness. For example, the information contained in this posting needs to be perceived to be aware of what it means. Similarly the information held in lots of sub atomic particles in the brain will not generate their own awareness - the patterns of information they contain needs to be perceived by a single entity. Awareness is not generated from within the information, it is perceived from outside the information. Whatever it is that perceives information can't be defined by basic atomic particles, because there is no single entity of perception within those particles. Atomic complexity can generate reaction, but it can not generate awareness. I am aware that there is much scientific investigation being done in trying to understand the properties of awareness and perception, but they will not succeed unless they extend their scope of investigation beyond material science.
Firstly, conscious experience might be modelled as pure information flow, this might be a way to understand why mental stuff seems immaterial - we can touch trees and tables but you can't touch thoughts and ideas, why, because these things are pure information products. Conscious experience is what information feels like.
Secondly, and I am sure we covered this dozens of times already, the fact that we experience a single unified stream of experience does not mean that at base there is a single experiencer. Multimodal sensory experience is amalgamated and synchronised into an apparent single stream of experience by subliminal preconscious perception processing; all this goes on under the hood before we become 'aware' of it; not only that, the 'we' that experiences the stream is itself a construct of this processing. This much has become apparent from research.
-
There is no requirement for an experiencer. If I'm walking, is there a walker? If I'm thinking, is there a thinker? I don't see why.
-
So does the information flow within a computer generate conscious awareness? ???
Clearly not with the desktop in front of you that is not architected for that purpose.
However with projects such as The Blue Brain Project (http://bluebrain.epfl.ch/) we are aiming towards just that. If we can model the information flow within a brain then it should develop consciousness eventually. There is nothing magic about organic compounds.
-
There is no requirement for an experiencer. If I'm walking, is there a walker? If I'm thinking, is there a thinker? I don't see why.
But the recognition of the meaning of these words does not exist outside human perception. Take away our perception and everything just exists without labels.
-
There is nothing magic about organic compounds.
True, because they comprise the same basic atomic particles as any other substance.
-
But the recognition of the meaning of these words does not exist outside human perception. Take away our perception and everything just exists without labels.
OK, but I'm arguing that there is no perceiver. If there is, where is it?
-
True, because they comprise the same basic atomic particles as any other substance.
Yes, we are all ultimately made of dead stuff. Conscious experience is essentially patterns in information flow and there is nothing special about the organic materials that make up you or me in terms of their ability to host information. If we can swap our carbon compounds for more durable silicon compounds in the same arrangement then they should also be able to host the same forms of information flow.
-
But the recognition of the meaning of these words does not exist outside human perception. Take away our perception and everything just exists without labels.
All higher animals have cognitive perception, not just humans. When an antelope sees a lion creeping up on it and recognises it as something to fear, that is cognitive perception, exactly the same as would happen in me. Recognising the meaning in written words is just a more advanced form of cognitive perception.
-
OK, but I'm arguing that there is no perceiver. If there is, where is it?
I must put it to you that nothing can be perceived outside the human soul, because I would define the human soul as "that which perceives".
-
All higher animals have cognitive perception, not just humans. When an antelope sees a lion creeping up on it and recognises it as something to fear, that is cognitive perception, exactly the same as would happen in me. Recognising the meaning in written words is just a more advanced form of cognitive perception.
But in these examples, you still fail to recognise the difference between perception and reaction.
-
Yes, we are all ultimately made of dead stuff. Conscious experience is essentially patterns in information flow and there is nothing special about the organic materials that make up you or me in terms of their ability to host information. If we can swap our carbon compounds for more durable silicon compounds in the same arrangement then they should also be able to host the same forms of information flow.
But the property which we describe as "information" only exists in the eye of a perceiver. Outside perception, there is no information - just material particles.
-
I must put it to you that nothing can be perceived outside the human soul, because I would define the human soul as "that which perceives".
circular argument and begging the question. Not as tight as SotS' earlier performance though
-
Multimodal sensory experience is amalgamated and synchronised into an apparent single stream of experience by subliminal preconscious perception processing
Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?
No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.
-
Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?
No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.
I'm not sure what you mean by 'simply' there. Are you arguing that molecules and combinations of molecules in compounds don't exist? Check out some salt, NaCl, with an ionic bond, if you're interested.
-
All higher animals have cognitive perception, not just humans. When an antelope sees a lion creeping up on it and recognises it as something to fear, that is cognitive perception, exactly the same as would happen in me. Recognising the meaning in written words is just a more advanced form of cognitive perception.
But in these examples, you still fail to recognise the difference between perception and reaction.
I do understand that difference. Reaction is what happens at the levels of physics and chemistry. Perception is a modal sensory phenomenology such as vision or hearing that emerges at the level of biology derived from billions of underlying neurobiological chain reactions. Cognitive perception you can think of as being affective perception; thus when an emperor penguin sees a thousand near identical baby penguins on the beach the internal visual sensory image created in cortex is perception. When the penguin somehow recognises its own baby from among the thousand and warms to it, that is cognitive perception. All vertebrates, not just humans, do cognitive perception, not just reaction.
-
But humans are speshul.
-
I must put it to you that nothing can be perceived outside the human soul, because I would define the human soul as "that which perceives".
Perhaps Brahman is the only perceiver, just as (so it is asserted) it is the only re-incarnator, and the only conscious entity.
-
Suggest you learn about fallacies first and then re-read your own posts: the ones I mentioned are quite obvious.
Ha Ha Ha Gordon caught out. If it wasn't absolutely hilarious it would be funny.
-
But humans are speshul.
Exactly.....what about tap dancing Bonobos for instance?
-
Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?
No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.
Yes it is amazing isn't it. Were you fascinated by chemistry as a schoolboy ? Our universe is like the mother of all chemistry experiments. The early universe was simple, almost completely homogenous in every direction with near zero temperature differences. It took 400,000 years for atomic matter to form, then a further 200 million years for stars to ignite allowing for increasingly complex chemistry, and when the first stars died they created heavier elements still allowing primitive organics to form in interstellar space. We don't know how long it takes to get from organic chemistry to biology, all we have is the one example of this planet, judging by that example it took 11 billion years from conception for the first biology to occur, then another billion years eventually yielded multicellular life diversifying rapidly into many forms leading to the present day. Given sufficient time its amazing what the laws of nature produce.
-
No- people are free to believe what they wish and to justify their belief in any terms that suit them: they may be right or they may be wrong. However, if they attempt to justify their beliefs via a fallacy: any of them, then they commit a reasoning error. So, in relation to the NPF when used in relation to unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency then when someone says along the lines of 'and you can't show I'm wrong' then, in effect, they are clearly implying that their position is correct, since they are saying they can't be shown to be wrong - neither they nor their interlocutors is implying any 'guessing' is involved.
That was the point I made in my previous post - I disagreed with your assertion that they were attempting to justify their belief by stating 'And you can't show me I'm wrong'.
I think a theist justifies their belief based on their personal experience of what they perceive as the net benefits of their particular belief.
I think that when they say you can't disprove whatever their belief is they are just pointing that out to you. Whatever you think they are implying by that statement is just you guessing unless they confirm that that was what they were implying.
You can of course still assert that they are implying whatever you think they are implying but assertions don't count for much without evidence. Maybe a theist such as Hope or Alan or someone will come by and provide the evidence by confirming that they agree with your assertion.
On a personal note, I can confirm that I am NOT implying that I am justifying my belief by stating you can't disprove my belief, even if you want to believe as a true for you belief that I am implying that. I am just pointing out the obvious. I use personal experience to justify my belief.
No, as noted above, the NPF involves a statement along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' and doesn't get as far as either 'so we are both guessing' or 'true for me and true for you too' - the argument fails due to the NPF with the 'you can't show I'm wrong' element, although it may be that other fallacies are then deployed.
I disagree with your definition of the NPF because your definition doesn't seem logical. I don't think the NPF consists of just the statement. It can only be a fallacy if the person making that statement is justifying their belief with that statement rather than merely pointing out the obvious - that you can't disprove their belief - meanwhile their beliefs are justified by personal experience.
-
I disagree with your definition of the NPF because your definition doesn't seem logical. I don't think the NPF consists of just the statement. It can only be a fallacy if the person making that statement is justifying their belief with that statement rather than merely pointing out the obvious - that you can't disprove their belief - meanwhile their beliefs are justified by personal experience.
The 'you can't show I'm wrong' surely acts to reinforce their conviction that they are correct in believing as they do - else why do they bother making this challenge at all and not just stick to 'this is my personal belief' if that is the only justification they require?
-
Gabriella,
I think that when they say you can't disprove whatever their belief is they are just pointing that out to you.
No when they say it in reply to the question, "what evidence do you have for "God?" they're not. Moreover, why else would they feel the need to "point out" that axiomatically any unfalsifiable conjecture cannot be falsified?
-
Hi Gabriella,
Glad you've having a great time (though I wouldn't generally recommend actually stopping when you're flagged down there...)
Hi BHS
Yes I was wondering if we would get car-jacked or worse but what can I say - taking controlled risks is exciting. I'm a bit reckless that way. We were close to Knysna, it's a small town and crime is low in that area.
I'm just passing through here, but briefly:
No, it's stronger than that. The NPF is sometimes used to answer the question, "what's your evidence for "God"?". That is, in these cases the person saying, "you can't disprove it" is so far as they're concerned providing evidence for their god.
As a separate matter, even if no-one had done that the NPF would still be a bad argument and so shouldn't be attempted regardless of the intent of the person essaying it.
From what I've read, the statement is made after first providing personal experience of benefits of belief as justification for them holding their particular belief . So i read it not as an attempt at justification but as just a statement. As I said to Gordon a theist needs to confirm why they are making that statement.
-
Got to go for dinner - will respond later.
-
Hi Gabriella,
From what I've read, the statement is made after first providing personal experience of benefits of belief as justification for them holding their particular belief . So i read it not as an attempt at justification but as just a statement. As I said to Gordon a theist needs to confirm why they are making that statement.
The benefits (or disbenefits) of a belief have nothing to do with its truthfulness or otherwise. As pretty much every occasion the NPF is deployed is in a discussion about whether or not the belief is true though, it's hard to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.
-
The 'you can't show I'm wrong' surely acts to reinforce their conviction that they are correct in believing as they do - else why do they bother making this challenge at all and not just stick to 'this is my personal belief' if that is the only justification they require?
Firstly you can't show that they are wrong.
I'm not sure that anybodies conviction is reinforced because of it...That is a straw man concocted out your fear and willingness to believe the worst but, if you think about it, it's a pretty daft fear on your part.
''This is my personal belief'' doesn't cover that it might be true for everybody. When people like you state that ''True for me'' is acceptable that it is because it allows you to pigeonhole these people as ''quaint eccentrics''. Worse it is hypocrisy since you think your take on a God free universe is true for everyone and thus you are not averse to a bit of the very thing you are condemning.
-
Firstly you can't show that they are wrong.
Erm - we are talking unfalsifiable here, Vlad: think about it.
I'm not sure that anybodies conviction is reinforced because of it...That is a straw man concocted out your fear and willingness to believe the worst but, if you think about it, it's a pretty daft fear on your part.
It isn't a straw man, Vlad - simply an observation of mine to which you have added you own straw man.
''This is my personal belief'' doesn't cover that it might be true for everybody.
I didn't say it did.
When people like you state that ''True for me'' is acceptable that it is because it allows you to pigeonhole these people as ''quaint eccentrics''. Worse it is hypocrisy since you think your take on a God free universe is true for everyone and thus you are not averse to a bit of the very thing you are condemning.
Which is part straw man and part ad hom - well done you!.
-
Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?
No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.
Yes it is an amazing process.
-
As pretty much every occasion the NPF is deployed is in a discussion about whether or not the belief is true though, it's hard to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.
In which bluehillside does not try hard enough to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.
How about the constant implications that people are wrong to have a religious belief e.g. books like The God Delusion? There are probably some who have concluded that if some atheists seem to be so sure that religious believers are wrong, then they should be able to back it up, rather than hiding behind excuses such as burden of proof. That works both ways, something you are not prepared to accept because you do not appear to understand how truth works, or properties of truth.
-
In which bluehillside does not try hard enough to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.
That they do, as you suggest, is utterly perplexing since to justify belief via a reasoning error seems, well, unreasonable.
How about the constant implications that people are wrong to have a religious belief e.g. books like The God Delusion?
Since you've just advocated justifying your beliefs by deploying a logical fallacy then thinking you are likely to be wrong is a reasonable position to hold - and iirc RD doesn't adopt the 100% atheist position anyway: he seems more nuanced than that.
There are probably some who have concluded that if some atheists seem to be so sure that religious believers are wrong, then they should be able to back it up, rather than hiding behind excuses such as burden of proof.
Now you are being silly: the burden of proof remains yours whether you like it or not, and if you are happy to defend your position via fallacies, as you've just done, then that other dismiss your arguments as being so much white noise is reasonable. Surely, assuming you've posted your arguments on other fora, others have noted your dependence on fallacies before now.
That works both ways, something you are not prepared to accept because you do not appear to understand how truth works, or properties of truth.
It doesn't actually, and there you go using terms like 'truth' again without seemingly being aware of the problems this causes you: the 'properties of truth' are what exactly?
-
Yes it is an amazing process.
But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.
-
But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.
And the truth will not alter your personal incredulity!
-
But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.
Since when was personal incredulity truth ? News to me.
OK, we could say that highly improbable things are beyond human comprehension. But then we could also say in the same sense that 14 billion years is beyond human comprehension. Can you conceive of that amount of time when we normally arrange our affairs on a scale of minutes, days, years and decades ? We recently estimated that there are two trillion galaxies in the universe. Can anyone conceive of such a number, and what it would imply for the probable number of rocky planets ?
Given a long enough span of time and a large enough amount of space, anything that can happen, will happen.
-
But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
So what?
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.
It is personal incredulity, and that certainly doesn't alter the truth, you're right.
-
Suggest you learn about fallacies first and then re-read your own posts: the ones I mentioned are quite obvious.
I suggest you research the evidence which are not fallacies of the things actually happening amongst Christians in the world today.
Then you would see how you use a word with evidence of what fallacies you relate to and without any real evidence to support them. Again I stand by my post, but your inability to provide proof shows you have nothing.
-
I suggest you research the evidence which are not fallacies of the things actually happening amongst Christians in the world today.
I suggest you present the evidence yourself: the burden of proof is yours.
Then you would see how you use a word with evidence of what fallacies you relate to and without any real evidence to support them. Again I stand by my post, but your inability to provide proof shows you have nothing.
The evidence of fallacies is their use, and there are numerous textbook examples to be found in this Forum.
-
In which bluehillside does not try hard enough to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.
In which Sword fails to grasp that the point being made was that the NPF is often used in answer to the question, “what evidence is there for your “God”?” so no guessing about why else people attempt it is required.
How about the constant implications that people are wrong to have a religious belief e.g. books like The God Delusion?
In which Sword fails to grasp that the point here and in that book is that the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate a “true for you too” god are bad arguments.
There are probably some who have concluded that if some atheists seem to be so sure that religious believers are wrong, then they should be able to back it up, rather than hiding behind excuses such as burden of proof.
In which Sword fails to grasp that a-theism is merely the finding that there are no good reasons for believing gods to be real, validated by the falsification of the arguments theists do attempt. Having set out his straw man, Sword continues to fail to grasp moreover that “God” is the positive assertion and that the burden of proof issue isn’t an “excuse” at all but rather is a basic tenet of logical discourse.
That works both ways, something you are not prepared to accept because you do not appear to understand how truth works, or properties of truth.
In which Sword fails to grasp that it would work both ways only if his straw man version of a-theism wasn’t a straw man, and moreover that his interlocutor understands therefore much better than he does “how truth works”.
Apart from that though…
-
In which Sword fails to grasp that the point being made was that the NPF is often used in answer to the question, “what evidence is there for your “God”?” so no guessing about why else people attempt it is required.
In which Sword fails to grasp that the point here and in that book is that the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate a “true for you too” god are bad arguments.
In which Sword fails to grasp that a-theism is merely the finding that there are no good reasons for believing gods to be real, validated by the falsification of the arguments theists do attempt. Having set out his straw man, Sword continues to fail to grasp moreover that “God” is the positive assertion and that the burden of proof issue isn’t an “excuse” at all but rather is a basic tenet of logical discourse.
In which Sword fails to grasp that it would work both ways only if his straw man version of a-theism wasn’t a straw man, and moreover that his interlocutor understands therefore much better than he does “how truth works”.
Apart from that though…
No Hillside it is believing there are no good reasons for believing God!s.
Stop trying to pass your own beliefs as "discoveries".
-
Given a long enough span of time and a large enough amount of space, anything that can happen, will happen.
This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time. Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty. To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty. You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.
-
This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time. Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty. To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty. You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.
Even taking into account Hoyle's expertise in the matter your comment is blatant rubbish as no-one has yet been able to calculate the total size and compostion of the known universe, so your figures (and Hoyle's) are conjecture - but at least Hoyle had the grace and good manners to admit it!
-
This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time. Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty. To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty. You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.
It tells us nothing if the conditions used for the calculation are incorrect.
-
This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time. Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty. To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty. You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.
Very nice, but Hoyle's approach isn't accepted by evolutionary biologists primarily since it assumes complexity in a single step (hence the tornado in a junkyard assembling a functioning aeroplane analogy) - since Hoyle is often cited by creationist clowns I'd have though this would indicate that he got this argument wrong.
According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:
These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.
They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.
They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.
They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.
They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.
They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado
-
No Hillside it is believing there are no good reasons for believing God!s.
Stop trying to pass your own beliefs as "discoveries".
In which Vlad fails to grasp that "there are no good reasons for believing in gods" is merely the outcome when the arguments theists attempt to validate gods have been falsified.
-
Given a long enough span of time and a large enough amount of space, anything that can happen, will happen.
This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time. Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty. To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty. You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.
I find this thrice baffling.
On the simplest level my statement cannot be falsified because it is merely a truism; the clue is in the use of the word enough
Bafflement number two is why you cling to a view fifty years out of date. Hoyle might have been a brilliant mind, and a Yorkshireman to boot, but things have moved on since then and now scientists expect to find life wherever conditions allow for delicate biology.
Bafflement number three which I find the most puzzling, is why a theist like you would be arguing anyway that God, in order to bring about life and ultimately humanity, would engineer a universe so utterly inhospitable to life such that the possibilities for biology are effectively zero. Surely that would be best way to bring about the ruination, rather than the realisation, of his own purpose.
-
In which Vlad fails to grasp that "there are no good reasons for believing in gods" is merely the outcome when the arguments theists attempt to validate gods have been falsified.
In which Hillsides mistakes merely coming up with an alternative argument and/or merely asserting wrongness of argument or setting up a straw man argument, with falsifying argument.
-
In which Sword fails to grasp that the point being made was that the NPF is often used in answer to the question, “what evidence is there for your “God”?” so no guessing about why else people attempt it is required.
In which Sword fails to grasp that the point here and in that book is that the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate a “true for you too” god are bad arguments.
In which Sword fails to grasp that a-theism is merely the finding thdat there are no good reasons for believing gods to be real, validated by the falsification of the arguments theists do attempt. Having set out his straw man, Sword continues to fail to grasp moreover that “God” is the positive assertion and that the burden of proof issue isn’t an “excuse” at all but rather is a basic tenet of logical discourse.
In which Sword fails to grasp that it would work both ways only if his straw man version of a-theism wasn’t a straw man, and moreover that his interlocutor understands therefore much better than he does “how truth works”.
Apart from that though…
In which Hillside continues not to back up his assertions made here.
Demonstrate that God is merely true for believers.......a meaningless phrase in any case since you are suggesting than an unconscious physical naturalism is true for everyone.
-
Dear Torridon,
Bafflement number three which I find the most puzzling, is why a theist like you would be arguing anyway that God, in order to bring about life and ultimately humanity, would engineer a universe so utterly inhospitable to life such that the possibilities for biology are effectively zero. Surely that would be best way to bring about the ruination, rather than the realisation, of his own purpose.
Sorry but I am baffled by your bafflement, "a Universe so utterly inhospitable"?? Maybe you should write to those SETI folk and tell them to give up :o :o
Gonnagle.
-
Dear Torridon,
Sorry but I am baffled by your bafflement, "a Universe so utterly inhospitable"?? Maybe you should write to those SETI folk and tell them to give up :o :o
Gonnagle.
Yes I'm wondering whether we'll either catch Torridon having argued or arguing in future that we don't know what conditions life can thrive in..........which as atheists well know is a standard rebuttal for fine tuning.
Torridon needs to clear up where he stands on this because one can't have it both ways.
-
#295
Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty. To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty. You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.
Very nice, but Hoyle's approach isn't accepted by evolutionary biologists primarily since it assumes complexity in a single step (hence the tornado in a junkyard assembling a functioning aeroplane analogy) - since Hoyle is often cited by creationist clowns I'd have though this would indicate that he got this argument wrong.
Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.
If the success for a single step can be analogous to me throwing ten coins in the air and working out the probability that all of them come down on heads, then the probability is 1/2^10, or 1/1024.
If the success for smaller steps (ten for the analogy above) is still ten heads (this time, in a row), then guess what? The probability is still 1/2^10 or 1/1024!!
Furthermore, with the smaller steps approach, why should any one path be favoured more than the other, if it takes many steps to get there? The destination is not known in advance.
I suppose the irony of the following will not be seen by the likes of Dawkins, et al:
Dawkins reminds us that natural selection produces such creatures through a series of incremental steps that "smear out" their improbability over long periods of time. To reinforce this point, he tells us how he constructed a computer program that, with only a few rules for guidance, could "learn" to construct webs remarkably similar to those built by real spiders.
Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/1996/09/the_mystery_of_life.html
yet he won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!
-
#295Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.
If the success for a single step can be analogous to me throwing ten coins in the air and working out the probability that all of them come down on heads, then the probability is 1/2^10, or 1/1024.
If the success for smaller steps (ten for the analogy above) is still ten heads (this time, in a row), then guess what? The probability is still 1/2^10 or 1/1024!!
Furthermore, with the smaller steps approach, why should any one path be favoured more than the other, if it takes many steps to get there? The destination is not known in advance.
I suppose the irony of the following will not be seen by the likes of Dawkins, et al:Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/1996/09/the_mystery_of_life.html
yet he won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!
Before we recommend you for the 2017 Nobel Prize I take it you're sure about the assumptions on which you've based your probability calculations?
P.S Behe is one of the creationist clowns I referred to earlier.
-
Dear Torridon,
Sorry but I am baffled by your bafflement, "a Universe so utterly inhospitable"?? Maybe you should write to those SETI folk and tell them to give up :o :o
Gonnagle.
That is not my view, I was responding to Mr Burns who displays a penchant for quoting Hoyle to give the impression that life could not have arisen naturally in this universe. My understanding is radically different to that, rather that life, although rare in strictly spatio-temporal terms, is an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature and thus will be widespread in the universe. Furthermore I would add that this is simply an expression of an underlying math that relates incidence to complexity; thus unicellular life would be comparatively widespread but civilisation building spacefaring life would be vanishingly rare.
-
...yet [Dawkins] won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!
quite likely because the whole concept of 'creator' is a logical fallacy, a false friend; it appears superficially attractive as an explanation but in fact it explains nothing and only leaves us saddled with the yet bigger problem of who created the creator.
-
Dear Torridon,
Fair enough, so we agree, this Universe is absolutely perfect to bring forth life, it's as if it had been tweaked but then that's silly thinking ::) ::)
Gonnagle.
-
Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.
If the success for a single step can be analogous to me throwing ten coins in the air and working out the probability that all of them come down on heads, then the probability is 1/2^10, or 1/1024.
If the success for smaller steps (ten for the analogy above) is still ten heads (this time, in a row), then guess what? The probability is still 1/2^10 or 1/1024!!
Furthermore, with the smaller steps approach, why should any one path be favoured more than the other, if it takes many steps to get there? The destination is not known in advance.
I suppose the irony of the following will not be seen by the likes of Dawkins, et al:
In which Sword blunders spectacularly into the lottery winner’s fallacy: perfect logic throughout but only provided you have a good reason to suppose that Homo sapiens was the intended outcome all along. What are the chances eh?
Of course, those of a more thoughtful bent would point him towards the anthropic principle, Adams’ puddle, the perils of looking down the wrong end of the telescope etc in the vain hope that even Sword would grasp that there’s nothing special about him as a supposed end game. Tweak any of the variables and there may have been either no life at all or completely different kinds of life that had evolved by adapting to their different environments.
Funny to think that, had different life types evolved somewhere, a not very bright member of a six-headed gargle monster community on Alpha Centauri (let's call him "Sward") would be posting somewhere, “but the chances of me existing by lots of little steps are fantastically rare, therefore…"etc.
Happy days eh?
-
In which Hillsides mistakes merely coming up with an alternative argument and/or merely asserting wrongness of argument or setting up a straw man argument, with falsifying argument.
In which Vlad finally loses what little grasp of basic English he may ever have had.
In which Hillside continues not to back up his assertions made here.
Demonstrate that God is merely true for believers.......a meaningless phrase in any case since you are suggesting than an unconscious physical naturalism is true for everyone.
In which Vlad quite spectacularly demonstrates his continued failure to grasp the burden of proof principle by relying on one of his favourite straw men, apparently oblivious to the actual position that undoes him: namely that, while gods may be true for their believers, so far at least none of them have managed to make an argument cogent enough to bridge the gap from "true for me" to "true for you too".
Desperate stuff indeed.
-
In which Vlad finally loses what little grasp of basic English he may ever have had.
In which Vlad quite spectacularly demonstrates his continued failure to grasp the burden of proof principle by relying on one of his favourite straw men, apparently oblivious to the actual position that undoes him: namely that, while gods may be true for their believers, so far at least none of them have managed to make an argument cogent enough to bridge the gap from "true for me" to "true for you too".
Desperate stuff indeed.
In which Hillside tries to make us believe that being an atheist exonerates him from demonstrating any positive assertion...
Gods are either true for everyone or they they are true for no one.
-
In which Hillside tries to make us believe that being an atheist exonerates him from demonstrating any positive assertion...
In which Vlad fails again to grasp that on only "positive assertion" is that arguments attempted so far for a "true for you too god" have been falsified - many time in fact, however much he may choose to lie about the content of the falsifications.
Gods are either true for everyone or they they are true for no one.
In which, after years of attempts, Vlad finally manages to get something right. Sadly however, the vacuity of the efforts so far to demonstrate the former leave him only with the latter.
-
In which Hillside tries to make us believe that being an atheist exonerates him from demonstrating any positive assertion...
Gods are either true for everyone or they they are true for no one.
All of those that people throughout history have expressed an allegiance to or just your preferred version?
-
I believe in love and compassion.
-
In which Vlad fails again to grasp that on only "positive assertion" is that arguments attempted so far for a "true for you too god" have been falsified - many time in fact, however much he may choose to lie about the content of the falsifications.
In which, after years of attempts, Vlad finally manages to get something right. Sadly however, the vacuity of the efforts so far to demonstrate the former leave him only with the latter.
The only vacuity here is the one experienced after you and the Gordster are asked for explanation or justification for your assertions.......and on that bombshell Hillside I'll bid you goodnight.
-
The only vacuity here is the one experienced after you and the Gordster are asked for explanation or justification for your assertions.......and on that bombshell Hillside I'll bid you goodnight.
In which Vlad keeps on lying 'til it hurts.
Oh well.
-
I believe in love and compassion.
I believe they exist too.
-
Creators fallacious? Has no one created anything? What on earth can this ''false friend'' arsepull mean?
If we try to understand A by saying 'B must have made it', this gets us nowhere if we cannot say where B came from. The creator fallacy is thus a false friend - appearing to solve a problem but in fact it only invites an infinite regress of creators which is a more intractable problem than just understanding A. Another way to think of it is as a painkiller - it doesn't really address the underlying problem but it makes the pain go away.
-
I believe in love and compassion.
Hooray :)
Do you also believe in truth ? In which case what do you say to your wife when she comes home from the shops with a really awful new hat. Do you sacrifice compassion for the truth or do you sacrifice truth for compassion ? Sorry derailment; please ignore ;D
-
If we try to understand A by saying 'B must have made it', this gets us nowhere if we cannot say where B came from. The creator fallacy is thus a false friend - appearing to solve a problem but in fact it only invites an infinite regress of creators which is a more intractable problem than just understanding A. Another way to think of it is as a painkiller - it doesn't really address the underlying problem but it makes the pain go away.
I don't think anybody is saying 'must'. I think most theists respect that there are other thought solutions to the great question but that at the end these are themselves unfalsifiable.
Infinite regress is one hazard of having big bangs and...it looks as though we have one and that invites an infinite regress which doesn't seem too problematical for you (special pleading?).
We are both, in our thinking, after an overall solution to the big question. If you are saying there is one.....How is that different from a God proposed solution?(more special pleading?).
Then we don't have even to consider a regression of creators or big bangs do we?
All we have to do is either have an infinite God or an infinite unconscious universe....and you won't accept the former why?(special pleading?).
Your beef really seems to be with a conscious infinite and that is pure naturalism.
Penultimately, those who realise that there is, contrary to what you say, no ''must'' about it. Have you not contemplated that these peoples actual belief in God is contingent on other things...not least an experience of God?
However this is more about you and IMHO you and your like accept philosophical naturalism all too readily and are too certain that it possesses some kind of flawlessness.
Finally there are Christians who are agnostic about God the creator and others like Origen for whom pre-existing matter is not a problem. They would say that this is because they are followers of the living Christ.
-
#295*Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.
It sounds as if you think that your opinion on the matter is better** than that of Richard Dawkins. If this is so, what are your qualifications for doing so?
I see Gordon has mentioned Nobel prizes!
* Could you please explain this #295 - I've looked at the post and it seems that the words are yours?
** and /or more trustworthy, superior to, supported by better evidence...
]
-
I believe they exist too.
Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from? Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature? Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?
-
Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from? Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature? Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?
Well, it would be interesting to see a concrete demonstration of the latter. Can you give any citations, where this is done?
-
Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from? Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature? Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?
Its a few chemical reactions in the brain.
Sorry about that.
Not just humans either; as mammals we have inherited the seven major emotions common to all mammals that come with the limbic system
-
It's not only a few chemical reactions; it's also a subjective experience (first person), which correlates with those chemical reactions. As to how one leads to the other, unknown at the moment, but there are some promising research avenues. As for research into the soul, well, hmm, we're still waiting.
http://news.mit.edu/2016/brain-processes-emotions-mental-illness-depression-0331
-
Its a few chemical reactions in the brain.
Ah,yes but such chemical reactions eh?
-
I don't think anybody is saying 'must'. I think most theists respect that there are other thought solutions to the great question but that at the end these are themselves unfalsifiable.
Infinite regress is one hazard of having big bangs and...it looks as though we have one and that invites an infinite regress which doesn't seem too problematical for you (special pleading?).
We are both, in our thinking, after an overall solution to the big question. If you are saying there is one.....How is that different from a God proposed solution?(more special pleading?).
Then we don't have even to consider a regression of creators or big bangs do we?
All we have to do is either have an infinite God or an infinite unconscious universe....and you won't accept the former why?(special pleading?).
Your beef really seems to be with a conscious infinite and that is pure naturalism.
Penultimately, those who realise that there is, contrary to what you say, no ''must'' about it. Have you not contemplated that these peoples actual belief in God is contingent on other things...not least an experience of God?
However this is more about you and IMHO you and your like accept philosophical naturalism all too readily and are too certain that it possesses some kind of flawlessness.
Finally there are Christians who are agnostic about God the creator and others like Origen for whom pre-existing matter is not a problem. They would say that this is because they are followers of the living Christ.
I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism', I just don't see any justification for supernaturalism. I don't think we could define or detect 'supernatural' so that puts it out of the field of enquiry. Not that I claim to have any profound answers, I think noone does, I am just flagging up what seems like dodgy reasoning to me, and that has included, recently, Matrix (or Simulation) theory and theism for both suffering an implication of infinite regress, and therefore probably a logic fail. Or, with God, by defining God as uncaused and eternal, I think a tautology is on offer here, we are simply defining God to avoid the infinite regress and to avoid the question of his nature or origins. that looks like a fudge to me, and it looks like a simple answer to a question that in reality is very hard and demands more work from us to think clearly and freely without affectation or bias. My instincts suggest answers to our deepest questions will stem from pure logic eventually; anything anthropocentric in character, like theism, always looks suspicious to me.
-
I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism', I just don't see any justification for supernaturalism.
I think, in a very few words, you've summed up the principle of what many on the opposite side of the debate to yourself feel, Walter. Science is limited to physical evidence, whilst real life would seem to extend beyond the mere physical - and therefore they don't believe that there is any justification for restricting one's understanding of real life to 'naturalism' (to recycle a term of yours).
-
I sometimes think that the riddle of consciousness will be solved by a mathematical discovery, explaining how third person becomes first person. 'Consciousness is a mathematical pattern', (Tegmark).
https://www.reddit.com/r/ted/comments/3l963t/consciousness_is_a_mathematical_pattern_max/
-
I think, in a very few words, you've summed up the principle of what many on the opposite side of the debate to yourself feel, Walter. Science is limited to physical evidence, whilst real life would seem to extend beyond the mere physical - and therefore they don't believe that there is any justification for restricting one's understanding of real life to 'naturalism' (to recycle a term of yours).
That looks a rather dated idea of science. In the nineteenth century, with its emphasis on chemistry, perhaps. But now we have multiple disciplines converging to help explain the seemingly intangible worlds of mental phenomena.
-
Indeed, every human being has the capacity to show compassion and love.
But where is it sourced from? Is it a few chemical reactions in the brain driven entirely by the deterministic laws of nature?
Probably.
Or is it the capacity of the human soul to consciously interact with natural laws?
Unlikely.
-
Unlikely.
on what basis of calculation can you evaluate Alan Burns' statement as unlikely?
-
Probably.
On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?
Unlikely.
On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?
Sorry, NS, I hadn't realised that you had already asked something similar.
-
On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?
On what evidence do you come to this conclusion?
Sorry, NS, I hadn't realised that you had already asked something similar.
No problem, but it should be noted that the same challenge applies to Alan's statements. And despite he and you being asked for a methodology to cover these sort of statements hundreds of times, nothing has appeared
-
We know that the brain is involved in our emotions and actions. There is no evidence for the existence of a soul. On balance I would say that love and compassion are products of brain activity. I can't say it is certain but o balance seems most likely to me.
-
We know that the brain is involved in our emotions and actions. There is no evidence for the existence of a soul. On balance I would say that love and compassion are products of brain activity. I can't say it is certain but o balance seems most likely to me.
what would be evidence for a non naturalistic claim? How do use probability which is based in assumption of naturalism to give a figure for such a claim?
-
I didn't give a figure and wouldn't attempt to. No idea what would be evidence for a non-naturalistic claim.
-
I didn't give a figure and wouldn't attempt to. No idea what would be evidence for a non-naturalistic claim.
to state something as unlikely there is an implied figure. Given you don't have an idea on how to evaluate it, the idea of 'unlikely' is specious
-
I sometimes think that the riddle of consciousness will be solved by a mathematical discovery, explaining how third person becomes first person. 'Consciousness is a mathematical pattern', (Tegmark).
But any pattern can only be perceived as a pattern from outside observation. I once came across a mathematical proof that perception can't be defined in material terms.
-
But any pattern can only be perceived as a pattern from outside observation. I once came across a mathematical proof that perception can't be defined in material terms.
Splat!
-
Hi torri,
I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism'...
You're probably aware of this already, but just in passing you should be aware that when Vlad uses this terms he means by it his own personal re-definition of, "the natural is necessarily all there is" rather than its actual meaning of, "the natural is all we know of that's reliably accessible and investigable".
So far as I'm aware pretty much no-one actually subscribes to his straw man, but he's so hugely invested in it ("how would you falsify that then?") that he prefers the dishonesty of sticking with it in order to demolish it rather than finally coming clean. Its contemptible stuff though, which is why I've concluded that there's no point in engaging with someone for whom words and terms mean whatever he wants them to mean.
Possibly he's related to one D. Trump?
-
to state something as unlikely there is an implied figure. Given you don't have an idea on how to evaluate it, the idea of 'unlikely' is specious
Fine.
-
NS,
to state something as unlikely there is an implied figure. Given you don't have an idea on how to evaluate it, the idea of 'unlikely' is specious
Why though? The naturalistic paradigm is hugely well-supported by evidence, whereas there's none for the supernatural. Thus when naturalistic explanations are found they're unremarkable inasmuch as they fit the paradigm and join the set of bajillions that came before; identifying a supernatural explanation on the other hand (assuming there could ever be a method to do such a thing) would be an astonishing and unique finding, in a sample set of one.
Of course the black swan (or black fairy or some such I guess) is always possible, but probabilistically "likely" and "unlikely" seem reasonable to me without requiring specific numbers - the former being in accord with the way the universe observably works, the latter contradicting the way the universe observably works.
-
NS,
Why though? The naturalistic paradigm is hugely well-supported by evidence, whereas there's none for the supernatural. Thus when naturalistic explanations are found they're unremarkable inasmuch as they fit the paradigm and join the set of bajillions that came before; identifying a supernatural explanation on the other hand (assuming there could ever be a method to do such a thing) would be an astonishing and unique finding, in a sample set of one.
Of course the black swan (or black fairy or some such I guess) is always possible, but probabilistically "likely" and "unlikely" seem reasonable to me without requiring specific numbers - the former being in accord with the way the universe observably works, the latter contradicting the way the universe observably works.
because all of that is based on an assumption of naturalism and using methodological naturalism.
-
NS,
because all of that is based on an assumption of naturalism and using methodological naturalism.
So? I think it unlikely that fairies will take the wheel if I fall asleep while driving, and I find that to be the case based on motoring experience - mine and other people's. Why do I need specific numbers to be right about that?
-
NS,
So? I think it unlikely that fairies will take the wheel if I fall asleep while driving, and I find that to be the case based on motoring experience - mine and other people's. Why do I need specific numbers to be right about that?
Not sure whether you are being disingenuous here or not but you appear to be mistaking probability of a naturalistic defined effect as the same as non naturalistic cause?
-
because all of that is based on an assumption of naturalism and using methodological naturalism.
No, it's based on observation. We observe that every time we have come up with an explanation of a phenomenon it has been naturalistic. The expectation (i.e. probability > 1/2) is therefore that all those things we can't explain are going to turn out to be natural.
-
NS,
Not sure whether you are being disingenuous here or not but you appear to be mistaking probability of a naturalistic defined effect as the same as non naturalistic cause?
Not at all. I'm just not sure that I follow your thinking about needing specific numbers reasonably to assign "likely" and "unlikely" labels to various conjectures.
-
NS,
Not at all. I'm just not sure that I follow your thinking about needing specific numbers reasonably to assign "likely" and "unlikely" labels to various conjectures.
you could have a spread of numbers, didn't ask for specific. How do you do any calculation with NO numbers?
-
No, it's based on observation. We observe that every time we have come up with an explanation of a phenomenon it has been naturalistic. The expectation (i.e. probability > 1/2) is therefore that all those things we can't explain are going to turn out to be natural.
you cannot observe things have a naturalistic cause if you do not have a method that can show what are naturalistic causes as opposed to non naturalistic ones. If your methodology is based on assumption of naturalism this is by definition impossible! Got any such non naturalistic methodology?
-
NS,
you could have a spread of numbers, didn't ask for specific. How do you do any calculation with NO numbers?
Well, you did say "a figure" and "an implied figure" in consecutive posts. The indefinite articles sounded specific to me, hence the question.
-
NS,
Well, you did say "a figure" and "an implied figure" in consecutive posts. The indefinite articles sounded specific to me, hence the question.
never said specific though. Got any answer to how you do probability with no numbers!
-
NS,
you could have a spread of numbers, didn't ask for specific. How do you do any calculation with NO numbers?
How would "a" figure or "an" implied figure not be specific figures?
-
NS,
How would "a" figure or "an" implied figure not be specific figures?
because it could be a range. Again got any figures?
-
I once came across a mathematical proof that perception can't be defined in material terms.
Come on then, post it up
-
Come on then, post it up
I did post it on an old thread which has since been removed. I can't remember the link, but if I do come across it I will post it again.
-
I suggest you present the evidence yourself: the burden of proof is yours.
Like a student telling his lecturer he has to do the work for him.
The evidence of fallacies is their use, and there are numerous textbook examples to be found in this Forum.
None I have seen in this thread that would relate to anything on the forum.
-
Like a student telling his lecturer he has to do the work for him.
None I have seen in this thread that would relate to anything on the forum.
Admit it Sass you have no evidence!
-
I don't know that I 'accept philosophical naturalism', I just don't see any justification for supernaturalism. I don't think we could define or detect 'supernatural' so that puts it out of the field of enquiry. Not that I claim to have any profound answers, I think noone does, I am just flagging up what seems like dodgy reasoning to me, and that has included, recently, Matrix (or Simulation) theory and theism for both suffering an implication of infinite regress, and therefore probably a logic fail. Or, with God, by defining God as uncaused and eternal, I think a tautology is on offer here, we are simply defining God to avoid the infinite regress and to avoid the question of his nature or origins. that looks like a fudge to me, and it looks like a simple answer to a question that in reality is very hard and demands more work from us to think clearly and freely without affectation or bias. My instincts suggest answers to our deepest questions will stem from pure logic eventually; anything anthropocentric in character, like theism, always looks suspicious to me.
I think you have successfully concluded that you do not have all the answers yet, but you persist in relying on human endeavours to find the answers. I have concluded that our human brains alone do not have the capacity to find the answers you seek. But my Christian faith provides all the answers I will ever need.
-
#305
...yet [Dawkins] won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!
quite likely because the whole concept of 'creator' is a logical fallacy, a false friend; it appears superficially attractive as an explanation but in fact it explains nothing and only leaves us saddled with the yet bigger problem of who created the creator.
#320
If we try to understand A by saying 'B must have made it', this gets us nowhere if we cannot say where B came from. The creator fallacy is thus a false friend - appearing to solve a problem but in fact it only invites an infinite regress of creators which is a more intractable problem than just understanding A.
But this is creating a problem where none exists, in my opinion.
Do human beings design and make things? Yes.
Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.
Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.
Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?
-
I think you have successfully concluded that you do not have all the answers yet, but you persist in relying on human endeavours to find the answers. I have concluded that our human brains alone do not have the capacity to find the answers you seek. But my Christian faith provides all the answers I will ever need.
I think human brains are the best sort for figuring out this sort of stuff. All the contents of the world's faiths are themselves the products of human brains anyhow. Unlike you I try to avoid using faith as a route to discovery and understanding - as is apparent from your last sentence, faith tends to lead to closed minds.
-
#305#320But this is creating a problem where none exists, in my opinion.
Do human beings design and make things? Yes.
Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.
Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.
Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?
[/b][/i][/u]
That is your conclusion, but I suspect there is another explanation which science will discover in the end.
I am of the opinion humans are the designers where all the world's gods are concerned. The Biblical god is a very unpleasant human construction.
-
I think human brains are the best sort for figuring out this sort of stuff. All the contents of the world's faiths are themselves the products of human brains anyhow. Unlike you I try to avoid using faith as a route to discovery and understanding - as is apparent from your last sentence, faith tends to lead to closed minds.
My mind is not closed. Every day I open it up to allow God into my life. I just wish that more people would open up the door to allow God in.
-
#305#320But this is creating a problem where none exists, in my opinion.
Do human beings design and make things? Yes.
Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.
Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.
Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?
Then you just haven't grasped the extent of the problem you are creating. There is nothing in the above that attempts to explain the origins or the nature of god. Complexity has it origins in simpler constituents; atoms are complex arrangements of subatomic particles, likewise molecules are complex arrangements of atoms, likewise up we go until we get to galaxies and photosynthesis and insurance salesmen. Large numbers are made up of lots of little numbers, not the reverse. If your principle to explain something complex is to posit an even more complex creator then you are committing yourself to an infinite regress of ever increasingly complex creators. So if you think this universe was created by a creator that implies that God was also created by some higher creator god. Your approach leads to nonsense. Better to try to understand things the right way round - that complexity derives from origins that are simpler, not more complex.
-
My mind is not closed. Every day I open it up to allow God into my life. I just wish that more people would open up the door to allow God in.
Maybe opening up to God, to use your phrase, is simultaneously closing the door to new insights gathered through other means. I get the impression that your understanding of science belongs to somewhere around 1980, as if God came in and you lost interest at that point. Seems a shame that. Keeping an open mind, means always being open to new insights, and being open to the probability that you have been wrong about things in the past including god. None of us have all the answers.
-
Dear Torridon,
that complexity derives from origins that are simpler, not more complex.
Yes! Science is like a jigsaw, we think some of the pieces are missing but they are there, right in front of us, once we grasp how simple it is the complexity will fall away, God/ the Universe is simple, we need to look at the simple then we will understand the complex.
I think it is the way we study the Universe, we need a new science, your only goal is to see the beauty, Einstein see's a Library, I see a dance, choreographed, set to the most beautiful music.
Carl Sagan,
“The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together.”
Or to put it another way, the way they all dance together ;) ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0aEHw3vKLg
"They cut me down but I leaped up high I am the life that will never ever die, i'll live in you if you live in me for I am the Lord of the dance said he"
We are all part of the dance :) :)
Gonnagle.
-
Hi Gabriella,
The benefits (or disbenefits) of a belief have nothing to do with its truthfulness or otherwise. As pretty much every occasion the NPF is deployed is in a discussion about whether or not the belief is true though, it's hard to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.
Hi BHS
Sorry - got too busy to respond. Am leaving for airport today so will probably respond further once I get back to London.
I did a search on NPF and looked at some of the posts in the results and cannot find one where it is used as an answer to justify the truth of the belief. From what I saw a theist uses personal experience as justification for their belief and there is currently no answer to the question as to what methodology exists for identifying something as supernatural in order to establish or falsify the supernatural. I did not see any answers to the question of why a theist belief is different from a guess.
-
Well hello everyone
I'm back after about seven days of no internet and have been reading your posts to catch up
I'm very disappointed in you religious people , NOTHING. NO EVIDENCE. You should take a look at how the non religious put forward an argument or a rebuttal and learn from them if you want to be taken seriously. Thank you to them, some very clever posts.
Anyway I knew it would be futile and now its confirmed ,thanks to all.
-
My mind is not closed. Every day I open it up to allow God into my life. I just wish that more people would open up the door to allow God in.
Could you be wrong about the existence of your god.
If you do not say yes, then you ARE closed minded.
-
Could you be wrong about the existence of your god.
If you do not say yes, then you ARE closed minded.
"Do not" or "Cannot"? I think his religious beliefs make it that, much as he might want to say it, his beliefs will not allow him to do so!
-
"Do not" or "Cannot"? I think his religious beliefs make it that, much as he might want to say it, his beliefs will not allow him to do so!
Quite!
But being unable to consider being wrong means he is in fact closed minded.
-
Well hello everyone
I'm back after about seven days of no internet and have been reading your posts to catch up
I'm very disappointed in you religious people , NOTHING. NO EVIDENCE. You should take a look at how the non religious put forward an argument or a rebuttal and learn from them if you want to be taken seriously. Thank you to them, some very clever posts.
Anyway I knew it would be futile and now its confirmed ,thanks to all.
That's why it's called faith. It's a personal interpretation of experiences.
On the issue of faith being taken seriously, personally speaking I can't think of how it would make a difference to me if my religious, ethical, moral or political views are taken seriously any more than it would matter to an atheist if their lack of belief in religion or their political views or morals etc are taken seriously. We can only put our opinions forward and seek to persuade and then leave it up to individuals to decide whatever they are persuaded by, within the limits of a changing legal framework.
If someone claims they are persuaded by any or all of my opinions on all kinds of issues or views, I would still think that they would have to go through their own individual investigation, exploration, experience and interpretation.
Happy to work together with other people to form a society on the basis of mutual respect though. I am unable to provide a single definition of mutual respect - i imagine the definition would change over time and it would be defined as we went along depending on the particular circumstances, competing interests, some kind of consensus, and lots of testing of definitions through case law.
-
I agree with what Gabriella says above except I wouldn't seek to persuade.
We cannot produce any evidence. We can speak amongst ourselves about what is evident to us but cannot expect anyone who does not have faith to believe it.
-
That's why it's called faith. It's a personal interpretation of experiences.
On the issue of faith being taken seriously, personally speaking I can't think of how it would make a difference to me if my religious, ethical, moral or political views are taken seriously any more than it would matter to an atheist if their lack of belief in religion or their political views or morals etc are taken seriously. We can only put our opinions forward and seek to persuade and then leave it up to individuals to decide whatever they are persuaded by, within the limits of a changing legal framework.
If someone claims they are persuaded by any or all of my opinions on all kinds of issues or views, I would still think that they would have to go through their own individual investigation, exploration, experience and interpretation.
Happy to work together with other people to form a society on the basis of mutual respect though. I am unable to provide a single definition of mutual respect - i imagine the definition would change over time and it would be defined as we went along depending on the particular circumstances, competing interests, some kind of consensus, and lots of testing of definitions through case law.
you sound like a nice person Gabriella if a bit long winded, however I have no interest in peoples opinions especially those who appear to have no understanding of reality.
call me I think we could have a good time together ;)
-
#366
Do human beings design and make things? Yes.
Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.
Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.
Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?
Then you just haven't grasped the extent of the problem you are creating. There is nothing in the above that attempts to explain the origins or the nature of god. Complexity has it origins in simpler constituents; atoms are complex arrangements of subatomic particles, likewise molecules are complex arrangements of atoms, likewise up we go until we get to galaxies and photosynthesis and insurance salesmen. Large numbers are made up of lots of little numbers, not the reverse. If your principle to explain something complex is to posit an even more complex creator then you are committing yourself to an infinite regress of ever increasingly complex creators.
But surely this fails as soon as you apply it to anything human beings design and create?
Because we know that human beings design and create things, one does not need to explain the origin of human beings in order to conclude that computers, cars, aircraft, bridges, etc., are designed and created.
Your approach leads to nonsense. Better to try to understand things the right way round - that complexity derives from origins that are simpler, not more complex.
Which, in my opinion creates a bigger problem because you have a reverse regression, which inevitably means something coming from nothing.
-
NOTHING
FFS
read some SCIENCE books
NOTHING Jeez!
-
NS,
because it could be a range. Again got any figures?
A range requires more than one figure for its upper and lower boundaries, so it can’t be “a” figure.
It’ll be otiose to go around this again though as the more substantive issue is whether it’s necessary to have numbers of any kind reasonably to call “unlikely” a supernatural causal claim for an observed phenomenon.
I’m still not sure that it is. As I understand it, those who assert the supernatural think they’ve used their (naturalistic) reasoning to reach that conclusion, and moreover that if only the rest of us could grasp their thinking we’d agree with them. They don’t so far as I’m aware claim to have magic antennae or some such that enable them to discern these supposed supernatural entities in ways we can’t.
That is, to make their “argument” they play on naturalism’s turf – “if only you could reason it my way, you’d reach the same conclusions that I have”. As that’s where they are, it seems to me reasonable to note that none of that coheres with the lived experience, and nor for that matter does it cohere with any test we might like to set up (“testing” being a naturalistic concept in any case).
If your thinking here is that conjectures about the supernatural are just white noise and so are not probability apt I have sympathy for that, but when some insert those conjectures into the naturalistic world then I’m content to respond with, “but the naturalistic world I appear to inhabit tells me that, within its own paradigm, your claim is unlikely to be true”.
-
NS,
A range requires more than one figure for its upper and lower boundaries, so it can’t be “a” figure.
It’ll be otiose to go around this again though as the more substantive issue is whether it’s necessary to have numbers of any kind reasonably to call “unlikely” a supernatural causal claim for an observed phenomenon.
I’m still not sure that it is. As I understand it, those who assert the supernatural think they’ve used their (naturalistic) reasoning to reach that conclusion, and moreover that if only the rest of us could grasp their thinking we’d agree with them. They don’t so far as I’m aware claim to have magic antenna or some such that enable them to discern these supposed supernatural entities in ways we can’t.
That is, to make their “argument” they play on naturalism’s turf – “if only you could reason it my way, you’d reach the same conclusions that I have”. As that’s where they are, it seems to me reasonable to note that none of that coheres with the lived experience, and nor for that matter does it cohere with any test we might like to set up (“testing” being a naturalistic concept in any case).
If your thinking here is that conjectures about the supernatural are just white noise and so are not probability apt I have sympathy for that, but when some insert those conjectures into the naturalistic world then I’m content to respond with, “but the naturalistic world I appear to inhabit tells me that, within its own paradigm, your claim is unlikely to be true”.
if I were a Typhoon pilot you could be my wing man. Id be straight in there, you could tell me why I did it.
-
NS,
A range requires more than one figure for its upper and lower boundaries, so it can’t be “a” figure.
It’ll be otiose to go around this again though as the more substantive issue is whether it’s necessary to have numbers of any kind reasonably to call “unlikely” a supernatural causal claim for an observed phenomenon.
I’m still not sure that it is. As I understand it, those who assert the supernatural think they’ve used their (naturalistic) reasoning to reach that conclusion, and moreover that if only the rest of us could grasp their thinking we’d agree with them. They don’t so far as I’m aware claim to have magic antenna or some such that enable them to discern these supposed supernatural entities in ways we can’t.
That is, to make their “argument” they play on naturalism’s turf – “if only you could reason it my way, you’d reach the same conclusions that I have”. As that’s where they are, it seems to me reasonable to note that none of that coheres with the lived experience, and nor for that matter does it cohere with any test we might like to set up (“testing” being a naturalistic concept in any case).
If your thinking here is that conjectures about the supernatural are just white noise and so are not probability apt I have sympathy for that, but when some insert those conjectures into the naturalistic world then I’m content to respond with, “but the naturalistic world I appear to inhabit tells me that, within its own paradigm, your claim is unlikely to be true”.
My thinking here is that if someone uses naturalistic terms to state that supernaturalistic claims are 'unlikely' as Maeght did then they are just as much in need of producing a supernaturalistic method as any supernaturalists out there. And that when you don't expect them to do that, you are indulging in a double standard where you don't hold people's statements on such as needing to be held to that standard. In the absence of a method any statement of likelihood is entirely vacuous.
-
My thinking here is that if someone uses naturalistic terms to state that supernaturalistic claims are 'unlikely' as Maeght did then they are just as much in need of producing a supernaturalistic method as any supernaturalists out there. And that when you don't expect them to do that, you are indulging in a double standard where you don't hold people's statements on such as needing to be held to that standard. In the absence of a method any statement of likelihood is entirely vacuous.
NS
I've read that 5 times now . I know I'm stupid but do me favour and rewrite it just for me, thanks
-
NS
I've read that 5 times now . I know I'm stupid but do me favour and rewrite it just for me, thanks
If someone thinks a supernatural claim is 'unlikely' then they have to show their working, just as someone who claims that it is 'likely'
-
NS,
My thinking here is that if someone uses naturalistic terms to state that supernaturalistic claims are 'unlikely' as Maeght did then they are just as much in need of producing a supernaturalistic method as any supernaturalists out there. And that when you don't expect them to do that, you are indulging in a double standard where you don't hold people's statements on such as needing to be held to that standard. In the absence of a method any statement of likelihood is entirely vacuous.
I think that’s wrong. If someone asserted the supernatural but also made no claims to its interacting with the natural then I’d agree with you: it’s just noise, and so cannot be (im)probability apt.
That’s not what happens though. What happens is that those who assert the supernatural also assert it to be connected to or even causal of the natural – causing compassion for example to use the earlier suggestion. The moment they do that, then we’re on naturalism’s turf and it’s reasonable to respond with a, “but nothing in those points of supposed interaction indicates a supernatural component and so there’s no more reason to think your claim to be likely to be true than any other guess is likely to be true.”
And as guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong to be right, “unlikely” seems to me reasonable conceptually without the need for numbers.
-
NS,
I think that’s wrong. If someone asserted the supernatural but also made no claims to its interacting with the natural then I’d agree with you: it’s just noise, and so cannot be (im)probability apt.
That’s not what happens though. What happens is that those who assert the supernatural also assert it to be connected to or even causal of the natural – causing compassion for example to use the earlier suggestion. The moment they do that, then we’re on naturalism’s turf and it’s reasonable to respond with a, “but nothing in those points of supposed interaction indicates a supernatural component and so there’s no more reason to think your claim to be likely to be true than any other guess is likely to be true.”
And as guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong to be right, “unlikely” seems to me reasonable conceptually without the need for numbers.
You seem again to be missing the point here. I am happy to challenge any supernaturalist about their method to determine 'likelihood' but that very challenge appies equally to someone stating that the supernatural as unlikely. So given 'unlikely' is a calculation about figures, and the supernatural has no figures, how do you make the statement 'unlikely' in the absence of a methodology?
-
If someone thinks a supernatural claim is 'unlikely' then they have to show their working, just as someone who claims that it is 'likely'
are you being serious? No they don't . The word supernatural has no meaning to any right thinking person. If someone thinks it likely , they must show why , if they cant ,then I will laugh all day long at them trying to prove it
-
are you being serious? No they don't . The word supernatural has no meaning to any right thinking person. If someone thinks it likely , they must show why , if they cant ,then I will laugh all day long at them trying to prove it
perfectly serious. If you decide something is unlikely you need to show your work. It's the same claim as 'likely'
-
BTW
There is a direct coloration between the amount of morphine and my ability to appear intelligent on this thread so please forgive me if I offend anyone . you complete set of TWATS
I THANK YOU
-
NS,
You seem again to be missing the point here. I am happy to challenge any supernaturalist about their method to determine 'likelihood' but that very challenge appies equally to someone stating that the supernatural as unlikely. So given 'unlikely' is a calculation about figures, and the supernatural has no figures, how do you make the statement 'unlikely' in the absence of a methodology?
I think you're missing mine. It's not about whether the claim "supernatural" can be called likely or unlikely without a method to establish either; rather it's about what happens when folks hitch their claims of the supernatural to the naturalistic wagon. Thus "Thor" for example is just white noise, not (im)probability apt. "Thor causes thunder" on the other hand opens a line of reasoning that leads to "unlikely" with no numbers required.
So far as I'm aware those who do assert the supernatural always tie those claims to the natural - causing compassion for example - rather than just claim them in the abstract, so the response "unlikely" seems to me reasonable when they do it.
-
perfectly serious. If you decide something is unlikely you need to show your work. It's the same claim as 'likely'
ok . now you said that
is this example valid?
because of what we know of the history of the surface of planet mars it is unlikely we will find life there but it does not say yet that life existed there.
-
I agree with what Gabriella says above except I wouldn't seek to persuade.
We cannot produce any evidence. We can speak amongst ourselves about what is evident to us but cannot expect anyone who does not have faith to believe it.
I would seek to persuade someone to a particular POV but not in a heavy-handed way. For example I met a Trump supporter from Texas when I was on my way to Robben island, where Mandela had been held prisoner. He was trying to travel to 100 countries. He supported Trump's view that you don't want the wrong sort of immigrants coming into the US.
While helping him find the place from where the boat to Robben Island left and showing him where to buy his ticket, I also asked him if he would be ok with countries refusing him entry purely on the basis that he was from a country that had been involved in dropping bombs on and invading other countries, had a huge nuclear arsenal, and spent such a large proportion of its GDP on arms. I pointed out that this would be similar to Trump's proposed ban on Muslims from certain war-torn regions entering the US.
That's my idea of seeking to persuade other people to considering another POV - because I think there is a benefit to have people see things from various points of view.
-
NS,
I think you're missing mine. It's not about whether the claim "supernatural" can be called likely or unlikely without a method to establish either; rather it's about what happens when folks hitch their claims of the supernatural to the naturalistic wagon. Thus "Thor" for example is just white noise, not (im)probability apt. "Thor causes thunder" on the other hand opens a line of reasoning that leads to "unlikely" with no numbers required.
So far as I'm aware those who do assert the supernatural always tie those claims to the natural - causing compassion for example - rather than just claim them in the abstract, so the response "unlikely" seems to me reasonable when they do it.
no, I'm not missing your's, indeed I have already specifically agreed with it. So tell me how maeght is justified in the 'unlikely' claim which us where I started on thus thread, in the absence of a methodology?
-
you sound like a nice person Gabriella if a bit long winded, however I have no interest in peoples opinions especially those who appear to have no understanding of reality.
call me I think we could have a good time together ;)
I find I have to be long-winded on here as people make so many assumptions about what you meant. It's safer to put in a whole lot of caveats right at the start. It means I can usually dip in and out when I have time, having said my piece.
-
ok . now you said that
is this example valid?
because of what we know of the history of the surface of planet mars it is unlikely we will find life there but it does not say yet that life existed there.
Naturalistic claim being evaluated naturalistically, great and in terms of the discussion irrelevant.
-
NS,
no, I'm not missing your's, indeed I have already specifically agreed with it. So tell me how maeght is justified in the 'unlikely' claim which us where I started on thus thread, in the absence of a methodology?
He’s justified in it for the same reason that I’m justified in calling Thor unlikely to be the cause of thunder. In the abstract “Thor” and “God” alike are just noise, not probability apt. When though someone asserts either to be causal of naturalistic phenomena (thunder and compassion respectively) then the methods of naturalism – including logic and reason – apply.
-
NS,
He’s justified in it for the same reason that I’m justified in calling Thor unlikely to be the cause of thunder. In the abstract “Thor” and “God” alike are just noise, not probability apt. When though someone asserts either to be causal of naturalistic phenomena (thunder and compassion respectively) then the methods of naturalism – including logic and reason – apply.
not probability aot, then specifically means that the term that was used 'unlikely' is specious. Maeght used the term unlikely
-
NS,
not probability aot, then specifically means that the term that was used 'unlikely' is specious. Maeght used the term unlikely
Not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous here, but that wasn't the argument. If someone had said just "God" and Maeght had replied "unlikely" then you'd have a point. What actually happened though was that someone conjectured "God" as causal of various human traits - compassion for example - and his reply was in response to that. It's analogous to Thor/thunder, and "unlikely" seems to be ok therefore for just the same reasons.
-
NS,
Not sure whether you're being deliberately disingenuous here, but that wasn't the argument. If someone had said just "God" and Maeght had replied "unlikely" then you'd have a point. What actually happened though was that someone conjectured "God" as causal of various human traits - compassion for example - and his reply was in response to that. It's analogous to Thor/thunder, and "unlikely" seems to be ok therefore for just the same reasons.
Does it matter who started it? Are you really gpoung to do the playground here? If someone says 'unlikely' without a methodology, why are you being hypocritical?
-
NS,
Does it matter who started it? Are you really gpoung to do the playground here? If someone says 'unlikely' without a methodology, why are you being hypocritical?
You appear to have replied to a different post? You asked about Maeght's reply of "unlikely", and I clarified that it was in reply to a claim of supernatural causal agency rather than to claim of the supernatural in the abstract. That's not "playground", it's clarification and context.
As for methodology, it's the same methodology you'd apply to the Thor/thunder claim: all known observable phenomena hitherto have been found to have natural causes; naturalistic hypotheses are investigable and verifiable; some components of thunder are well understood already etc, therefore a naturalistic answer in due course is more likely than a supernatural one.
None of that requires numbers either by the way.
-
NS,
You appear to have replied to a different post? You asked about Maeght's reply of "unlikely", and I clarified that it was in reply to a claim of supernatural causal agency rather than to claim of the supernatural in the abstract. That's not "playground", it's clarification and context.
As for methodology, it's the same methodology you'd apply to the Thor/thunder claim: all known observable phenomena hitherto have been found to have natural causes; naturalistic hypotheses are investigable and verifiable; some components of thunder are well understood already etc, therefore a naturalistic answer in due course is more likely than a supernatural one.
None of that requires numbers either by the way.
unlikely needs numbers. It's a calculation based on a methodology. You haven't provided one.
-
NS,
He’s justified in it for the same reason that I’m justified in calling Thor unlikely to be the cause of thunder. In the abstract “Thor” and “God” alike are just noise, not probability apt. When though someone asserts either to be causal of naturalistic phenomena (thunder and compassion respectively) then the methods of naturalism – including logic and reason – apply.
Yes it's the contortions you go through to make a straw man argument namely that there are still people who think Thor or God produce thunder (rather than subcontracting the job to scientific processes).
Also you also haven't added that your beliefs on this have led you into converting to scientism...Which issues into an eventually as thunder was shown to be a scientific process so will the appearance of the universe out of nothing or the eternal existence of the universe.....an assertion which is riddled with issues.
-
#366But surely this fails as soon as you apply it to anything human beings design and create?
Because we know that human beings design and create things, one does not need to explain the origin of human beings in order to conclude that computers, cars, aircraft, bridges, etc., are designed and created.
Which, in my opinion creates a bigger problem because you have a reverse regression, which inevitably means something coming from nothing.
Yes, we can point to instances that seem to suggest the reverse of my argument, that complexity arises from greater complexity still. Termite mounds are created by termites, and termites are more complex than termite mounds; ants create ant hills; an ant hill is less complex than an ant. But this is trivial because the origins of both the termite and the termite mound are traceable back to simpler origins ultimately - life diversifies and develops through repeated underlying mechanisms that are insentient and simple such as cell division and copying errors which themselves are traceable back to yet simpler principles of energy conservation and statistical probability. The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism. I think this poses more difficult problems than the reverse, which is something from nothing. Something from nothing is the way to go I think, this is challenging I agree but we can rise to challenges; theism on the other hand merely avoids the challenge by presenting what is ultimately a tautology to get out of the regression.
-
Torridon
Well said, as always.
I had wondered whether to point out that all technology and tools of any sort designed and made by humans need said humans which have evolved to their current state of complexity over millions of years on an unbroken line of life, but I don't suppose SotS will take any notice! :)
-
Maybe opening up to God, to use your phrase, is simultaneously closing the door to new insights gathered through other means. I get the impression that your understanding of science belongs to somewhere around 1980, as if God came in and you lost interest at that point. Seems a shame that. Keeping an open mind, means always being open to new insights, and being open to the probability that you have been wrong about things in the past including god. None of us have all the answers.
God came into my life much earlier than 1980. My interest and knowledge of science do not conflict with my faith - they complement it by giving me insights into the way God brought things into existence. I have found nothing in science which causes me to doubt my faith in God, who I see as the ultimate source of everything and has made Himself known to us through Jesus Christ.
-
God came into my life much earlier than 1980. My interest and knowledge of science do not conflict with my faith - they complement it by giving me insights into the way God brought things into existence. I have found nothing in science which causes me to doubt my faith in God, who I see as the ultimate source of everything and has made Himself known to us through Jesus Christ.
you say you have an interest in science, how does your god and Jesus stand up to the scientific method.
-
Moderator:
This thread has been returned following the removal of a number of posts.
By all means tackle arguments, but in doing so please avoid adding personal attacks or comments into posts.
-
you say you have an interest in science, how does your god and Jesus stand up to the scientific method.
I am fascinated by science and I am aware of God's existence and my own spiritual nature.
God invented science.
I see it as there to be discovered, used and manipulated by creative actions driven by conscious free will.
I see the hand of God in everything I perceive. Some small examples - the means of extracting nitrogen from the earth's atmosphere to bring essential nitrates into the soil by using lightning. (see Nitrogen Fixation). Or the precise size and position of the moon to ensure that our beaches and coastlines are kept clean by the action of the tides, facilitating the transfer of sea life to land.
-
I am fascinated by science and I am aware of God's existence and my own spiritual nature.
God invented science.
I see it as there to be discovered, used and manipulated by creative actions driven by conscious free will.
I see the hand of God in everything I perceive. One small example - the means of extracting nitrogen from the earth's atmosphere to bring essential nitrates into the soil by using lightning. (see Nitrogen Fixation)
doesn't answer my question, does it.
-
doesn't answer my question, does it.
May I ask what there is in science which prevents you from believing in God's existence?
-
Yes, we can point to instances that seem to suggest the reverse of my argument, that complexity arises from greater complexity still. Termite mounds are created by termites, and termites are more complex than termite mounds; ants create ant hills; an ant hill is less complex than an ant. But this is trivial because the origins of both the termite and the termite mound are traceable back to simpler origins ultimately - life diversifies and develops through repeated underlying mechanisms that are insentient and simple such as cell division and copying errors which themselves are traceable back to yet simpler principles of energy conservation and statistical probability. The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism. I think this poses more difficult problems than the reverse, which is something from nothing. Something from nothing is the way to go I think, this is challenging I agree but we can rise to challenges; theism on the other hand merely avoids the challenge by presenting what is ultimately a tautology to get out of the regression.
Your honesty is appreciated here Torridon…
I would give more consideration to the something from nothing side if I didn't see the concept appearing to be contradicted by observation and other areas of science.
On the science side, I could use e.g. from Physics, Newton’s conservation of xxx laws from Physics, or Chemistry, where something does appear to come from nothing (e.g. the order from disorder in a snowflake), something is given up in order for this to happen, namely heat energy.
On the observation side, complexity can come from something less complex (no problem with that), but either there is some guiding influence for this to happen and/or the ability is there to do so from the start.
Personally, I don’t see theism avoiding the challenge of the regression as there is one on either side of the debate. The theistic solution is to have a first cause that is eternal (without beginning or end) therefore needs no cause itself. The alternative is the uncaused cause. Personally, I go with the former.
-
The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism.
Can you be certain that it is the unguided forces of the cosmos which have produced these pockets of increasing complexity on our planet? Evidence shows that unguided forces produce increasing chaos rather than increasing complexity. We have no evidence that these pockets of increasing complexity exist elsewhere in the cosmos, but if they do I am certain that the hand of God will be involved.
-
God came into my life much earlier than 1980. My interest and knowledge of science do not conflict with my faith - they complement it by giving me insights into the way God brought things into existence. I have found nothing in science which causes me to doubt my faith in God, who I see as the ultimate source of everything and has made Himself known to us through Jesus Christ.
Well I don't see how you can make that claim given that most of your ouevre revolves around free will, conscious self, perception etc, none of your understandings of which are consistent with insights from modern research.
-
Well I don't see how you can make that claim given that most of your ouevre revolves around free will, conscious self, perception etc, none of your understandings of which are consistent with insights from modern research.
I have not come across anything in modern science to explain what comprises free will, conscious awareness and perception other than correlation with observed patterns of chemical activity in the brain. The chemical activity may well be related to these properties, but it does not define them.
-
I have not come across anything in modern science to explain what comprises free will, conscious awareness and perception other than correlation with observed patterns of chemical activity in the brain. The chemical activity may well be related to these properties, but it does not define them.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.
-
May I ask what there is in science which prevents you from believing in God's existence?
a total lack of evidence. Will that do?
-
Yes, we can point to instances that seem to suggest the reverse of my argument, that complexity arises from greater complexity still. Termite mounds are created by termites, and termites are more complex than termite mounds; ants create ant hills; an ant hill is less complex than an ant. But this is trivial because the origins of both the termite and the termite mound are traceable back to simpler origins ultimately - life diversifies and develops through repeated underlying mechanisms that are insentient and simple such as cell division and copying errors which themselves are traceable back to yet simpler principles of energy conservation and statistical probability. The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism. I think this poses more difficult problems than the reverse, which is something from nothing. Something from nothing is the way to go I think, this is challenging I agree but we can rise to challenges; theism on the other hand merely avoids the challenge by presenting what is ultimately a tautology to get out of the regression.
To which Susan Doris replied:
''Well said''
Yes.....but only if he said it without pausing for breath.
-
NS,
unlikely needs numbers. It's a calculation based on a methodology. You haven't provided one.
Why? If the known sample set of natural causal explanations for observed phenomena is "loads", and the known sample set of supernatural explanations for observed phenomena is "none so far", why would it require numbers to deduce that the explanation for a currently causally unexplained observed phenomenon is more likely to come from the first set than from the second?
The paradigm of "stuff we didn't understand before but now do has always had a natural causal explanation, and so seems more likely to do so in future than it is to have a supernatural explanation" seems valid to me, not least because new ways of understanding the arrangements of matter and force require fewer assumptions that guesses about how supernatural explanations would even work - Occam's razor in other words.
-
NS,
Why? If the known sample set of natural causal explanations for observed phenomena is "loads", and the known sample set of supernatural explanations for observed phenomena is "none so far", why would it require numbers to deduce that the explanation for a currently causally unexplained observed phenomenon is more likely to come from the first set than from the second?
The paradigm of "stuff we didn't understand before but now do has always had a natural causal explanation, and so seems more likely to do so in future than it is to have a supernatural explanation" seems valid to me, not least because new ways of understanding the arrangements of matter and force require fewer assumptions that guesses about how supernatural explanations would even work - Occam's razor in other words.
Because the 'loads' and 'none' are using a methodology that assumes naturalism and has no way of dealing with supernatural claims. The problems associated with Hope's claims of miracles make any claims about causes without a methodology to evaluate it as specious as Hope's claim.
-
AB,
...and I am aware of God's existence...
That's a basic error you make a lot here, called the reification fallacy. You may believe in "God's existence", you may believe that "God came into my life" etc but that's all they are - beliefs. You cannot though just assert them as facts and expect others to proceed on that basis.
-
you cannot observe things have a naturalistic cause
Point of order: I said naturalistic explanation, not naturalistic cause.
if you do not have a method that can show what are naturalistic causes as opposed to non naturalistic ones.
As far as I am aware, every single explanation we have for anything that has any credibility has been formulated within our scientific framework and is hence naturalistic.
-
Yes, we can point to instances that seem to suggest the reverse of my argument, that complexity arises from greater complexity still. Termite mounds are created by termites, and termites are more complex than termite mounds; ants create ant hills; an ant hill is less complex than an ant. But this is trivial because the origins of both the termite and the termite mound are traceable back to simpler origins ultimately - life diversifies and develops through repeated underlying mechanisms that are insentient and simple such as cell division and copying errors which themselves are traceable back to yet simpler principles of energy conservation and statistical probability. The cosmos produces pockets of increasing complexity against the backdrop of thermodynamic dissipation which tends to break them down and some of those pockets themselves produce pockets of lesser complexity in the short term but the overarching principle is that complex systems derive ultimately from simpler systems not the reverse as is implied by matrix theory or theism. I think this poses more difficult problems than the reverse, which is something from nothing. Something from nothing is the way to go I think, this is challenging I agree but we can rise to challenges; theism on the other hand merely avoids the challenge by presenting what is ultimately a tautology to get out of the regression.
So the overarching principle is really entropy then...
What about the tautology at the heart of philosophical naturalism?...........if you are in the market for rejecting tautological solutions?
-
Point of order: I said naturalistic explanation, not naturalistic cause.
As far as I am aware, every single explanation we have for anything that has any credibility has been formulated within our scientific framework and is hence naturalistic.
which are all based on an assumption of naturalism. There is no way to evaluate supernatural claims.
-
NS,
Because the 'loads' and 'none' are using a methodology that assumes naturalism and has no way of dealing with supernatural claims. The problems associated with Hope's claims of miracles make any claims about causes without a methodology to evaluate it as specious as Hope's claim.
I see what you're attempting there, but the "assumption" of naturalism requires fewer component assumptions than does supernaturalism, so it's Occam's razor that caries the argument for me.
-
AB,
That's a basic error you make a lot here, called the reification fallacy. You may believe in "God's existence", you may believe that "God came into my life" etc but that's all they are - beliefs. You cannot though just assert them as facts and expect others to proceed on that basis.
I don't think he does. It will be the Holy spirit who leads you....
-
NS,
I see what you're attempting there, but the "assumption" of naturalism requires fewer component assumptions than does supernaturalism, so it's Occam's razor that caries the argument for me.
I wouldn't get you to fix any machine of mine ......I'm not very good with bits not put back.
-
NS,
I see what you're attempting there, but the "assumption" of naturalism requires fewer component assumptions than does supernaturalism, so it's Occam's razor that caries the argument for me.
I don't think it works because there is an assumption that the hypotheses you evaluate are in some way equivalent. The supernatural one isn't. It's not an hypothesis.
-
NS,
I don't think it works because there is an assumption that the hypotheses you evaluate are in some way equivalent. The supernatural one isn't. It's not an hypothesis.
Yes I'm aware the "god"/leprechauns/whatever are not even hypotheses and so are in "not even wrong" territory, but I'd add "assuming that you can ever formulate a hypothesis worthy of the name" as just one more assumption to add to the pile on supernaturalism's side. Pretty much every exchange here does the same - the alternative would be just to post every time, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor have you)", which would limit the conversations somewhat.
-
NS,
Yes I'm aware the "god"/leprechauns/whatever are not hypotheses and so are in "not even wrong" territory, but I'd add "assuming that you can ever formulate a hypothesis worthy of the name" as just one more assumption to add to the pile on supernaturalism's side. Pretty much every exchange here does the same - the alternative would be just to post every time, "I have no idea what you mean by "God" (and nor have you)", which would limit the conversations somewhat.
I pretty much agree with this but that's no reason to follow the same lack of reasoning in evaluating the claims.
-
AB,
That's a basic error you make a lot here, called the reification fallacy. You may believe in "God's existence", you may believe that "God came into my life" etc but that's all they are - beliefs. You cannot though just assert them as facts and expect others to proceed on that basis.
Is it an error to say that God is as real to me as my own existence? I can understand your point of view. Having never known God it would be impossible for you to understand this reality. Perhaps one day you will.
CS Lewis in his atheist days also found it hard to accept when his circle of Christian friends at Oxford said that they did not just believe, they knew.
-
Is it an error to say that God is as real to me as my own existence? I can understand your point of view. Having never known God it would be impossible for you to understand this reality. Perhaps one day you will.
CS Lewis in his atheist days also found it hard to accept when his circle of Christian friends at Oxford said that they did not just believe, they knew.
I have that issue with some Muslim friends. They say they know, so by your 'method' they are right?
-
I have that issue with some Muslim friends. They say they know, so by your 'method' they are right?
and still nobody has provided a scrap of evidence to support their claims. I think I would be seriously rethinking my reasoning by now. ah well!
-
AB,
Is it an error to say that God is as real to me as my own existence?
No, provided that's all you say. Lots of people believe in lots of things that are as real to them as their own existence.
I can understand your point of view. Having never known God it would be impossible for you to understand this reality. Perhaps one day you will.
And then you repeat the reification fallacy. It's not that I've "never known God", but rather that I've never shared your personal belief that there is a "God".
CS Lewis in his atheist days also found it hard to accept when his circle of Christian friends at Oxford said that they did not just believe, they knew.
But as they too presumably had no method to get them from faith to fact either, that "knew" should be "strongly believed".
Just out of interest, how would you answer the question Vlad always runs away from (one of several), namely: When I line up ten people before breakfast each with different beliefs in different supernatural "somethings" (one is you, one is a muslim, one is a leprechaunist etc) each of whom is every bit as certain as you are that they "know" themselves to be right, how would you propose that I differentiate your claim from theirs?
-
and still nobody has provided a scrap of evidence to support their claims. I think I would be seriously rethinking my reasoning by now. ah well!
There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience. The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'. It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within. As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night. As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it. The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on. Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.
-
There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience. The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'. It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within. As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night. As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it. The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on. Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.
I'm a very straight forward sort of bloke. Either something IS or it ISN'T so I have no time for all this wishy washy stuff you talk about. As long as they keep it all to themselves and don't involve anybody else they can believe what they want .But they should expect ridicule from people like me if they try to.
-
Just out of interest, how would you answer the question Vlad always runs away from (one of several), namely: When I line up ten people before breakfast each with different beliefs in different supernatural "somethings" (one is you, one is a muslim, one is a leprechaunist etc) each of whom is every bit as certain as you are that they "know" themselves to be right, how would you propose that I differentiate your claim from theirs?
You ask God for the gift of discernment.
-
ekim,
There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience. The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'. It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within. As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night. As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it. The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on. Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.
Which is fine when the person who thinks he’s “experienced” something also says, “of course that’s entirely a personal belief so there’s no reason for anyone else to think I’ve experienced a “true for you too” god, let alone a reason for my personal beliefs to be privileged in the public square for example in education, in the legislature or in media access”.
I’m indifferent to such people because their faiths are no-one’s business but their own. Trouble is though, often those with personal experiences also insist that they must be true for me too, and so insist too that their claims should be privileged over, say, just guessing.
-
There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience. The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'. It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within. As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night. As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it. The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on. Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.
Your post brings to mind profound song lyrics:
Many try to stop me, shake me up in my mind,
Say, "Prove to me that He is Lord, show me a sign."
What kind of sign they need when it all come from within,
When what's lost has been found, what's to come has already been?
Bob Dylan - Pressing On
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K01EAM2TtD4
-
ekim,
Which is fine when the person who thinks he’s “experienced” something also says, “of course that’s entirely a personal belief so there’s no reason for anyone else to think I’ve experienced a “true for you too” god, let alone a reason for my personal beliefs to be privileged in the public square for example in education, in the legislature or in media access”.
I’m indifferent to such people because their faiths are no-one’s business but their own. Trouble is though, often those with personal experiences also insist that they must be true for me too, and so insist too that their claims should be privileged over, say, just guessing.
It is fortunate that the first disciples of Jesus did not share your thinking.
-
AB,
You ask God for the gift of discernment.
That's a logical error called circular reasoning. You'll also find that the muslim says, "you ask Allah for the gift of discernment", the leprechaunist says, "you ask Colin, the King of the Leprechauns for the gift of discernment", the etc etc.
That's your problem if think you've experienced a "true for you too" god. The other nine people also think they've experienced "true for you" somethings. Absent any method to validate it, "the gift of discernment" just means "something I really think to be true", which helps you not at all.
-
AB,
It is fortunate that the first disciples of Jesus did not share your thinking.
No doubt you think so, but that has nothing whatever to do with the rebuttal you thought you were responding to.
-
AB,
That's a logical error called circular reasoning. You'll also find that the muslim says, "you ask Allah for the gift of discernment", the leprechaunist says, "you ask Colin, the King of the Leprechauns for the gift of discernment", the etc etc.
That's your problem if think you've experienced a "true for you too" god. The other nine people also think they've experienced "true for you" somethings. Absent any method to validate it, "the gift of discernment" just means "something I really think to be true", which helps you not at all.
But there is only one God, and if you sincerely ask for discernment you will get it.
-
You ask God for the gift of discernment.
why didn't I think of that? its so simple. its for the simple.
-
I'm a very straight forward sort of bloke. Either something IS or it ISN'T so I have no time for all this wishy washy stuff you talk about. As long as they keep it all to themselves and don't involve anybody else they can believe what they want .But they should expect ridicule from people like me if they try to.
There are lots of areas and concepts where we haven't established what IS or ISN'T. Different methods are tried to investigate these areas.
This thread seemed to be about the current lack of a method to investigate supernatural concepts. Hence people believe in stuff based on their interpretations of their personal experiences but have no way of establishing that their interpretation is correct. All they can do is adopt a position or identity and adapt their morals and behaviour as if their interpretations and beliefs are correct, within the limits of the law of the land.
Ridicule is just one way of expressing disagreement with someone else's opinion/ beliefs about religion/ politics/ ethics/ morals etc. Disagreeing with someone's attempts to get their beliefs to be incorporated into legislature is part of the political and legislative process. Being ridiculed for your beliefs or opinions is not a big problem is it?
-
AB,
But there is only one God, and if you sincerely ask for discernment you will get it.
But the muslim says, "there is only one Allah", the leprechauns says, "there is only one Colin", the etc etc
So again - why should I accept your claims rather than those of any of the other nine people?
-
AB,
But the muslim says, "there is only one Allah", the leprechauns says, "there is only one Colin", the etc etc
So again - why should I accept your claims rather than those of any of the other nine people?
Allah is the Arabic word for god so takes you back to the only one god belief.
If I meet a leprechaun I will try to remember to ask if Colin refers to a similar concept in Irish Gaelic.
-
There are lots of areas and concepts where we haven't established what IS or ISN'T. Different methods are tried to investigate these areas.
This thread seemed to be about the current lack of a method to investigate supernatural concepts. Hence people believe in stuff based on their interpretations of their personal experiences but have no way of establishing that their interpretation is correct. All they can do is adopt a position or identity and adapt their morals and behaviour as if their interpretations and beliefs are correct, within the limits of the law of the land.
Ridicule is just one way of expressing disagreement with someone else's opinion/ beliefs about religion/ politics/ ethics/ morals etc. Disagreeing with someone's attempts to get their beliefs to be incorporated into legislature is part of the political and legislative process. Being ridiculed for your beliefs or opinions is not a big problem is it?
-
There is no evidence any god exists apart from in the minds of human believers. All the gods people worship have an equal status in the credibility stakes, imo.
-
Sorry pressed wrong key
Gabby
I would like to see a time where all religions are banned in public places, schools, goverments , local councils.
And it should be an offence to introduce religion to children until they reach 18, a bit like the drinking of alcohol laws.
.
-
Sorry pressed wrong key
Gabby
I would like to see a time where all religions are banned in public places, schools, goverments , local councils.
And it should be an offence to introduce religion to children until they reach 18, a bit like the drinking of alcohol laws.
.
Interesting idea. Define banned. How would you word the law - will saying OMG in public be a breach of the ban? Will a religious organisation fundraising in public for the homeless be a breach of the ban?
How do you stop parents introducing religion to children? A ban won't happen - for one thing, it can't be enforced.
-
Interesting idea. Define banned. How would you word the law - will saying OMG in public be a breach of the ban? Will a religious organisation fundraising in public for the homeless be a breach of the ban?
How do you stop parents introducing religion to children? A ban won't happen - for one thing, it can't be enforced.
of course you are right. Its just my thoughts out loud but its a basis of an idea that with careful thought could become meaningful.
BTW I thought you were on holiday.
-
But there is only one God, and if you sincerely ask for discernment you will get it.
Are you dizzy yet?
-
We allowed our children to decide for themselves about religion.
-
of course you are right. Its just my thoughts out loud but its a basis of an idea that with careful thought could become meaningful.
I'd stick with trying to persuade people to become atheist - far cheaper than what you're proposing. You won't get funding to enforce your meaningful idea.
BTW I thought you were on holiday.
Got back yesterday.
-
I'd stick with trying to persuade people to become atheist - far cheaper than what you're proposing. You won't get funding to enforce your meaningful idea. Got back yesterday.
again you are right .
oh, and I really missed you :'(
-
again you are right .
oh, and I really missed you :'(
Thanks. Does this mean that when you were working up north in Muslim populated areas, you found other Muslims you got on with?
-
But there is only one God, and if you sincerely ask for discernment you will get it.
My Sufi friend used to say that. Now I'm torn.
-
Sorry pressed wrong key
Gabby
I would like to see a time where all religions are banned in public places, schools, goverments , local councils.
And it should be an offence to introduce religion to children until they reach 18, a bit like the drinking of alcohol laws.
.
I do not agree with this last sentence. Religions have been an integral part of peoples in history and, as it is important that all children should learn as much as they can about history, this part of it must include information about such religious beliefs. Definitely not [/I]taught[/I] that they are true of course. It is only as much knowledge as possible ABOUT the past that will enable better decisions will be made in the future.
There is of course one mammoth exception to this idea today - Trump.
-
Thanks. Does this mean that when you were working up north in Muslim populated areas, you found other Muslims you got on with?
There were a few , but doing business with them was always hard work. Some times breaking off in the middle of a deal while they went to the mosque and I
was left twiddling my thumbs till they came back.
Highly immoral practices were abound, only just the right side of the law. Considering they we so religious I found it fascinating.
-
I see the hand of God in everything I perceive. Some small examples - the means of extracting nitrogen from the earth's atmosphere to bring essential nitrates into the soil by using lightning. (see Nitrogen Fixation). Or the precise size and position of the moon to ensure that our beaches and coastlines are kept clean by the action of the tides, facilitating the transfer of sea life to land.
I think you need to look up The Anthropic Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
It's a classic mistake of a narcissistic mind to mistake rarity for privilege. We are here to wonder at these things because our planet has rare properties that have been favourable for the development of sentient beings that can wonder.
Either that or there is a god with magic powers that has fixed things like the mass and distance of the moon just so but he didn't do the same for Venus or Mars etc. for reasons unexplained.
This really ought to be a no-brainer.
-
I do not agree with this last sentence. Religions have been an integral part of peoples in history and, as it is important that all children should learn as much as they can about history, this part of it must include information about such religious beliefs. Definitely not [/I]taught[/I] that they are true of course. It is only as much knowledge as possible ABOUT the past that will enable better decisions will be made in the future.
There is of course one mammoth exception to this idea today - Trump.
I agree teaching about religion is important. Teaching any of it is true is outrageous.
-
torri,
I think you need to look up The Anthropic Principle
It's a classic mistake of a narcissistic mind to mistake rarity for privilege. We are here to wonder at these things because our planet has rare properties that have been favourable for the development of sentient beings that can wonder.
Either that or there is a god with magic powers that has fixed things like the mass and distance of the moon just so but he didn't do the same for Venus or Mars etc. for reasons unexplained.
This really ought to be a no-brainer.
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
-
torri,
Is it solipsistic in here, or is it just me?
you still crack me up :)
-
There were a few , but doing business with them was always hard work. Some times breaking off in the middle of a deal while they went to the mosque and I was left twiddling my thumbs till they came back.
Highly immoral practices were abound, only just the right side of the law. Considering they we so religious I found it fascinating.
Doing business with people who are different is usually hard work. Business is often more about relationships than anything else - people like to do business with people they like, trust, who they think can relate to them and understand their issues.
You could think of it as a useful training ground in the art of learning to get on with different people who have different customs and practices. It's the same for everyone doing business. Playing golf or corporate hospitality or going to the pub seems a weird way of doing business to me but there you go.
I think the thought process people use to justify their behaviour is fascinating - regardless of whether they claim to be religious or not - it's all down to their own interpretations of morality. We all have arbitrary lines we don't cross.
-
I think you need to look up The Anthropic Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
It's a classic mistake of a narcissistic mind to mistake rarity for privilege. We are here to wonder at these things because our planet has rare properties that have been favourable for the development of sentient beings that can wonder.
Either that or there is a god with magic powers that has fixed things like the mass and distance of the moon just so but he didn't do the same for Venus or Mars etc. for reasons unexplained.
This really ought to be a no-brainer.
Nicely put. Did AB really say that he sees God's hand in everything? OK, ebola, brain cancer, zika - WTF is that about, God?
-
I think you need to look up The Anthropic Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle)
It's a classic mistake of a narcissistic mind to mistake rarity for privilege. We are here to wonder at these things because our planet has rare properties that have been favourable for the development of sentient beings that can wonder.
Either that or there is a god with magic powers that has fixed things like the mass and distance of the moon just so but he didn't do the same for Venus or Mars etc. for reasons unexplained.
But how many favourable coincidences does it take to nurture life?
And how many favourable coincidences will it take to show evidence of divine intervention?
-
I'm a very straight forward sort of bloke. Either something IS or it ISN'T so I have no time for all this wishy washy stuff you talk about. As long as they keep it all to themselves and don't involve anybody else they can believe what they want .But they should expect ridicule from people like me if they try to.
Some people like wishy washy stuff and get great joy from it. If others ask for the secret of that joy which is real to them they might feel obliged to share it with those others. I am sure that they do expect ridicule both from the crooked and the straightforward people. Many have endured a crown of thorns in some form or other. They often see it as a test of their faith and simply forgive those who can only express themselves in ridicule.
-
Doing business with people who are different is usually hard work. Business is often more about relationships than anything else - people like to do business with people they like, trust, who they think can relate to them and understand their issues.
You could think of it as a useful training ground in the art of learning to get on with different people who have different customs and practices. It's the same for everyone doing business. Playing golf or corporate hospitality or going to the pub seems a weird way of doing business to me but there you go.
I think the thought process people use to justify their behaviour is fascinating - regardless of whether they claim to be religious or not - it's all down to their own interpretations of morality. We all have arbitrary lines we don't cross.
thanks for the advice Gabby, I don't need it now however I was very successful at my job and made a bit of money at it.
Because of the nature of my business it was very easy to break the law and not be discovered and they knew that too. I was very often put in some very compromising situations which led to conflict. So there was always a fine line that I was constantly aware of .I won their trust in most cases however I did not trust them as far as could throw a chapatti.
-
I think inner conviction and personal experience are fine, as I have said, my local shaman is great to behold, when she is holding forth. However, what is quite weird in these exchanges is the use of pseudo-science, or half-baked scientific ideas, to justify these experiences. I don't quite get how this came about, is it a kind of bastardized positivism? Why dress up your experiences with Dunning-Kruger?
-
But how many favourable coincidences does it take to nurture life?
And how many favourable coincidences will it take to show evidence of divine intervention?
You mean like the five big mass extinction events? Whoops. sorry. I thought you said how many unfavourable coincidences does it take to destroy life. ;)
-
Come on, that was Satan.
-
Some people like wishy washy stuff and get great joy from it. If others ask for the secret of that joy which is real to them they might feel obliged to share it with those others. I am sure that they do expect ridicule both from the crooked and the straightforward people. Many have endured a crown of thorns in some form or other. They often see it as a test of their faith and simply forgive those who can only express themselves in ridicule.
Okay mike, thanks for that .
I enjoy ridiculing them, its how I'm made , a fundamental part of me which I cannot deny.
-
ekim,
Which is fine when the person who thinks he’s “experienced” something also says, “of course that’s entirely a personal belief so there’s no reason for anyone else to think I’ve experienced a “true for you too” god, let alone a reason for my personal beliefs to be privileged in the public square for example in education, in the legislature or in media access”.
I’m indifferent to such people because their faiths are no-one’s business but their own. Trouble is though, often those with personal experiences also insist that they must be true for me too, and so insist too that their claims should be privileged over, say, just guessing.
Yes, that is the downside of religious practices when they are used to exert influence and power over others and employ indoctrination methods. For the same reason I suppose we should allow those with a personal belief not to be subjected to the indoctrination of those with other views.
-
thanks for the advice Gabby, I don't need it now however I was very successful at my job and made a bit of money at it.
Because of the nature of my business it was very easy to break the law and not be discovered and they knew that too. I was very often put in some very compromising situations which led to conflict. So there was always a fine line that I was constantly aware of .I won their trust in most cases however I did not trust them as far as could throw a chapatti.
It wasn't meant to be advice but ok. I just meant it's part of the game of doing business - people are different and it's a game to find the common purpose that allows a mutually beneficial business arrangement to be negotiated. Some people take a longer term view and take the approach that they have a brand's integrity and public image to develop and protect which will generate more sustainable income in the longer run - also maybe their business represents who they are what they stand for or maybe they have a governing body they can be reported to. Not that this stopped MPs from fiddling expenses.
And some people take the shorter-term approach of quick profits and that if you don't ask you don't get. And some people fall somewhere in between.
-
It wasn't meant to be advice but ok. I just meant it's part of the game of doing business - people are different and it's a game to find the common purpose that allows a mutually beneficial business arrangement to be negotiated. Some people take a longer term view and take the approach that they have a brand's integrity and public image to develop and protect which will generate more sustainable income in the longer run - also maybe their business represents who they are what they stand for or maybe they have a governing body they can be reported to. Not that this stopped MPs from fiddling expenses.
And some people take the shorter-term approach of quick profits and that if you don't ask you don't get. And some people fall somewhere in between.
very wise Gabby, I like it. Especially the last bit.
-
But how many favourable coincidences does it take to nurture life?
And how many favourable coincidences will it take to show evidence of divine intervention?
How complex we are is probably a measure of how rare those required conditions are. But there again the universe is inconceivably vast and ancient so even the rarest of circumstances will occur somewhere at some time.
You'd be better off backing the cosmic fine tuning argument, rather than this curious hotchpotch you push of a god that creates a universe inhospitable to life and then has to constantly use his powers to fiddle with it fixing planets and correcting orbits, it just makes your god look so incompetent.
-
There is no evidence that can be provided in the manner that you would wish it because what AB is saying is experiential to him i.e. an inner experience. The word 'evidence' itself is based upon the Latin 'to look outwards'. It's a pity that there isn't a word 'invidence' for looking within. As a mild example, I would find it difficult to provide evidence that I dreamed a particular dream last night. As regards the alleged declaration of an experience of God, you would have to take it on trust and if you wanted to experience the same then you would need to have faith in a particular way/path/method and follow it. The Christians have their 'way', the Muslims have their 'way' the Hindus have their 'ways', the Buddhists have their 'ways' and so on. Thinking and reasoning is likely to take you further from those 'ways' as they are generally associated with inner stillness rather than agitation.
Agreed. Mindfulness seems to be a modern way/path/method to experience something - possibly less anxiety. They tried teaching it during a couple of lessons when my daughter was in primary school. PSHE classes explore ethics and morality and feelings without anyone getting excited about indoctrination, despite the pressure put on children to conform to a certain way of thinking. Not entirely sure why teaching children about gods gets some people so worked up to the point of generalising about the dangers of religion, but that's their phobia to deal with as they see fit.
-
Hi GAbs,
Not entirely sure why teaching children about gods gets some people so worked up to the point of generalising about the dangers of religion, but that's their phobia to deal with as they see fit.
I'm not sure that teaching people "about gods" does get anyone worked up does it? After all, it's just an aspect of social anthropology. What does get some of us worked up though is the teaching of those gods as if they were facts, as much facts as the Egyptians building the pyramids or the formation of oxbow lakes.
And the problem with that - or actually one of several problems - is that it does children a disservice. If we expect them to believe faith claims to be facts, how then should we arm them against any other claims of fact, however bogus or dangerous, when they're asserted on the same basis?
-
You mean like the five big mass extinction events? Whoops. sorry. I thought you said how many unfavourable coincidences does it take to destroy life. ;)
Are well, you see, God was just practising. Despite his famed omniscience and omnipotence, he never could quite get the direction of evolution right. And of course, it took him several million years each time to realise he'd been going in mostly the wrong direction all the time.
Unless of course it was Satan (as wiggi sarkily suggests), but this Satan must be an entity of far greater power than the New Testament cracks him up to be. Maybe the Manichees were right after all (he also said sarkily).
-
Hi GAbs,
I'm not sure that teaching people "about gods" does get anyone worked up does it? After all, it's just an aspect of social anthropology. What does get some of us worked up though is the teaching of those gods as if they were facts, as much facts as the Egyptians building the pyramids or the formation of oxbow lakes.
And the problem with that - or actually one of several problems - is that it does children a disservice. If we expect them to believe faith claims to be facts, how then should we arm them against any other claims of fact, however bogus or dangerous, when they're asserted on the same basis?
Hi BHS
I think the social control of religion is changing - perhaps now it is being replaced by the social control of political correctness and social media. I don't think religion creates any special problem for people - at least not a problem that wouldn't just manifest itself in some other non-religious way.
Regarding the disservice to children - maybe it's a difference in parenting approaches. I think children, depending on their personalities, will appreciate the complexity and the contradictions in morality, including religious morality, at different rates as they get older, their brains develop and they learn to cope with various adult life experiences that they are usually protected from in childhood (if they are lucky).
Until then each interpretation of god is probably just an easy short-hand for all kinds of stuff. Parenting can be simpler if they just do as they are told via gods while their brains are too undeveloped and their lives too inexperienced to comprehend certain complexities. Hopefully this changes as they mature, and I think being exposed to atheism is part of that development process, and eventually they reach that arbitrary magic age where they are legally and morally accountable for their actions, detach from their parents, and decide for themselves how they want to interpret their experiences along the way, what their identity is, and what community they want to join.
-
Can you be certain that it is the unguided forces of the cosmos which have produced these pockets of increasing complexity on our planet? Evidence shows that unguided forces produce increasing chaos rather than increasing complexity. We have no evidence that these pockets of increasing complexity exist elsewhere in the cosmos....
Atomic matter is more complex than the plasma from which it formed; molecular matter is more complex than the atomic matter from which it formed; long chain organic molecules are more complex than simple molecular matter. I don't know where you get this idea there is no evidence of increasing complexity - the evidence is well known and understood. The primary forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclears conspire to create greater complexity from simpler constituents and this is balanced by the tendency of thermodynamics to break order down. All this happens according to well understood unguided insentient deterministic principles. No magic required.
-
Your honesty is appreciated here Torridon…
I would give more consideration to the something from nothing side if I didn't see the concept appearing to be contradicted by observation and other areas of science.
On the science side, I could use e.g. from Physics, Newton’s conservation of xxx laws from Physics, or Chemistry, where something does appear to come from nothing (e.g. the order from disorder in a snowflake), something is given up in order for this to happen, namely heat energy.
On the observation side, complexity can come from something less complex (no problem with that), but either there is some guiding influence for this to happen and/or the ability is there to do so from the start.
Personally, I don’t see theism avoiding the challenge of the regression as there is one on either side of the debate. The theistic solution is to have a first cause that is eternal (without beginning or end) therefore needs no cause itself. The alternative is the uncaused cause. Personally, I go with the former.
You frame this as two equally valid responses to a hard question; I don't see them as equal at all. Something from nothing is not a regression, whereas something from something more complex is. Something from nothing might require us to posit some no-thing eternal; the laws of logic could be said to be eternal - they are a-temporal and a-spatial. Contrast that with theism's God - a complex sentient human-like eternal being is far more problematic to conceive of than simple eternal insentient logic. Sentience implies surrounding context - what was this being sentient of back in eternity before there was space and time as we know it. Introducing something contextual and complex like sentience into your first cause creates more problems than it solves. Envisaging something from pure logic is not easy, granted, but we have pointers from science in that direction already, quantum mechanics for instance demonstrates that there is no such thing as 'nothing' anyhow, contrary to our intuitions. Thermodynamics, the overarching trajectory of entropy is really only the application of statistical probability to the distribution of matter. Again, boiling down to simple logic. What is your justification for offending that nice Mr Ockham by opting for the theism solution, which though superficially seems simple and appealing, is really far more convoluted when scrutinised ?
-
Torri
it seems to me that religious people think there is a debate which implies there are at least two sides to it. And that their 'argument' has equal value and requires respect because of it.
Well, there isn't and they have no argument however hard they try with their vacuous evidence.
-
AB,
That's a logical error called circular reasoning. You'll also find that the muslim says, "you ask Allah for the gift of discernment", the leprechaunist says, "you ask Colin, the King of the Leprechauns for the gift of discernment", the etc etc.
That's your problem if think you've experienced a "true for you too" god. The other nine people also think they've experienced "true for you" somethings. Absent any method to validate it, "the gift of discernment" just means "something I really think to be true", which helps you not at all.
Anybody who has actually studied religions knows that THERE ARE DIFFERENCES between them. I'm not at all sure there is a Holy spirit equivalent in Islam who gives charismatic gifts. The only gift Colin gives his followers is the gift of category fucking if you are anything to go by.
-
Torri
it seems to me that religious people think there is a debate which implies there are at least two sides to it. And that their 'argument' has equal value and requires respect because of it.
Well, there isn't and they have no argument however hard they try with their vacuous evidence.
That's exactly it, isn't it? Every time I see the argument presented as a 50/50 likelihood or not, I point out that this is not so.
-
The theistic solution is to have a first cause that is eternal (without beginning or end) therefore needs no cause itself.
Which is no solution and involves begging the question, which is a fallacy.
The alternative is the uncaused cause.
Which is a false dichotomy. By the way you've missed out 'don't know' as an option.
Personally, I go with the former.
No doubt, which is no surprise since you seem fond of fallacies.
-
Which is no solution and involves begging the question, which is a fallacy.
WTF?
-
The 'something from nothing' idea is cited by some Christians with bated breath, as if here there is some deadly argument against certain cosmological ideas. In fact, they are displaying a kind of naive Dunning Kruger effect - I mean they are talking bollocks. How many rest on an in-depth knowledge of cosmology, mathematics, and physics? Not many, I think. It's another example of diluted sciencey stuff, or half-baked ideas. If somebody can oppose the idea of 'something from nothing' by means of a series of arguments, which are based on genuine scientific findings, go for it, with citations please.
-
WTF?
eh! what?
perhaps there is a switch in your brain which requires flicking to the ON position
No offence....
-
WTF?
In essence Sword is commiting one of the fallacies found in the KCA.
-
In essence Sword is commiting one of the fallacies found in the KCA.
And how would that be?
-
The 'something from nothing' idea is cited by some Christians with bated breath, as if here there is some deadly argument against certain cosmological ideas. In fact, they are displaying a kind of naive Dunning Kruger effect - I mean they are talking bollocks. How many rest on an in-depth knowledge of cosmology, mathematics, and physics? Not many, I think. It's another example of diluted sciencey stuff, or half-baked ideas. If somebody can oppose the idea of 'something from nothing' by means of a series of arguments, which are based on genuine scientific findings, go for it, with citations please.
Have you been on the old alphabet soup again Wigginhall?
-
The 'something from nothing' idea is cited by some Christians with bated breath, as if here there is some deadly argument against certain cosmological ideas. In fact, they are displaying a kind of naive Dunning Kruger effect - I mean they are talking bollocks. How many rest on an in-depth knowledge of cosmology, mathematics, and physics? Not many, I think. It's another example of diluted sciencey stuff, or half-baked ideas. If somebody can oppose the idea of 'something from nothing' by means of a series of arguments, which are based on genuine scientific findings, go for it, with citations please.
Dunning Kruger? Do you have any measurement of anybody's ability or are you Dunning Krugering it yourself Wigginhall?
-
And how would that be?
In the time-honoured manner: by assuming his conclusion.
-
In the time-honoured manner: by assuming his conclusion.
Oh you mean like the circular argument behind naturalism....why didn't you say?
-
Anybody who has actually studied religions knows that THERE ARE DIFFERENCES between them. I'm not at all sure there is a Holy spirit equivalent in Islam who gives charismatic gifts. The only gift Colin gives his followers is the gift of category fucking if you are anything to go by.
What's a charismatic gift?
Anyway, in the interests of the study of religions, different translators of Arabic have used varying terms. Pickthall for example translates Quran 40:15 as
"The Exalter of Ranks, the Lord of the Throne. He causeth the Spirit of His command upon whom He will of His slaves, that He may warn of the Day of Meeting,"
There are various other verses, which have also been translated using the term "Spirit" - if you Google it.
I have nothing to offer regarding Colin.
-
What's a charismatic gift?
Thank you Gabriella. I think your opening comment underlines that religions are not identical copies of each other.
I also think that if you debate in opposition to somebody you need to know what their position is rather than having a one size fits all approach.
-
Oh you mean like the circular argument behind naturalism....why didn't you say?
No, I mean like the KCA.
-
Dunning Kruger? Do you have any measurement of anybody's ability or are you Dunning Krugering it yourself Wigginhall?
It's not their ability I'm questioning. It's their arguments, or lack of, and their apparent ignorance of what 'something from nothing' might involve.
-
No, I mean like the KCA.
careful now...I was accused of pulling a KCA when I wasn't.
For me a KCA isn't necessary to flag up the supernatural(that which is not explicable by science) and neither has it been disproved.
Hillside tried to shuffle something about asking the question ''why something and not nothing'' but that turned out to be some ''no true atheist'' cobblers.
As you know from the summer debate nobody successfully managed to get round the fact that either the universe pops up ex nihilo or it is uncreated and self moved.
No need for a KCA although I realise how important it is for you guys to continue to accuse people of it.
-
It's not their ability I'm questioning. It's their arguments, or lack of, and their apparent ignorance of what 'something from nothing' might involve.
Dunning Kruger isn't about arguments it's about ability surely?
-
Thank you Gabriella. I think your opening comment underlines that religions are not identical copies of each other.
I also think that if you debate in opposition to somebody you need to know what their position is rather than having a one size fits all approach.
Actually I'm a multiple interpretations kind of gal. Definitely not a one size fits all.
I just wondered what your particular interpretation of a "charismatic gift" was - curiosity rather than opposition. Maybe you've explained it on another thread?
-
No need for a KCA although I realise how important it is for you guys to continue to accuse people of it.
I was simply pointing out Sword was using the same fallacy: but I see that didn't stop you having a wee rant anyway.
-
Actually I'm a multiple interpretations kind of gal. Definitely not a one size fits all.
I just wondered what your particular interpretation of a "charismatic gift" was - curiosity rather than opposition. Maybe you've explained it on another thread?
A fair question. I understand them to be different abilities granted to different individuals by a God who has a dynamic and intimate proximity with whom He wills on a long term or short term basis according to His will. Hope that is in the way of an explanation.
-
A fair question. I understand them to be different abilities granted to different individuals by a God who has a dynamic and intimate proximity with whom He wills on a long term or short term basis according to His will. Hope that is in the way of an explanation.
How do I know there's a God? Because I have these special powers of magical discernment.
How do I know I have these magic powers? Because God gave them to me.
How do I know there's a God? Because I have these special powers of magical discernment.
How do I know I have these magic powers? Because God gave them to me.
How do I know there's a God? Because I have these special powers of magical discernment.
How do I know I have these magic powers? Because God gave them to me...
And round and round he goes. Where he'll stop, nobody knows. Is anyone else feeling dizzy yet?
-
How do I know there's a God? Because I have these special powers of magical discernment.
How do I know I have these magic powers? Because God gave them to me.
How do I know there's a God? Because I have these special powers of magical discernment.
How do I know I have these magic powers? Because God gave them to me.
How do I know there's a God? Because I have these special powers of magical discernment.
How do I know I have these magic powers? Because God gave them to me...
And round and round he goes. Where he'll stop, nobody knows. Is anyone else feeling dizzy yet?
I think knowledge of new things is through the experience of acquiring them isn't it?
I think its fair to ask whether we all experience God all of the time or glimpse him or whether discerning him is because he chooses to reveal himself to you.
I think we discern God and don't like what we are discerning. He is after all potentially the greatest shock an ego can experience and the ego would want to defend itself from 'getting in too deep'
-
Atomic matter is more complex than the plasma from which it formed; molecular matter is more complex than the atomic matter from which it formed; long chain organic molecules are more complex than simple molecular matter. I don't know where you get this idea there is no evidence of increasing complexity - the evidence is well known and understood. The primary forces of nature - gravity, electromagnetism and the nuclears conspire to create greater complexity from simpler constituents and this is balanced by the tendency of thermodynamics to break order down. All this happens according to well understood unguided insentient deterministic principles. No magic required.
But science shows us that the complexity required to develop life is very specific and has narrow constraints. You are correct in your observation that this universe is generally hostile to nurturing life, which surely confirms the need for intelligently driven events to guide the process.
-
But science shows us that the complexity required to develop life is very specific and has narrow constraints. You are correct in your observation that this universe is generally hostile to nurturing life, which surely confirms the need for intelligently driven events to guide the process.
so what's the point of the rest of the universe if its hostile to life ? I thought your god liked being worshipped. He seems to be very wasteful, or stupid.
-
But science shows us that the complexity required to develop life is very specific and has narrow constraints. You are correct in your observation that this universe is generally hostile to nurturing life, which surely confirms the need for intelligently driven events to guide the process.
No,it surely doesn't.
-
But science shows us that the complexity required to develop life is very specific and has narrow constraints. You are correct in your observation that this universe is generally hostile to nurturing life, which surely confirms the need for intelligently driven events to guide the process.
So why would an omnipotent god get it so wrong in the first place. Why would he design a universe to be inhospitable to life ?
-
You'll also find that the muslim says, "you ask Allah for the gift of discernment", the leprechaunist says, "you ask Colin, the King of the Leprechauns for the gift of discernment", the etc etc.
But there is only one God, and if you sincerely ask for discernment you will get it.
'Allah' isn't a different god to the god of Christians and Jews. It is the same one eternal omni god under a different name worshipped through a different cultural lens, but it must the same being unless you are a polytheist. The resulting 'discernment' seems to fall in line with the cultural background of the believer.
-
So why would an omnipotent god get it so wrong in the first place. Why would he design a universe to be inhospitable to life ?
The belief might be that the dynamic universe is 'inhospitable' to life forms not life, which is why life forms change and evolve to compensate. 'Life' as the breath of God is eternal and changeless.
-
The belief might be that the dynamic universe is 'inhospitable' to life forms not life, which is why life forms change and evolve to compensate. 'Life' as the breath of God is eternal and changeless.
I cant make any sense of that , mike!
-
So why would an omnipotent god get it so wrong in the first place. Why would he design a universe to be inhospitable to life ?
I do not know - yet. Perhaps all will come clear when I meet up with God in heaven.
-
So why would an omnipotent god get it so wrong in the first place. Why would he design a universe to be inhospitable to life ?
Because it is weird!
-
'Allah' isn't a different god to the god of Christians and Jews. It is the same one eternal omni god under a different name worshipped through a different cultural lens, but it must the same being unless you are a polytheist. The resulting 'discernment' seems to fall in line with the cultural background of the believer.
Yes, it is the same God we all worship, but some may need God's gift of discernment to find the best road to salvation. I know of some Muslims and Jews who have had the courage to convert to Christianity despite their cultural background.
-
Yes, it is the same God we all worship, but some may need God's gift of discernment to find the best road to salvation. I know of some Muslims and Jews who have had the courage to convert to Christianity despite their cultural background.
There will always be con men around, they'll always find willing customers somewhere or the other.
ippy
-
Yes, it is the same God we all worship, but some may need God's gift of discernment to find the best road to salvation. I know of some Muslims and Jews who have had the courage to convert to Christianity despite their cultural background.
this is a very genuine question, AB.
How does your god communicate with you and how do you know its him?
-
So why would an omnipotent god get it so wrong in the first place. Why would he design a universe to be inhospitable to life ?
It is a fantastic scenario, first, God creates a universe largely hostile to life, but then, thankfully, creates a few pockets which are conducive, and hello hello, we are able to watch X-factor on a Saturday night.
You could call it the elasticity of faith, or, in other words, there are no constraints. If God wants to create blind fish, or flightless birds, or bacteria that live in petrol, this is his pleasure, don't you know?
I suppose Christians who use these arguments, don't see that having no constraints is an impediment to knowledge.
-
So why would an omnipotent god get it so wrong in the first place. Why would he design a universe to be inhospitable to life ?
he don't get it wrong, he didn't want to make life at all. It was negligence, we are the bacteria that lives in petrol and he hasn't noticed yet.
-
Better not light a match.
-
There are, however, stories of people spontaneously combusting.
-
This stuff about no constraints reminds me of aTruster, who took a positive delight in the arbitrariness of God's plan. I remember asking him why God made the Algerian nuthatch (rare bird), and of course aT replied, 'because it pleased him'. It doesn't work so well with ebola and brain cancer though, I suppose that's Satan. Elasticity rules!
-
elasticity rules,
not much good for taking precise measurements!
-
Of course, those of a more thoughtful bent would point him towards the anthropic principle, Adams’ puddle, .....
May I just point out the obvious flaw in the Adams' puddle argument.
We can use the laws of gravity combined with the properties of liquid to show that any solid shape will be filled. A very simple, easily verified explanation.
Now just consider how the upper arm fits so well into the socket on the shoulder bone. The convex shape of the arm bone fits precisely into the concave shape of the shoulder, but giving sufficient freedom to move through large angles of orientation. Every point on the curved surface of each bone is somehow defined in the DNA blueprint, together with the ability of each bone to grow in synchronisation, maintaining their perfect fit throughout the growth period. We may well wonder how the crude 'natural selection' combined with random mutations could ever produce such a marvel of design, not just here but with every other bone joint in our bodies.
-
We may well wonder how the crude 'natural selection' combined with random mutations could ever produce such a marvel of design, not just here but with every other bone joint in our bodies.
Is that the Royal 'we'? You may wonder, but again, taht's personal incredulity.
-
Of course, labelling natural selection as 'crude' gives the game away here. I'm not sure how AB arrives at that description; you could argue that in fact, it is extremely sensitive and fine-grained. But AB wants to win the argument, so sticks that in as a kind of sure-fire winner, (tautology).
But anyway, any chance, AB, of an actual argument or citation as to why 'crude'?
-
this is a very genuine question, AB.
How does your god communicate with you and how do you know its him?
Sometimes just sitting in prayerful silence in front of the blessed sacrament in church I get very profound awareness of God and His guiding thoughts. Also my answers to prayer often come from the actions of other people who God brings into my life. The most important ingredient in my relationship with God is prayer.
-
And dishonesty.
-
Yes, it is the same God we all worship, but some may need God's gift of discernment to find the best road to salvation. I know of some Muslims and Jews who have had the courage to convert to Christianity despite their cultural background.
and the same is true of the reverse, sometimes Christians convert to Islam. If it is the same God why would he give differing 'discernment' to different people if there is only one 'best route' to salvation ?
-
May I just point out the obvious flaw in the Adams' puddle argument.
We can use the laws of gravity combined with the properties of liquid to show that any solid shape will be filled. A very simple, easily verified explanation.
Now just consider how the upper arm fits so well into the socket on the shoulder bone. The convex shape of the arm bone fits precisely into the concave shape of the shoulder, but giving sufficient freedom to move through large angles of orientation. Every point on the curved surface of each bone is somehow defined in the DNA blueprint, together with the ability of each bone to grow in synchronisation, maintaining their perfect fit throughout the growth period. We may well wonder how the crude 'natural selection' combined with random mutations could ever produce such a marvel of design, not just here but with every other bone joint in our bodies.
Eerm, that's not a flaw in the anthropic principle, that is just your personal incredulity at work again.
And if you want to go down the route of ball and socket joints being too perfect to be natural then you will also want attribute the genome of the cordyceps fungus that infects the brains of small animals thereby turning them into zombie slaves to your designer god
-
and the same is true of the reverse, sometimes Christians convert to Islam.
I am quoting from personal experience. I have had no personal contact with any Christian who has converted to Islam.
-
Eerm, that's not a flaw in the anthropic principle, that is just your personal incredulity at work again.
And if you want to go down the route of ball and socket joints being too perfect to be natural then you will also want attribute the genome of the cordyceps fungus that infects the brains of small animals thereby turning them into zombie slaves to your designer god
I think he employs 'natural selection' when choosing what he accepts as attributed to his god
-
Sometimes just sitting in prayerful silence in front of the blessed sacrament in church I get very profound awareness of God and His guiding thoughts. Also my answers to prayer often come from the actions of other people who God brings into my life. The most important ingredient in my relationship with God is prayer.
whatever you think, that is NOT AN ANSWER
-
Natural selection is labelled as crude, when AB wants to show that it can't account for fine-grained stuff, but then we all know that God is an expert at fine-grained stuff, why there are all these citations which demonstrate that.
This is the fundamental dishonesty of these arguments; they do Christianity a disservice.
-
Natural selection is labelled as crude, when AB wants to show that it can't account for fine-grained stuff, but then we all know that God is an expert at fine-grained stuff, why there are all these citations which demonstrate that.
This is the fundamental dishonesty of these arguments; they do Christianity a disservice.
He is proof that evolution by natural selection is an ongoing process
-
Sometimes just sitting in prayerful silence in front of the blessed sacrament in church I get very profound awareness of God and His guiding thoughts. Also my answers to prayer often come from the actions of other people who God brings into my life. The most important ingredient in my relationship with God is prayer.
Alan, how do you know it's god and it's not the devil pretending to be god, whatever either of them might be.
ippy
-
I am quoting from personal experience. I have had no personal contact with any Christian who has converted to Islam.
So, really they might hsve a better experience than the people you know?
-
I cant make any sense of that , mike!
Well, it's based on Genesis 2:7 ... "Yahweh Elohim formed the human out of soil from the ground, and He blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the human became a living soul." In other words, 'life' or 'living soul' is distinct from the physical body or life form. The physical body or life form changes over time just as your body has since birth but the 'life' within hasn't, and so the 'inhospitable universe' affects only the form which 'life' inhabits. According to the Gospel of John, Jesus identified with 'life' ... I am the way, the truth and the life'. Of course, for those who believe that life is an emergent property of the physical, then it doesn't apply and there is no living soul to be saved.
-
well , thanks for clearing that up .
-
Better not light a match.
I didn't start the fire ;)
-
I didn't start the fire ;)
It was always burning...
-
It was always burning...
good old B.J.
I'm partial to one now and again ;)
-
good old B.J.
I'm partial to one now and again ;)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
-
If somebody can oppose the idea of 'something from nothing' by means of a series of arguments, which are based on genuine scientific findings, go for it, with citations please.
Ok, a couple of examples...
Newton's conservation of momentum law.
The total momentum before an impact remains unchanged after the impact. Now: If two particles collided and the total momentum increased after the impact, there would have to be a reason for that, otherwise the increase in momentum comes from nothing.
Newton's conservation of mechanical energy. Assuming no other forces acting on an object then the sum of its potential and kinetic energy remains constant. If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced and reached a height of 3m above the ground, there would be an increase in its overall energy. Under normal circumstances, one would have to assume that a force was applied to the ball at some point in order to increase its potential energy, otherwise you are getting an increase in energy from nothing.
-
Ok, a couple of examples...
Newton's conservation of momentum law.
The total momentum before an impact remains unchanged after the impact. Now: If two particles collided and the total momentum increased after the impact, there would have to be a reason for that, otherwise the increase in momentum comes from nothing.
Newton's conservation of mechanical energy. Assuming no other forces acting on an object then the sum of its potential and kinetic energy remains constant. If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced and reached a height of 3m above the ground, there would be an increase in its overall energy. Under normal circumstances, one would have to assume that a force was applied to the ball at some point in order to increase its potential energy, otherwise you are getting an increase in energy from nothing.
you appear to be arguing against your own ideas here
-
you appear to be arguing against your own ideas here
Could you expand on what you mean by this? Thanks.
-
Could you expand on what you mean by this? Thanks.
you seem to be arguing for some form of naturalism based on non interventionism.
-
Ok, a couple of examples...
Newton's conservation of momentum law.
The total momentum before an impact remains unchanged after the impact. Now: If two particles collided and the total momentum increased after the impact, there would have to be a reason for that, otherwise the increase in momentum comes from nothing.
Newton's conservation of mechanical energy. Assuming no other forces acting on an object then the sum of its potential and kinetic energy remains constant. If I dropped a ball from a height of 1m above the ground and it bounced and reached a height of 3m above the ground, there would be an increase in its overall energy. Under normal circumstances, one would have to assume that a force was applied to the ball at some point in order to increase its potential energy, otherwise you are getting an increase in energy from nothing.
newton's laws are incomplete in the field of quantum mechanics . Its like using apples to show oranges don't exist.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eFTLKWw542g
NS I cant get the link to work!
-
so what's the point of the rest of the universe if its hostile to life ? I thought your god liked being worshipped.
That's your God.
-
That's your God.
I don't have one.
-
Natural selection is labelled as crude, when AB wants to show that it can't account for fine-grained stuff, but then we all know that God is an expert at fine-grained stuff, why there are all these citations which demonstrate that.
This is the fundamental dishonesty of these arguments; they do Christianity a disservice.
I would have no problem with natural selection if there was a virtually infinite number of beneficial mutations for it to work on. But this is not the case. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. If the natural selection process had to rely on purely random events to produce beneficial mutations, then I maintain that the description of "crude" is valid. My argument is that there is evidence in the specific complexity of all life forms to indicate that some form of intelligently guided events are needed to produce sufficient beneficial mutations for evolution to work. You may argue that my reasoning is based on my personal incredulity, but the opposite argument is based on personal optimism. There is no definitive proof in either case, but the fact that acts of human free will can be used to manipulate natural forces to create intelligent design is an indication that our universe is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events.
-
I would have no problem with natural selection if there was a virtually infinite number of beneficial mutations for it to work on. But this is not the case. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. If the natural selection process had to rely on purely random events to produce beneficial mutations, then I maintain that the description of "crude" is valid. My argument is that there is evidence in the specific complexity of all life forms to indicate that some form of intelligently guided events are needed to produce sufficient beneficial mutations for evolution to work. You may argue that my reasoning is based on my personal incredulity, but the opposite argument is based on personal optimism. There is no definitive proof in either case, but the fact that acts of human free will can be used to manipulate natural forces to create intelligent design is an indication that our universe is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events.
do you have training in this field?
-
I don't have one.
You have a God who you think doesn't exist.
-
You have a God who you think doesn't exist.
what are you on about ? have I missed something?
-
AB,
Will you do something for me please? Will you read what I'm about to tell you, and actually think about it and then respond to that rather than repeat your misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory actually entails?
Will you at least try?
I would have no problem with natural selection if there was a virtually infinite number of beneficial mutations for it to work on. But this is not the case. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial.
Yes, which is exactly what you'd expect to see if there was no guiding hand at the tiller. When cells divide they make copies of their DNA, and sometimes those copies are not exact - so they're "mutations". For the most part those mutations make no difference to the organism, and sometime they're harmful and so reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the organism passing on its genetic legacy to descendants. Sometimes though the mutation will benefit the organism - resistance to a disease, sharper eyesight etc - which will confer a greater chance of inherited genetic success in subsequent generations and so, over time, that mutation will become embedded.
If the natural selection process had to rely on purely random events to produce beneficial mutations, then I maintain that the description of "crude" is valid.
Then you maintain wrongly. You may think it to be "crude" (or "wasteful" would perhaps be a better description) but the unfathomably vast number of opportunities for it to occur means that it can nonetheless produce exquisitely well-adapted organisms like hummingbirds and octopi. The only way you could call it crude would be to draw an analogy with an engineer whose designs for computers kept producing machines that couldn't compute, or an architect who designed buildings that kept falling down. It's precisely because there is no designer that there's huge redundancy in evolution. If there actually was a "God" - or at least a competent one - then you wouldn't expect to see that redundancy at all.
In other words the wastefulness you think to indicate a designer actually indicates the opposite of that - ie, no designer at all.
My argument is that there is evidence in the specific complexity of all life forms to indicate that some form of intelligently guided events are needed to produce sufficient beneficial mutations for evolution to work. You may argue that my reasoning is based on my personal incredulity, but the opposite argument is based on personal optimism.
No, that's not the problem with your "argument" - or at least it's not the main one. The main one is something called the lottery winner's fallacy - ie, the lottery winner says, "Wow! The odds against me winning were 14-million-to-one, therefore there must be something special about me" whereas in fact, from Camelot's perspective, the odds were pretty much one, but they just didn't care about who won.
Similarly you've just assumed that people and oak trees and bumble bees must have been the intended objectives all along, so the chances of producing them by random means stretches your incredulity too far. Just like Camelot though, the universe doesn't know or care what species will emerge or even for that matter whether any species will emerge at all. The process is essentially blind, and thinking little old Alan Burns to have been what was intended all along is just looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You need in other words to start from the bottom up, not from the top down.
There is no definitive proof in either case...
That's disingenuous - there's no "definitive proof" for any scientific theory. Not for germ theory of disease, not for the theory of gravity, not for the theory of evolution. Not for any of them. What all of them have though is vast numbers of facts that all support them, a falsification test, predictive power etc such that they provide hugely powerful explanations for the way the world works. Your "in either case" is attempting a false equivalence moreover. There's no definitive proof for natural childbirth either, but you can't just introduce stork theory as your alternative and claim there to be no definitive proof for either as if they deserve equal consideration.
...but the fact that acts of human free will can be used to manipulate natural forces to create intelligent design is an indication that our universe is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events.
Leaving aside for now your continued misunderstanding of "free will", yes our species and others can clearly manipulate our environments but that says nothing at all to the conjecture that there must also therefore be a divine manipulator doing the same thing.
-
newton's laws are incomplete in the field of quantum mechanics . Its like using apples to show oranges don't exist.
Conservation of momentum and energy apply in quantum mechanics too.
-
Conservation of momentum and energy apply in quantum mechanics too.
I'm well aware of that . It was his use of those two examples to show that you cant get something from nothing that are wrong.
-
AB,
Will you do something for me please? Will you read what I'm about to tell you, and actually think about it and then respond to that rather than repeat your misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory actually entails?
Will you at least try?
Yes, which is exactly what you'd expect to see if there was no guiding hand at the tiller. When cells divide they make copies of their DNA, and sometimes those copies are not exact - so they're "mutations". For the most part those mutations make no difference to the organism, and sometime they're harmful and so reduce or eliminate the likelihood of the organism passing on its genetic legacy to descendants. Sometimes though the mutation will benefit the organism - resistance to a disease, sharper eyesight etc - which will confer a greater chance of inherited genetic success in subsequent generations and so, over time, that mutation will become embedded.
Then you maintain wrongly. You may think it to be "crude" (or "wasteful" would perhaps be a better description) but the unfathomably vast number of opportunities for it to occur means that it can nonetheless produce exquisitely well-adapted organisms like hummingbirds and octopi. The only way you could call it crude would be to draw an analogy with an engineer whose designs for computers kept producing machines that couldn't compute, or an architect who designed buildings that kept falling down. It's precisely because there is no designer that there's huge redundancy in evolution. If there actually was a "God" - or at least a competent one - then you wouldn't expect to see that redundancy at all.
In other words the wastefulness you think to indicate a designer actually indicates the opposite of that - ie, no designer at all.
No, that's not the problem with your "argument" - or at least it's not the main one. The main one is something called the lottery winner's fallacy - ie, the lottery winner says, "Wow! The odds against me winning were 14-million-to-one, therefore there must be something special about me" whereas in fact, from Camelot's perspective, the odds were pretty much one, but they just didn't care about who won.
Similarly you've just assumed that people and oak trees and bumble bees must have been the intended objectives all along, so the chances of producing them by random means stretches your incredulity too far. Just like Camelot though, the universe doesn't know or care what species will emerge or even for that matter whether any species will emerge at all. The process is essentially blind, and thinking little old Alan Burns to have been what was intended all along is just looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You need in other words to start from the bottom up, not from the top down.
That's disingenuous - there's no "definitive proof" for any scientific theory. Not for germ theory of disease, not for the theory of gravity, not for the theory of evolution. Not for any of them. What all of them have though is vast numbers of facts that all support them, a falsification test, predictive power etc such that they provide hugely powerful explanations for the way the world works. Your "in either case" is attempting a false equivalence moreover. There's no definitive proof for natural childbirth either, but you can't just introduce stork theory as your alternative and claim there to be no definitive proof for either as if they deserve equal consideration.
Leaving aside for now your continued misunderstanding of "free will", yes our species and others can clearly manipulate our environments but that says nothing at all to the conjecture that there must also therefore be a divine manipulator doing the same thing.
I think you've got a good chance that AB'll accept this descroption of how evolution works quite well on its own without any outside agency Blue, I'll go down town to the nearest betting shop and put a couple of thousand pounds on AB admitting that he's got it wrong, do you think a couple of thousand pounds is enough?
ippy
-
I wonder if SotS has read #539?
Ippy - I agree. I think the chances of AB admitting he is wrong are just about zero, not even vanishingly small!
-
AB,
Will you do something for me please? Will you read what I'm about to tell you, and actually think about it and then respond to that rather than repeat your misunderstanding of what evolutionary theory actually entails?
Will you at least try? ..............................
BH,
Thank you for another detailed response to my post.
I fully understand what you are saying.
So in summing up, you believe that random errors in copying DNA have generated every minute detail of your human body. Every bone, every bone joint, every blood cell, every skin cell, every nerve, every hair, every organ, every component of every organ, every brain cell ....
You also believe that each incremental step in these developments produced sufficient functionality in its own right to be passed on using natural selection.
I know I am not alone in doubting the probability of this all happening by a blind evolutionary process. Scientists who dare to profess their doubts inevitably face unwarranted derision and character assassination from their atheist peers. Dembski once likened the natural selection process to a blind man trying to find the solution to a Rubic's cube, asking his sighted friend, "is this it?".
-
I would have no problem with natural selection if there was a virtually infinite number of beneficial mutations for it to work on. But this is not the case. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. If the natural selection process had to rely on purely random events to produce beneficial mutations, then I maintain that the description of "crude" is valid. My argument is that there is evidence in the specific complexity of all life forms to indicate that some form of intelligently guided events are needed to produce sufficient beneficial mutations for evolution to work. You may argue that my reasoning is based on my personal incredulity, but the opposite argument is based on personal optimism. There is no definitive proof in either case, but the fact that acts of human free will can be used to manipulate natural forces to create intelligent design is an indication that our universe is not entirely driven by unguided deterministic events.
So you are saying that positive mutations are produced by God? What about the neutral or negative mutations? Why doesn't God stop them? It's a hell of a way to run a universe, isn't it? Positive stuff - we have good immune systems, so get over colds and minor illness; negative stuff - we get cancer and our immune system falters. So God produces the immune system, and Satan the cancer? Or is cancer a random accident, which God kind of overlooks?
-
BH,
Thank you for another detailed response to my post.
I fully understand what you are saying.
So in summing up, you believe that random errors in copying DNA have generated every minute detail of your human body. Every bone, every bone joint, every blood cell, every skin cell, every nerve, every hair, every organ, every component of every organ, every brain cell ....
You also believe that each incremental step in these developments produced sufficient functionality in its own right to be passed on using natural selection.
I know I am not alone in doubting the probability of this all happening by a blind evolutionary process. Scientists who dare to profess their doubts inevitably face unwarranted derision and character assassination from their atheist peers. Dembski once likened the natural selection process to a blind man trying to find the solution to a Rubic's cube, asking his sighted friend, "is this it?".
Is that the same Dembski who announced his resignation from all things Intelligent design in September this year?
-
Random errors have produced every detail in the human body? Come on, AB, you know that that's dishonest.
Oh, but you doubt that evolution can work blindly? Ah well, then, all the research workers in genetics and evolutionary biology and anatomy should down tools, because your doubts trump all of that!
Also, 'atheist peers' is dishonest. One of the key witnesses at the Dover trial was Kenneth Miller, well known cell biologist, and Roman Catholic.
-
Is that the same Dembski who announced his resignation from all things Intelligent design in September this year?
He announced his retirement and moved on to other things, but he does not deny any of his past findings.
https://billdembski.com/
-
I know I am not alone in doubting the probability of this all happening by a blind evolutionary process.
Do you have any qualifications in the field to give your personal views any weight?
Scientists who dare to profess their doubts inevitably face unwarranted derision and character assassination from their atheist peers.
So do you think that all those who accept ToE by Natural Selection are atheists?
-
"I don't know how things work, therefore God."
-
So you are saying that positive mutations are produced by God? What about the neutral or negative mutations? Why doesn't God stop them? It's a hell of a way to run a universe, isn't it? Positive stuff - we have good immune systems, so get over colds and minor illness; negative stuff - we get cancer and our immune system falters. So God produces the immune system, and Satan the cancer? Or is cancer a random accident, which God kind of overlooks?
I think this is spot on.
I can see that some people have a hard time grasping the sheer extent of the Darwinian insight, the billions of years involved, the billions of individual organisms for selection to act on, the incessant environment change. But the implications of not grasping it are just bizarre, ending up with a god scurrying round aiming a charged particle here, an asteroid there, just so's he can get the desired end result. This is a story book substitute for reality, it is breathtakingly bonkers and naïve in the extreme. On the other hand, that striving to understand the science is mind expanding, it is good for us, just as hard exercise is good for the body. AB's theology, rather than mind-expanding, is mind-belittling, it reduces one to infantile naivety.
-
I wonder if SotS has read #539?
Yes I have SusanDoris, but I agree with the points that Alan Burns is making.
-
I think this is spot on.
I can see that some people have a hard time grasping the sheer extent of the Darwinian insight, the billions of years involved, the billions of individual organisms for selection to act on, the incessant environment change. But the implications of not grasping it are just bizarre, ending up with a god scurrying round aiming a charged particle here, an asteroid there, just so's he can get the desired end result. This is a story book substitute for reality, it is breathtakingly bonkers and naïve in the extreme. On the other hand, that striving to understand the science is mind expanding, it is good for us, just as hard exercise is good for the body. AB's theology, rather than mind-expanding, is mind-belittling, it reduces one to infantile naivety.
Actually, there are very few ideas of any substance in AB's theology. Once you've got past the incredulity - how could variation and selection produce knee-joints? - there isn't much. This is true of ID in general, isn't it? My memory of the Dover trial is that hardly any witnesses could give a coherent defence of ID, and Miller wiped the floor with them, that is, Miller the Christian. It's also parasitic on biology, mainly arguing that X and Y are improbable, where X and Y are derived from research into genetics and biology.
-
Another odd and amusing aspect of this is that God, according to AB, behaves just as evolution would. Hello, is anyone smelling a rat here? Or you could just say that it is the way that evolution behaves.
-
my little grandson carries a teddy bear around with him everywhere, you should see what happens when you try to take it away from him.
just saying.
-
BH,
Thank you for another detailed response to my post.
I fully understand what you are saying.
So in summing up, you believe that random errors in copying DNA have generated every minute detail of your human body. Every bone, every bone joint, every blood cell, every skin cell, every nerve, every hair, every organ, every component of every organ, every brain cell ....
You also believe that each incremental step in these developments produced sufficient functionality in its own right to be passed on using natural selection.
I know I am not alone in doubting the probability of this all happening by a blind evolutionary process. Scientists who dare to profess their doubts inevitably face unwarranted derision and character assassination from their atheist peers. Dembski once likened the natural selection process to a blind man trying to find the solution to a Rubic's cube, asking his sighted friend, "is this it?".
Alan, Blue's not referring to a couple of thousand years, human evolution goes back for at least six million years, more than enough for time for us to evolve and I'm not surprised about scientists being on the business end of derision when the are unable to see how the process works, it sounds like this Dembski is a right dipstick and I dare say he likes to think of himself as a scientist.
Evolution is no longer a debate Alan, it's a well proven theory, even when Franklin, Crick and Watson discovered DNA it fell exactly in line with the previous works on the evolutionary theories.
As for the comment about Rubics cube, you can't be that thick Alan, work it out.
You sound exactly like one of those very unfortunate children that, in your case, the R C Church, very successfully completely indoctrinated you at the very earliest possible opportunity, probably somewhere before the age of seven years, such a shame.
ippy
-
Actually, there are very few ideas of any substance in AB's theology. Once you've got past the incredulity - how could variation and selection produce knee-joints? - there isn't much. This is true of ID in general, isn't it? My memory of the Dover trial is that hardly any witnesses could give a coherent defence of ID, and Miller wiped the floor with them, that is, Miller the Christian. It's also parasitic on biology, mainly arguing that X and Y are improbable, where X and Y are derived from research into genetics and biology.
Wigginhall....while people are debating ID some well known scientists are perfectly happy discussing simulated universes of which this could be one.
I think the necessarily unconscious naturalistic universe goose is cooked along with the Dawkinsian/smartarsian favourite ''who created the creator'' to which the answer can now legitimately come back.....''we don't know.''
Stop basking in past Dawkinsian ''Triumphs''.
-
AB,
BH,
Thank you for another detailed response to my post.
I fully understand what you are saying.
Just hold that thought for a minute...
So in summing up, you believe that random errors in copying DNA have generated every minute detail of your human body. Every bone, every bone joint, every blood cell, every skin cell, every nerve, every hair, every organ, every component of every organ, every brain cell ....
You also believe that each incremental step in these developments produced sufficient functionality in its own right to be passed on using natural selection.
Ah, so you haven't understood it at all then. What you've actually done is just to commit the lottery winner's fallacy again - you've considered the human body and thought, "what are the chances eh"? It makes a sort of sense too if you look through the wrong end of the telescope - start with the finished article, then marvel at the unlikelihood of an unguided process arriving at it.
Here's the thing though: you have the logic completely backwards. The universe cannot know or care what organisms emerge, or indeed whether any emerge at all. It's quite possible that with different mutations and different environmental pressures different organisms entirely would have come about, and indeed that maybe one of them would be posting somewhere, "so you believe that every third eye on the back of our heads so people can't sneak up on us, every shinbone on the back of our legs so we don't bump into coffee tables, every flat round hand that makes us so good at ping pong happened by random chances then do you?"
You are in other words still fundamentally locked into the bad thinking of the lottery winner who thinks he's special, and not into the correct thinking of Camelot that really doesn't care who wins.
As you've just ignored the other points that undo you, I won't return to them.
I know I am not alone in doubting the probability of this all happening by a blind evolutionary process. Scientists who dare to profess their doubts inevitably face unwarranted derision and character assassination from their atheist peers. Dembski once likened the natural selection process to a blind man trying to find the solution to a Rubic's cube, asking his sighted friend, "is this it?".
Except of course that isn't true at all, and the "atheist" there is just a red herring. What actually happens when a Behe or similar pops up is that his arguments and evidence are tested, and found to be false - the nonsense of "irreducible complexity" for example. Why then would anyone bother with "derision and character assassination" when he has the arguments on his side?
Oh, and the Rubik's cube analogy fails in any case by the way for the same reason that your argument fails - you need to decide first that the completed puzzle is the correct answer and then wonder at the unlikelihood of chancing upon it, whereas in fact there's no blueprint to start with that chance events are trying to find.
-
I think the necessarily unconscious naturalistic universe goose is cooked along with the Dawkinsian/smartarsian favourite ''who created the creator'' to which the answer can now legitimately come back.....''we don't know.''
In which, pricelessly, Vlad fails to grasp that, "We don't know" is also just the answer to "how did the universe come about?" rendering guesses about gods and the like entirely redundant.
Genius.
-
Sword,
Yes I have SusanDoris, but I agree with the points that Alan Burns is making.
Seriously?
Seriously seriously?
-
In which, pricelessly, Vlad fails to grasp that, "We don't know" is also just the answer to "how did the universe come about?" rendering guesses about gods and the like entirely redundant.
Genius.
How can an ''I don't know'' render any solution to that question redundant you poor deluded dogmatic agnostic fool?
-
How can an ''I don't know'' render any solution to that question redundant you poor deluded dogmatic agnostic fool?
In which Vlad continues to fail to grasp that "We don't know" not being an acceptable answer to "Whence the universe?" but being an acceptable answer to "Whence God?" is a double standard of such breathtaking idiocy as to make his already floor level bar of sense finally dig a hole for itself and vanish entirely.
-
In which, pricelessly, Vlad fails to grasp that, "We don't know" is also just the answer to "how did the universe come about?" rendering guesses about gods and the like entirely redundant.
Genius.
Blue, why the fuck do you bother ? I'm sure you could spend your time in meaningful discussion elsewhere. You have far more patience than I.
I think you are being scammed by some reprehensible shirt fronts and you have fallen for it . more fool you..
If you are happy to continue on here , I wish you well. But know this, its because people like you in real life don't speak up in elections allow whats happened in USA TO HAPPEN
-
In which Vlad continues to fail to grasp that "We don't know" not being an acceptable answer to "Whence the universe?" but being an acceptable answer to "Whence God?" is a double standard of such breathtaking idiocy as to make his already floor level bar of sense finally dig a hole for itself and vanish entirely.
So according to you Hillside by declaring ''we don't know'' we have proved naturalism and disproved gods...I think you have lost it old boy.
On the other hand if one accepts the possibility of simulated universes then one accepts the possibility of creators.
I think you've lost on two counts Hilly.
-
So according to you Hillside by declaring ''we don't know'' we have proved naturalism and disproved gods...I think you have lost it old boy.
On the other hand if one accepts the possibility of simulated universes then one accepts the possibility of creators.
I think you've lost on two counts Hilly.
O M G I have just censored myself
-
Blue, why the fuck do you bother ? I'm sure you could spend your time in meaningful discussion elsewhere. You have far more patience than I.
I think you are being scammed by some reprehensible shirt fronts and you have fallen for it . more fool you..
If you are happy to continue on here , I wish you well. But know this, its because people like you in real life don't speak up in elections allow whats happened in USA TO HAPPEN
Walter. Bluehillside is a dignified person who is passionate about his beliefs and the transmission of them. Although I disagree with him I respect him. There aren't many things as bracing as getting a ''full Hillside''.
You could learn a lot from him. I have.
-
Walter. Bluehillside is a dignified person who is passionate about his beliefs and the transmission of them. Although I disagree with him I respect him. There aren't many things as bracing as getting a ''full Hillside''.
You could learn a lot from him. I have.
thanks for the advice. I don't want your respect. You are not worthy of a realistic argument. You are a none entity
You no longer provide a cohesive argument . Maybe Blue plays along .I don't know why he does it , maybe he should get out more.
-
thanks for the advice. I don't want your respect. You are not worthy of a realistic argument. You are a none entity
You no longer provide a cohesive argument . Maybe Blue plays along .I don't know why he does it , maybe he should get out more.
I'm afraid one has to wonder at someone who comes onto a religion ethics website and then expresses genuine surprise and shock when he comes across religion.
I can't quite figure out what your game is.
-
I'm afraid one has to wonder at someone who comes onto a religion ethics website and then expresses genuine surprise and shock when he comes across religion.
I can't quite figure out what your game is.
we can continue this later
bible study night talk later
-
Walter. Bluehillside is a dignified person who is passionate about his beliefs and the transmission of them. Although I disagree with him I respect him. There aren't many things as bracing as getting a ''full Hillside''.
You could learn a lot from him. I have.
:D
That's nice. Generous and funny in equal measure. Vlad at his best.
-
Quite agree Torridon. Also agree with what Vlad said.
-
Another odd and amusing aspect of this is that God, according to AB, behaves just as evolution would.
I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God. It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it. I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory. But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back. God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.
-
msg 572 AB When you write this stuff its like you cant grow up and think maybe just maybe "i dont know" Its all right not to know, Just believing, wishing, hoping sincerely(in your case) something to be true will not cut the mustard as a "goer" I dont know. We dont know. You dont know. Your just doing a pretend manifesto.
-
I think this is spot on.
I can see that some people have a hard time grasping the sheer extent of the Darwinian insight, the billions of years involved, the billions of individual organisms for selection to act on, the incessant environment change. But the implications of not grasping it are just bizarre, ending up with a god scurrying round aiming a charged particle here, an asteroid there, just so's he can get the desired end result. This is a story book substitute for reality, it is breathtakingly bonkers and naïve in the extreme. On the other hand, that striving to understand the science is mind expanding, it is good for us, just as hard exercise is good for the body. AB's theology, rather than mind-expanding, is mind-belittling, it reduces one to infantile naivety.
Now, if you could just have that printed on a large poster, in all languages, and paste it worldwide, plus have it appear every day for a year or so on every TV channel and read out on every radio station, well, we might just get somewhere!! :d
-
I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God. It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it. I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory. But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back. God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.
Well why, you cannot just claim certainty without justification. Apart from which your fastidious intervening god looks incompetent at the least. I mean, what's with crabs for instance, eyes on stalks and walking sideways, what's all that about, is it just some design bug he hasn't had time to chase down and fix yet ? And how come he gave humans just two forward facing eyes leaving us vulnerable to attack from behind. He endowed some spiders with eight eyes allowing for 360 degree vision, so why would he inflict that deficit on us, was it incompetence, forgetfulness or downright malice ? And what about cystic fibrosis, why on earth would he engineer that into the human genome, what on earth was he thinking ? Or was that Satan's contribution, but if so, why did god create Satan and let him have such a free hand ?
-
I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God. It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it. I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory. But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back. God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.
All that tinkering, sorry, guiding, over billions of years. Then at some point, sometime in the past, he added a 'soul' into the mix?
-
I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God. It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it. I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory. But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back. God is intimately involved with life as we know it, and yes, there are many things which we do not understand yet, but I am certain that life would not exist if God does not exist.
Yes, we know.
-
Well why, you cannot just claim certainty without justification. Apart from which your fastidious intervening god looks incompetent at the least. I mean, what's with crabs for instance, eyes on stalks and walking sideways, what's all that about, is it just some design bug he hasn't had time to chase down and fix yet ? And how come he gave humans just two forward facing eyes leaving us vulnerable to attack from behind. He endowed some spiders with eight eyes allowing for 360 degree vision, so why would he inflict that deficit on us, was it incompetence, forgetfulness or downright malice ? And what about cystic fibrosis, why on earth would he engineer that into the human genome, what on earth was he thinking ? Or was that Satan's contribution, but if so, why did god create Satan and let him have such a free hand ?
If we are putting in God and it seems we are then IMO we can then ask the question ''what is evolution for?''. This impacts on any criticism of evolution since as we are not at the end of the universe we don't know if there is in fact anything wrong or going wrong with the essential process. Also. are we in any position as artificial manipulators of both the environment and selection to criticise God's handling of the universe?
The bible has God declaring the creation as ''Good''. The problems seem to come with humanity. The line taken by the antitheists, i.e. Quality control, on here is therefore questionable.
-
If we are putting in God and it seems we are then IMO we can then ask the question ''what is evolution for?''. This impacts on any criticism of evolution since as we are not at the end of the universe we don't know if there is in fact anything wrong or going wrong with the essential process. Also. are we in any position as artificial manipulators of both the environment and selection to criticise God's handling of the universe?
The bible has God declaring the creation as ''Good''. The problems seem to come with humanity. The line taken by the antitheists, i.e. Quality control, on here is therefore questionable.
It's AB who is 'putting in God' right in the mix of evolution. As torridon has stated, this seems to have bizarre results, that God okays stuff like eyes on stalks, but also ebola. As to AB's idea that God helps positive mutations, but presumably stands back from negative or neutral mutations, it makes God, well, finicky, shall we say. Of course, this all goes on without a shred of evidence. I think somebody has already mentioned mass extinctions, I guess God was on sabbatical. But hang on, he did put the moon in the right place.
I don't know whether to call this literalism, or just daft. And I doubt if many Christians actually agree with this kind of fantasy.
-
It's AB who is 'putting in God' right in the mix of evolution. As torridon has stated, this seems to have bizarre results, that God okays stuff like eyes on stalks, but also ebola. As to AB's idea that God helps positive mutations, but presumably stands back from negative or neutral mutations, it makes God, well, finicky, shall we say. Of course, this all goes on without a shred of evidence. I think somebody has already mentioned mass extinctions, I guess God was on sabbatical. But hang on, he did put the moon in the right place.
I don't know whether to call this literalism, or just daft. And I doubt if many Christians actually agree with this kind of fantasy.
But why are we accusing God for mass extinctions either of causing them or letting them happen. That mass extinction is a bad thing is surely an anthropocentric view.
Mass extinctions remind us that the whole human kit and kerboodle, the massive experiment into reason, the scientific enterprise is finite...from our point of view.
What Christianity says, when even one sparrow falls is that it is all valued by God and that therefore imputes meaning and losslessness into the universe.
-
AB,
Ah, so you haven't understood it at all then. What you've actually done is just to commit the lottery winner's fallacy again - you've considered the human body and thought, "what are the chances eh"? It makes a sort of sense too if you look through the wrong end of the telescope - start with the finished article, then marvel at the unlikelihood of an unguided process arriving at it.
Sorry, my friend, it is you who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You perceive the amazing development of life on this earth then use your God given intelligence and awareness to produce imaginary scenarios of how it could all have happened by random chance events. Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes. But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme. No amount of unguided natural forces can produce anything more than a chaotic goo if starting from a lifeless universe. When combining this optimistic scenario with the incredibly fine tuned conditions to produce the planets and stars, the complex sequence of events involved in abiogenesis and the current impossibility of defining conscious awareness in material terms, the true probability of God not existing hangs on an unimaginably tiny thread.
-
AB
why is it so difficult for you to understand?
I really want to know, if you can answer this honestly you will have satisfied my curiosity as to why there are religious and non religious people.
-
AB,
Sorry, my friend, it is you who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You perceive the amazing development of life on this earth then use your God given intelligence and awareness to produce imaginary scenarios of how it could all have happened by random chance events. Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes. But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme. No amount of unguided natural forces can produce anything more than a chaotic goo if starting from a lifeless universe. When combining this optimistic scenario with the incredibly fine tuned conditions to produce the planets and stars, the complex sequence of events involved in abiogenesis and the current impossibility of defining conscious awareness in material terms, the true probability of God not existing hangs on an unimaginably tiny thread.
These things only appear to be “fine tuned” if you assume a priori that you and me, planets, bumble bees, whatever were the intended outcomes all along, and so it would be a remarkable co-incidence for everything to be just-so for them to have come about.
In other words you’re still thinking like the lottery winner rather than like Camelot, still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Until you grasp that the only “chaotic goo” here will continue to be your ability to reason.
As Walter asks, why is this so difficult for you?
-
AB,
These things only appear to be “fine tuned” if you assume a priori that you and me, planets, bumble bees, whatever were the intended outcomes all along, and so it would be a remarkable co-incidence for everything to be just-so for them to have come about.
In other words you’re still thinking like the lottery winner rather than like Camelot, still looking down the wrong end of the telescope. Until you grasp that the only “chaotic goo” here will continue to be your ability to reason.
As Walter asks, why is this so difficult for you?
he uses ,God given, in his arguement. That might be a clue?
-
Seb,
he uses ,God given, in his arguement. That might be a clue?
Actually he uses it instead of an argument I think, but I take your point.
-
As Walter asks, why is this so difficult for you?
Because this:
These things only appear to be “fine tuned” if you assume a priori that you and me, planets, bumble bees, whatever were the intended outcomes all along, and so it would be a remarkable co-incidence for everything to be just-so for them to have come about.
is not true. It is an assumption on your part about why the conclusion was reached.
You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:
Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes. But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme.
-
Because this:is not true. It is an assumption on your part about why the conclusion was reached.
You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:
Your reply only attracts ridicule. From now on I shall pity you.
-
Your reply only attracts ridicule.
I wish you well with your faith in ridicule.
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement doesn't alter because it is ridiculed, but I wouldn't want to undermine your faith.
-
I wish you well with your faith in ridicule.
The truth (or otherwise) of a statement doesn't alter because it is ridiculed, but I wouldn't want to undermine your faith.
sword
you're not worth the effort.
-
You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:
Why would anyone accept Alan's personal incredulity when this is not shared by people who are actually qualified in the field?
-
Because this:is not true. It is an assumption on your part about why the conclusion was reached.
You will not see it because you are not prepared to accept other reasons Christians here have given for their conclusions, e.g. this in Alan Burns' post:
Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes. But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme
.
What has optimism got to do with it ? It is not the case of two people, the two D's, holding an unwarrantedly optimistic opinion, it is pretty much everyone working in or connected with life sciences and has been so for over a century. Do you know something that has escaped the purview of the global scientific community ? As far as I can see the only people with an incredulity problem are people with a faith, now why is that ? Is it just a coincidence or is there some sort of cause and effect that can explain it ?
-
Sorry, my friend, it is you who are looking through the wrong end of the telescope. You perceive the amazing development of life on this earth then use your God given intelligence and awareness to produce imaginary scenarios of how it could all have happened by random chance events. Darwin, Dawkins and co have correctly observed that random DNA mutations and natural selection can help species to adapt to environment changes. But to extrapolate this fine tuning mechanism to assume it is sufficient to develop all the complexity needed to produce life as we know it is optimism in the extreme. No amount of unguided natural forces can produce anything more than a chaotic goo if starting from a lifeless universe. When combining this optimistic scenario with the incredibly fine tuned conditions to produce the planets and stars, the complex sequence of events involved in abiogenesis and the current impossibility of defining conscious awareness in material terms, the true probability of God not existing hangs on an unimaginably tiny thread.
It is a pity you were not at the meeting I attended this afternoon. The Dorset Humanist Group had Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel, whose talk was entitled 'Is it adaptive to believe in a Higher Power?
You would, though, have heard his words via a filter which would change his words into what your beliefs will allow you to hear.
-
It is a pity you were not at the meeting I attended this afternoon. The Dorset Humanist Group had Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel, whose talk was entitled 'Is it adaptive to believe in a Higher Power?
You would, though, have heard his words via a filter which would change his words into what your beliefs will allow you to hear.
Don't leave us dangling....what did the doctor say?
-
Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel ....
But I have faith in a being whose qualities far exceed those of Dr Michael E. Price, or any other human on this planet.
-
But I have faith in a being whose qualities far exceed those of Dr Michael E. Price, or any other human on this planet.
Your faith as an argument is worth exactly the same as someone who murders people for ISIS because of their faith.
-
In other words you’re still thinking like the lottery winner rather than like Camelot, still looking down the wrong end of the telescope.
But unlike the lottery, your faith in unguided evolution involves much more than just one unlikely event. For evolution to work, every discrete step involved in the development of major organs, bones, joints, brain cells etc. not only has to be generated by random events, it has to be tested by whether it alone can provide sufficient benefit to enable a species to survive extinction. Equivalent to me winning the lottery every week of my life, and my descendants for the rest of their lives too.
-
It is a pity you were not at the meeting I attended this afternoon. The Dorset Humanist Group had Dr Michael E. Price, an evolutionary biologist and psychologist a professor at Brunel, whose talk was entitled 'Is it adaptive to believe in a Higher Power?
You would, though, have heard his words via a filter which would change his words into what your beliefs will allow you to hear.
100% better than spot on S D.
This attitude of A B'S toward the rational evidence based knowledge we have aquired over the last app 150 years, says volumes about the regressive side of his religious beliefs, well I suppose religion in general.
ippy
-
Ippy
Thank you.
-
But I have faith in a being whose qualities far exceed those of Dr Michael E. Price, or any other human on this planet.
Any chain of reasoning is only as strong as its weakest link and it is child's play to see the weak link in the above sentence (underlined)
-
But unlike the lottery, your faith in unguided evolution involves much more than just one unlikely event. For evolution to work, every discrete step involved in the development of major organs, bones, joints, brain cells etc. not only has to be generated by random events, it has to be tested by whether it alone can provide sufficient benefit to enable a species to survive extinction. Equivalent to me winning the lottery every week of my life, and my descendants for the rest of their lives too.
Just your incredulity again. I'm sure this must have been mentioned already, but your incredulity is not an argument, it is just your incredulity. Luckily for us all, this incredulity problem you have does not seem to afflict people working in the relevant life science fields, it only seems to be an issue for some people of faith. So which came first, does incredulity lead inexorably to faith, or does faith lead to incredulity ?
-
Just your incredulity again. I'm sure this must have been mentioned already, but your incredulity is not an argument, it is just your incredulity. Luckily for us all, this incredulity problem you have does not seem to afflict people working in the relevant life science fields, it only seems to be an issue for some people of faith. So which came first, does incredulity lead inexorably to faith, or does faith lead to incredulity ?
My goal is the truth.
-
My goal in the truth.
that's a really crappy fortune cookie you got tonight, Alan.
-
My goal is the truth.
Is it the truth that based on the following......
I believe that the process of evolution is guided by God. It needs a lot more than random copying errors to drive it. I am aware that some Christians do believe in Darwin's theory, which shows that faith is not entirely dependent on the validity of this theory. But I am certain that God did not just light the blue touch paper of the big bang an then stand back. God is intimately involved with life as we know it, a.
...at some point during this 'guiding' of evolution specifically in humans, God added a soul to each and every one, when they didn't have one beforehand . Just like that?
-
Just your incredulity again. I'm sure this must have been mentioned already, but your incredulity is not an argument, it is just your incredulity. Luckily for us all, this incredulity problem you have does not seem to afflict people working in the relevant life science fields, it only seems to be an issue for some people of faith. So which came first, does incredulity lead inexorably to faith, or does faith lead to incredulity ?
My goal is the truth.
When we design new drugs we don't just release them on an unsuspecting public in hope and faith that they will be effective, we test them in blind trials to discover the truth about them. It pays to keep an open mind and a choice to follow a faith is a choice to close the mind to truths that lie outside the faith. If you really want to know truth, faith is the first thing to ditch, it is ultimately a false friend that might be superficially rewarding but for a genuine truth seeker it is an impediment. By fixating on what we want to be true, we blind ourselves to what is actually true.
-
My goal is the truth.
When we design new drugs we don't just release them on an unsuspecting public in hope and faith that they will be effective, we test them in blind trials to discover the truth about them. It pays to keep an open mind and a choice to follow a faith is a choice to close the mind to truths that lie outside the faith. If you really want to know truth, faith is the first thing to ditch, it is ultimately a false friend that might be superficially rewarding but for a genuine truth seeker it is an impediment. By fixating on what we want to be true, we blind ourselves to what is actually true.
well said ,torri
-
My goal is the truth.
When we design new drugs we don't just release them on an unsuspecting public in hope and faith that they will be effective, we test them in blind trials to discover the truth about them. It pays to keep an open mind and a choice to follow a faith is a choice to close the mind to truths that lie outside the faith. If you really want to know truth, faith is the first thing to ditch, it is ultimately a false friend that might be superficially rewarding but for a genuine truth seeker it is an impediment. By fixating on what we want to be true, we blind ourselves to what is actually true.
On the other hand, if the believer's motivation is to 'Seek first the Kingdom....' by persisting with a particular method towards that end, then faith is the last thing to ditch. Faith could be seen as a series of blind trials to discover the truth or otherwise of 'the Kingdom'. Until that 'truth' is revealed it will simply remain a belief. Alan's efforts to prove that his God exists by physical and mental means is doomed to failure, I suspect.
-
My goal is the truth.
When we design new drugs we don't just release them on an unsuspecting public in hope and faith that they will be effective, we test them in blind trials to discover the truth about them. It pays to keep an open mind and a choice to follow a faith is a choice to close the mind to truths that lie outside the faith. If you really want to know truth, faith is the first thing to ditch, it is ultimately a false friend that might be superficially rewarding but for a genuine truth seeker it is an impediment. By fixating on what we want to be true, we blind ourselves to what is actually true.
Wait a minute...who's this we, who is part of it and who is out?........and what part in testing drugs have you played?...
I kind of see what you mean by not really wanting to find the truth... You have to kind of have it forced upon you...
Other than that, another set of platitudes cobbled together to make your readership go Aaaaah...In my humble opinion.
-
Wait a minute...who's this we, who is part of it and who is out?........and what part in testing drugs have you played?...
I kind of see what you mean by not really wanting to find the truth... You have to kind of have it forced upon you...
Other than that, another set of platitudes cobbled together to make your readership go Aaaaah...In my humble opinion.
Is your hangover really bad this morning? ;D
-
Is your hangover really bad this morning? ;D
You are just a wrecker of nice things Floo.
-
You are just a wrecker of nice things Floo.
I have never had a hangover, but I wouldn't have described it as nice!
-
My goal is the truth.
When we design new drugs we don't just release them on an unsuspecting public in hope and faith that they will be effective, we test them in blind trials to discover the truth about them. It pays to keep an open mind and a choice to follow a faith is a choice to close the mind to truths that lie outside the faith. If you really want to know truth, faith is the first thing to ditch, it is ultimately a false friend that might be superficially rewarding but for a genuine truth seeker it is an impediment. By fixating on what we want to be true, we blind ourselves to what is actually true.
But by deliberately excluding anything outside the scope of material science you may well be missing the key to unlock the truth.
-
It's the hybridization of science and religion that I find weird. It's a bit like Frankenstein! I still don't get it why Christians try to justify their ideas by means of half-baked stuff from biology and cosmology. If you have your faith, fine, why adulterate it with scientificalistic stuff?
-
Posted by: Floo
I have never had a hangover, but I wouldn't have described it as nice!
You are dead right there!
It feels like terminal influenza, floo, a real penance/punishment!
You can have a hangover with things other than alcohol though, some medications produce them, they usually carry a warning in the small print. I'm pretty sure I haven't had the latter but have experienced the former in days gone by, sufficient to put me off for life.
-
It's the hybridization of science and religion that I find weird. It's a bit like Frankenstein! I still don't get it why Christians try to justify their ideas by means of half-baked stuff from biology and cosmology. If you have your faith, fine, why adulterate it with scientificalistic stuff?
they wrongly believe that by applying science wherever they think appropriate gives their wrong thinking some kind of credibility.
A bit like Clinton wheeling out 'pop royalty' in her presidency campaign.
-
But by deliberately excluding anything outside the scope of material science you may well be missing the key to unlock the truth.
There isn't 'material science', there is just 'science', and it refers to our accumulated understanding of how things work as derived through research methods. If you want to include knowledge outside that domain, then it is going to be less reliable - if it does not stand up to testing then it is probably wrong, if it is not testable, then it is speculative.
-
I have never had a hangover, but I wouldn't have described it as nice!
No by nice, I refer of course to the beauty of my own discourse...or something like that.
You spoil the ambience of the mood I establish by bringing accusations of alcohol abuse.
You might be right but I am suave and suaveness is all.
-
It's the hybridization of science and religion that I find weird. It's a bit like Frankenstein! I still don't get it why Christians try to justify their ideas by means of half-baked stuff from biology and cosmology. If you have your faith, fine, why adulterate it with scientificalistic stuff?
Yes, Wiggs, I agree wholeheartedly.
It tends to distort one(science) and, by association, seems to belittle the other(Christianity).
-
No by nice, I refer of course to the beauty of my own discourse...or something like that.
You spoil the ambience of the mood I establish by bringing accusations of alcohol abuse.
You might be right but I am suave and suaveness is all.
I was in an ambience recently, it had flashing blue lights and everything.
-
Oh very droll ;D.
(There is much science in the Bible, did you know that? Nicholas M told me. He is currently explaining it all to us over on St Thad's. Fascinating.)
-
AB,
But unlike the lottery, your faith in unguided evolution involves much more than just one unlikely event. For evolution to work, every discrete step involved in the development of major organs, bones, joints, brain cells etc. not only has to be generated by random events, it has to be tested by whether it alone can provide sufficient benefit to enable a species to survive extinction. Equivalent to me winning the lottery every week of my life, and my descendants for the rest of their lives too.
You fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works, and for that matter how the reference point error works too.
Imagine a single cell organism that copies its DNA as it self-replicates. Every now and then the copying will be imperfect, and mutations will occur. Often those mutations will be harmful or will have no effect, but sometimes they will be beneficial for subsequent generations. There's no-one there though with a set of blueprints hoping that one day the organism will evolve into albatrosses or sharks or people. Over time complexity builds and speciation occurs until we arrive at the flora and fauna we happen to observe today, but there's no reason to suppose that different organisms entirely wouldn't have emerged had the mutations and the environmental pressures been different.
This is where you keep going wrong. It's not that "every step" has to be just right for the end result to be little old you at all; rather it's that every step happened to produce you (and albatrosses and sharks) but could just as easily have produced different organisms entirely. Your problem is solipsism - you assume that all along you were the intended end product, then marvel at the unlikelihood of all the necessary intermediary steps happening by chance to get there.
This is the lottery winner's fallacy, or the reference point error. Until and unless you grasp that though, you'll continue to have it all ass-backwards.
-
Blue,
it really puzzles me why you and I know that but AB doesn't. The information is available to everyone, its not a secret.
-
Walter,
Blue,
it really puzzles me why you and I know that but AB doesn't. The information is available to everyone, its not a secret.
Faith. It can drive those who have it into the most fantastically convoluted thinking when they first commit the category error of thinking that science can validate it even conceptually, and second they distort and twist what science actually has to say so as to jemmy it into the faith-shaped hole they create.
So far as I know AB et al will accept what science has to say when, for example, it tells them that germs cause disease but they'll reject entirely what science has to say when they think it conflicts with their faith beliefs.
-
Blue - thanks for that. I was struggling to formulate this error, but you have done it perfectly. AB assumes that evolution has a goal, and the goal is humans. This in itself produces a circular argument, since goals are always intelligent, which is what AB is trying to show.
Once he assumes that humans are the goal, then he can describe various improbabilities.
It is a bit like the deck of cards. If I am dealt 13 spades in a bridge game, I can marvel at the improbability, but as we know, if you deal out four hands of cards, each hand is improbable, and each hand actually occurs, but not as a goal.
Similarly, my own birth is very improbable, if you compute all the generations which led up to me, but of course, I was not the goal, but the (accidental) end-point!
Just to add that AB conceals this idea of a goal, typical of his dishonest arguments.
-
My wife just pointed out that just as a dealt sequence of 52 playing cards is almost certainly going to be unique, since there are so many possible sequences, so humans are never identical (except twins), since the combinations are so many. Of course, none of them are intended, unless you are dealing off the bottom of the pack.
Cue Richard Feynman famous joke: "I was walking through the car park and I saw the number plate ARW 357! Can you believe how unlikely it is that I should see that particular one, out of all the millions that exist?"
Of course, it would be amazing if he had predicted it.
-
Hi Wiggs,
Blue - thanks for that. I was struggling to formulate this error, but you have done it perfectly. AB assumes that evolution has a goal, and the goal is humans. This in itself produces a circular argument, since goals are always intelligent, which is what AB is trying to show.
Once he assumes that humans are the goal, then he can describe various improbabilities.
It is a bit like the deck of cards. If I am dealt 13 spades in a bridge game, I can marvel at the improbability, but as we know, if you deal out four hands of cards, each hand is improbable, and each hand actually occurs, but not as a goal.
Similarly, my own birth is very improbable, if you compute all the generations which led up to me, but of course, I was not the goal, but the (accidental) end-point!
Just to add that AB conceals this idea of a goal, typical of his dishonest arguments.
Thank you. Yes, I was waiting for the circularity of, "but how do you know that there wasn't a god with a set of blueprints?" when he's using his (mis)understanding of evolution to try to demonstrate this god in the first place.
Yes too re the deck of cards analogy - any hand of 52 dealt randomly will produce a fantastically unlikely outcome ("52 factorial"), yet those outcomes happen all the time. The mistake is to think that any one sequence of 52 was an intended goal. My frustration with AB is that he seems not even to understand the argument, so keeps returning over and over again to, "yes, but how unlikely is it that it all led to me?" as if that's in some way relevant.
Ah well.
-
Wiggs,
My wife just pointed out that just as a dealt sequence of 52 playing cards is almost certainly going to be unique, since there are so many possible sequences, so humans are never identical (except twins), since the combinations are so many. Of course, none of them are intended, unless you are dealing off the bottom of the pack.
Snap!
(Do you see what I did there? ;) )
-
There used to be an old example of driving. If you are driving on the motorway, what are the odds that the group of cars around you have occurred together? Well, subtract the occasions when you are out with friends in a group, but normally the odds are very large. A miracle!
In other words, the highly improbable occurs all the time.
I think the old example with cards was that if millions of people had started shuffling decks of cards when the big bang happened, they still wouldn't have repeated a sequence today. Miracle!
-
do you know what would be a miracle ?
AB AND THE LIKE CAME BACK WITH
'I've been reading and thinking about your posts , and now I get it , I've had it all wrong all this time. How arrogant of me for thinking all those scientists who work in the field don't know what they are doing .Now I understand I shall stop these futile back to front arguments and join you in celebrating the natural world with my eyes fully open. thank you, thank you so much.'
-
My wife just pointed out that just as a dealt sequence of 52 playing cards is almost certainly going to be unique, since there are so many possible sequences, so humans are never identical (except twins), since the combinations are so many. Of course, none of them are intended, unless you are dealing off the bottom of the pack.
Actually, twins aren't identical. Even identical twins have different fingerprints.
Also, random mutations are extremely uncommon but there are so many base pairs in human DNA that if you sample the DNA of two identical twins, there is a good chance it will not be identical (because you are sampling cells that are a number of generations away from the original fertilised egg).
As for the playing card example, the probability of dealing thirteen spades to one player in a bridge game is low but it's four times higher than the probability that the top thirteen cards in the deck being spades. If I shuffle a deck and then examine it to see if I have 13 spades at the top and repeat until I do have 13 spades at the top, it's going to take a long time. The chance of getting it right is about 1/635,000,000,000.
Let's try a different process. I shuffle the cards and then I take another 100 decks and I arrange each one into the same order as my shuffled deck. I give the decks to Wigginhall and I say, one of these could have all the spades at the top.
Wigginhall examines all the decks and says "no, and, in fact, the decks aren't all the same so you must have made some mistakes in your arranging. However, I've measured the distance of each spade from the top of the deck for each pack and pack 53 is the best."
So I take pack 53 and I rearrange all the other packs and the original pack into the same order as pack 53.
Rinse and repeat. Gradually, the spades will migrate to the top of the best pack even though all the card position changes are completely random.
-
#620 - #629 inc.
Thank you all for a sensible, satisfactory start to the week!* It is so much more fulfilling not to be inhibited by and trapped in a belief in any God/god/s because one has an understanding of hwhat reality is. I'm not going to add 'in my opinion', because I know what it is like to believe that a God is out there somewhere.
&*(I couldn't read them yesterday because IE kept saying, 'This page can't be displayed.)
-
we have now reached #630
and still no evidence, I expected it to be easy for you. c'mom you can do better than that, surely?
-
AB,
You fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works, and for that matter how the reference point error works too.
Imagine a single cell organism that copies its DNA as it self-replicates. Every now and then the copying will be imperfect, and mutations will occur. Often those mutations will be harmful or will have no effect, but sometimes they will be beneficial for subsequent generations. There's no-one there though with a set of blueprints hoping that one day the organism will evolve into albatrosses or sharks or people. Over time complexity builds and speciation occurs until we arrive at the flora and fauna we happen to observe today, but there's no reason to suppose that different organisms entirely wouldn't have emerged had the mutations and the environmental pressures been different.
This is where you keep going wrong. It's not that "every step" has to be just right for the end result to be little old you at all; rather it's that every step happened to produce you (and albatrosses and sharks) but could just as easily have produced different organisms entirely. Your problem is solipsism - you assume that all along you were the intended end product, then marvel at the unlikelihood of all the necessary intermediary steps happening by chance to get there.
This is the lottery winner's fallacy, or the reference point error. Until and unless you grasp that though, you'll continue to have it all ass-backwards.
Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.
Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs) in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint. The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on. Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation? It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards. This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.
Natural selection can explain why frogs with green skin survive better in the jungle than frogs with white skin, but it does not explain how the skin came into being, or the frog itself for that matter.
-
Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.
Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs) in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint. The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on. Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation? It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards. This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.
Natural selection can explain why frogs with green skin survive better in the jungle than frogs with white skin, but it does not explain how the skin came into being, or the frog itself for that matter.
Is your god still 'guiding' mutations in humans do you think or did he stop at some point in the past?
And when did he drop 'souls' into the mix?
-
Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.
Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs) in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint. The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on. Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation? It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards. This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.
Natural selection can explain why frogs with green skin survive better in the jungle than frogs with white skin, but it does not explain how the skin came into being, or the frog itself for that matter.
Alan, if a modification in DNA gives a benefit in terms of the survival of an individual organism in a particular environment do you think this increases, decreases or has no effect on the likely hood of that modification being passed on?
-
Walter,
we have now reached #630
and still no evidence, I expected it to be easy for you. c'mom you can do better than that, surely?
I think the problem here isn't one of evidence (which, as NS reminds us, is a naturalistic concept in any case) but rather it's a problem of consistency. Several of the religious here will say something like, "there's plenty of evidence only you won't accept it". That only works though if you stretch the term "evidence" so thinly that you cannot deny the claims of anyone else about anything else when they use the same definitions of it. "I really think I experienced God" for example applies just as well for, "I really think I experienced (add name of supernatural something here)", yet those who think they do experience a "true for you too" God deny that others have experienced their different "true for you too" entities when they use the same approach.
That for me is the paradox of those who think they have evidence for God. Having set the evidence bar so low, how then would they deny qualitatively the same types of evidence for those who believe in different gods, or for that matter in leprechauns?
And that leaves them with two options: accept as equally true any other claim that uses the same definition of "evidence"; or apply a double standard of, "OK, it's evidence for my god but not for anything else". Neither seems sustainable to me.
-
AB,
First, why have you just ignored the rebuttal of your basic mistake of thinking that evolution is directed toward pre-determined goals, and thus that arriving there by chance over-stretches your personal credulity?
Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.
Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs) in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint. The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on. Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation? It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards.
Second, you need to understand the concepts of inheritance, and of dominant and recessive genes. Advantageous mutations will tend to be inherited and thus become embedded in the phenotype, and when interbreeding occurs between those with and without the mutation dominance and recession will occur such that the dominant characteristic (brown eyes for example) will tend to eliminate the recessive one (blue eyes for example).
This has been known and observed since Mendel’s experiments with pea plants in the 1860s, and you have no excuse for not understanding it now.
This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.
And the arguments you’ve just ignored tell you why you’re wrong about that.
Natural selection can explain why frogs with green skin survive better in the jungle than frogs with white skin, but it does not explain how the skin came into being,…
Yes it does: mutation.
…or the frog itself for that matter.
Yes it does: by placing frogs in their correct position in the history of life.
-
Blue
it strikes me from what I've read on here and people I've met, that there is something more fundamental going on.
I used to have similar conversations with a born again Christian who id known for 45 years. His level of understanding how ANYTHING worked was frightening. We were at grammar school together and when the time came to choose ARTS or SCIENCE
he went with arts , you can guess what I chose.
Two different ways of thinking were evident and I think that's what's going on here . Some people will never have the capacity for critical thinking no matter how much evidence there is against what they believe to be true because they simply cant see where they are going wrong.
-
Two different ways of thinking were evident and I think that's what's going on here . Some people will never have the capacity for critical thinking no matter how much evidence there is against what they believe to be true because they simply cant see where they are going wrong.
For individuals, yes, but I think there is hope! The achievements of scientists in medicine and technology are being used and accepted as something we can more or less take for granted everywhere, so that some day there will be an awareness by a majority that Science is more reliable than god beliefs.
-
For individuals, yes, but I think there is hope! The achievements of scientists in medicine and technology are being used and accepted as something we can more or less take for granted everywhere, so that some day there will be an awareness by a majority that Science is more reliable than god beliefs.
You could liken it to colour blindness . them that can't see red can't see red no matter how many times I tell em.
-
AB,
First, why have you just ignored the rebuttal of your basic mistake of thinking that evolution is directed toward pre-determined goals, and thus that arriving there by chance over-stretches your personal credulity?
Because I see every component of the human body, animal body, plants, flowers, trees etc as pre determined goals needed to achieve the wonderful abundance of life as we know it.
Second, you need to understand the concepts of inheritance, and of dominant and recessive genes. Advantageous mutations will tend to be inherited and thus become embedded in the phenotype, and when interbreeding occurs between those with and without the mutation dominance and recession will occur such that the dominant characteristic (brown eyes for example) will tend to eliminate the recessive one (blue eyes for example).
This has been known and observed since Mendel’s experiments with pea plants in the 1860s, and you have no excuse for not understanding it now.
But these facts do not alter the requirement for each incremental mutation needed for all the components of our bodies to be passed on by natural selection, requiring the extinction of creatures without the incremental mutation. Your phrase "Advantageous mutations will tend to be inherited" can only be true if each advantageous mutation can give sufficient benefit to avoid extinction.
-
Because I see every component of the human body, animal body, plants, flowers, trees etc as pre determined goals needed to achieve the wonderful abundance of life as we know it.But these facts do not alter the requirement for each incremental mutation needed for all the components of our bodies to be passed on by natural selection, requiring the extinction of creatures without the incremental mutation. Your phrase "Advantageous mutations will tend to be inherited" can only be true if each advantageous mutation can give sufficient benefit to avoid extinction.
How do you think that God ' guided' evolution then?
-
Is your god still 'guiding' mutations in humans do you think or did he stop at some point in the past?
I do not presume to know what God has in store for future generations.
And when did he drop 'souls' into the mix?
When people started to have the ability to believe in Him.
-
Alan, if a modification in DNA gives a benefit in terms of the survival of an individual organism in a particular environment do you think this increases, decreases or has no effect on the likely hood of that modification being passed on?
The key word is "survival". For beneficial mutations to be passed on, each one needs to increase the chance of survival against those creatures without the mutation.
-
How do you think that God ' guided' evolution then?
By the same power that humans have to use their gift of free will to guide natural forces, thus interacting with the otherwise deterministic nature of our universe.
-
By the same power that humans have to use their gift of free will to guide natural forces, thus interacting with the otherwise deterministic nature of our universe.
so that would be another outing for the Bulgarian striker, Fuctivanov
-
so that would be another outing for the Bulgarian stricker, Fuctivanov
and his team mate Fuctifyno
-
AB,
Because I see every component of the human body, animal body, plants, flowers, trees etc as pre determined goals needed to achieve the wonderful abundance of life as we know it.
No doubt you do “see” that, but it completely destroys your argument. On the one hand you attempt you use your incredulity about the unlikelihood of evolution achieving the diversity of observable life in order to imply “God”, while at the same time on the other hand you posit a god to have intended there to be a “wonderful abundance of life” in the first place.
That’s called circular reasoning – each premise depends on the other for its validity – and it’s a basic logical fallacy.
But these facts do not alter the requirement for each incremental mutation needed for all the components of our bodies to be passed on by natural selection, requiring the extinction of creatures without the incremental mutation.
It doesn’t require their extinction at all. Sometimes species become extinct for a variety of reasons, one of which can be that a daughter species is better adapted to compete for limited resources. There are though countless examples of species that have evolved from predecessor species without the parent species becoming extinct at all.
Your phrase "Advantageous mutations will tend to be inherited" can only be true if each advantageous mutation can give sufficient benefit to avoid extinction.
No, there are lots of reasons for avoiding extinction just as there have been lots of advantageous adaptations in species that have nonetheless become extinct.
Your ignorance of basic logic and of the subject you presume to critique is doing you no favours here.
-
You could liken it to colour blindness . them that can't see red can't see red no matter how many times I tell em.
Alan could say the same thing though .... You could liken it to colour blindness . them that can't see God can't see God no matter how many times I tell em.
-
Alan could say the same thing though .... You could liken it to colour blindness . them that can't see God can't see God no matter how many times I tell em.
Of course they can't see him - immortal invisible - isn't that what the hymn says?
-
Of course they can't see him - immortal invisible - isn't that what the hymn says?
I think Walter was using 'vision' as an analogy for 'understanding' or 'knowing'. The spiritual vision for many is through the heart rather than the eyes, probably why most close their eyes when they pray.
-
Alan could say the same thing though .... You could liken it to colour blindness . them that can't see God can't see God no matter how many times I tell em.
a major problem here,
red exists , god does not.
-
a major problem here,
red exists , god does not.
Show both of those positive claims are true.
-
AB,
No doubt you do “see” that, but it completely destroys your argument. On the one hand you attempt you use your incredulity about the unlikelihood of evolution achieving the diversity of observable life in order to imply “God”, while at the same time on the other hand you posit a god to have intended there to be a “wonderful abundance of life” in the first place.
That’s called circular reasoning – each premise depends on the other for its validity – and it’s a basic logical fallacy.
You only see it as a fallacy because you try to remove God from the equation
It doesn’t require their extinction at all. Sometimes species become extinct for a variety of reasons, one of which can be that a daughter species is better adapted to compete for limited resources. There are though countless examples of species that have evolved from predecessor species without the parent species becoming extinct at all.
No, there are lots of reasons for avoiding extinction just as there have been lots of advantageous adaptations in species that have nonetheless become extinct.
Your ignorance of basic logic and of the subject you presume to critique is doing you no favours here.
The logic is quite clear.
For evolution by natural selection to work, every incremental mutation involved in the development of each element of our body has to be passed on through natural selection of beneficial mutations, implying that every incremental mutation has to give sufficient benefit on its own to be passed on by avoiding extinction. So members of the same species without one of the incremental mutations in question would need to become extinct in order for this incremental mutation to be incorporated in the future generations. That is how natural selection works. Or I should say, that is how natural selection is meant to work.
-
You only see it as a fallacy because you try to remove God from the equation.
God isn't 'in' to start with: the TofE doesn't involve divine agency which is, of course, why some theists don't like it.
-
When people started to have the ability to believe in Him.
When was that?
-
I do not presume to know what God has in store for future generations.
So it is possible that he is still doing it or if not now, then may do so at some time(s) in the future?
-
By the same power that humans have to use their gift of free will to guide natural forces, thus interacting with the otherwise deterministic nature of our universe.
'free will' as you put it, is the non physical element behind actions isn't it?
I'm asking, what do you think that God did physically to 'guide' evolution?
-
The key word is "survival". For beneficial mutations to be passed on, each one needs to increase the chance of survival against those creatures without the mutation.
Yes - and?
-
AB,
You only see it as a fallacy because you try to remove God from the equation
Did you mean to say that?
A fallacy is a fallacy is a fallacy. “A lion is a cat, therefore all cats are lions” is a fallacy whether or not you throw “God” into the mix, and so is circular reasoning.
The logic is quite clear.
Given your form here somehow I doubt it will be, but let’s see…
For evolution by natural selection to work, every incremental mutation involved in the development of each element of our body has to be passed on through natural selection of beneficial mutations,…
Or neutral ones or ones that reduce functionality but not sufficiently to cause extinction provided the mutations are genetically dominant rather than recessive.
…the implying that every incremental mutation has to give sufficient benefit on its own to be passed on by avoiding extinction.
No it doesn’t. You might for example think that weaker eyesight is harmful, but if the species lives in a lightless cave it would make no difference to its survival and continued presence down the subsequent generations if it happened to be dominant.
Mutations are only “beneficial” or “harmful” in relation to the environment the organism occupies.
So members of the same species without one of the incremental mutations in question would need to become extinct in order for this incremental mutation to be incorporated in the future generations. That is how natural selection works. Or I should say, that is how natural selection is meant to work.
No it wouldn’t and no it isn’t. And it wouldn’t and it isn’t because, eventually, speciation occurs – generally when the daughter organism can no longer breed with the parent organism.
Why is this difficult for you (and where is Richard Forrest when you need him)?
-
Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.
Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs) in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint. The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on. Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation? It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards. This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.
Natural selection can explain why frogs with green skin survive better in the jungle than frogs with white skin, but it does not explain how the skin came into being, or the frog itself for that matter.
This show you simply misunderstand the process of evolution by natural selection. Blue has probably already pulled you up on this, but it is absolutely incorrect to think that beneficial mutations require the extinction of other individuals of the same species to be passed on. Extinction happens to species, death happens to individuals, and change through natural selection works across populations over time. You have a beneficial mutation that allows you to tolerate lactose in adulthood, but it does not require the death of everybody else for that to be conserved. The human genome also carries some number of deleterious mutations that cause ill health such as cystic fibrosis, but it doesn't necessarily lead to the extinction of the species.
And even if it were true that natural selection only provides a fine tuning, do you suppose there is some glass ceiling limiting the amount of change that selection pressures can induce in a population ? What you call 'fine tuning' is really just change across populations in response to environmental change and the longer the change goes on, the longer species will keep on evolving, it is a process and it is not going to suddenly and arbitrarily stop.
-
It's pointless. When you get someone ignorant about biology, mathematics and statistics, such as AB, they can make stuff up all day long, along the lines of Intelligent Design, and any criticisms will just bounce off them. I suppose the crucial thing is to stop them having influence in education, although that is a more burning concern in the US, especially with the new right-wing government.
-
Show both of those positive claims are true.
I will not, and you know why.
-
I will not, and you know why.
yep, you can't
-
yep, you can't
show that that statement is true
-
It's pointless. When you get someone ignorant about biology, mathematics and statistics, such as AB, they can make stuff up all day long, along the lines of Intelligent Design, and any criticisms will just bounce off them. I suppose the crucial thing is to stop them having influence in education, although that is a more burning concern in the US, especially with the new right-wing government.
I think when it comes to AB, and like-minded souls, their a priorii position is 'God' and their a posteriori is also 'God' and this requires them to redefine on their terms, or just ignore, anything that seems to interfere with their preferred start-point and conclusion even when they plainly misunderstand what they are pontificating on.
That otherwise intelligent people will go to such lengths to ring-fence the theistic aspects of their thinking by trying, and failing, to redefine or dispense with knowledge (such as involving biology) to suit their personal preferences is utterly perplexing.
-
Walter,
show that that statement is true
It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable. The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist. Some (like Hope) will seize on that as a positive by attempting the negative proof fallacy, but it's no such thing as it applies just as much to any other unfalsifiable conjecture.
-
God isn't 'in' to start with: the TofE doesn't involve divine agency which is, of course, why some theists don't like it.
I like methodological naturalism. I like Brobat shit house cleaner. I hate it when antitheists abuse either particularly when they mistake methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism.
-
Walter,
It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable. The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist. Some (like Hope) will seize on that as a positive by attempting the negative proof fallacy, but it's no such thing as it applies just as much to any other unfalsifiable conjecture.
He could try then I would remind him of the OP.
T
-
Just to clarify with you how evolution driven by natural selection is supposed to work.
Every component (bones, joints, muscles, organs) in our bodies and the bodies of other creatures has been built up by many discrete mutations in the DNA blueprint. The problem with natural selection is that every incremental discrete mutation involved in the process not only has to give benefit in its own right, it has to give sufficient benefit such that every other creature in the species without that mutation will become extinct, otherwise the beneficial mutation does not get passed on. Can you not see the enormity of this requirement for each incremental mutation? It goes far beyond any comparisons with decks of cards. This is why I describe the process as crude, because it is just a fine tuning process, not a creative process.
No. This is fundamentally wrong. First of all, mutations don't need to be beneficial to be passed on. As long as they aren't bad enough to prevent reproduction they can survive in the gene pool.
Secondly, a beneficial mutation doesn't have to force organisms without the mutation to go extinct. All it needs to do is confer some advantage so that organisms that have it are more likely to reproduce viable offspring than those without. The other organisms don't have to go extinct.
-
I like methodological naturalism. I like Brobat shit house cleaner. I hate it when antitheists abuse either particularly when they mistake methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism.
Seems to me, Vlad, that since evolutionary biologists don't factor 'God' into their work, pointing out that the TofE doesn't include divine intervention as a factor is a reasonable observation - but then you do tend to overreact at times.
I've also noticed, by the way, that all the cook-books I've read make no mention of divine intervention in recipes either, so presumably that too is philosophical naturalism (of the culinary variety), which no doubt also offends your sensibilities.
-
I like methodological naturalism. I like Brobat shit house cleaner. I hate it when antitheists abuse either particularly when they mistake methodological naturalism for philosophical naturalism.
the words 'methodological' and 'philosophical' are not required in this sentence.
-
Walter,
It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable.
Which is a logical contradiction bluehillside, therefore your statement is incorrect.
The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist.
Incorrect
Some (like Hope) will seize on that as a positive by attempting the negative proof fallacy, but it's no such thing as it applies just as much to any other unfalsifiable conjecture.
No, they won't because as usual
1. You make it an either-or when no-one here is doing this.
2. There is at least one other option (I say, at least because there may be other options I've overlooked)
-
the words 'methodological' and 'philosophical' are not required in this sentence.
There is a difference Vassler and you are glossing over it.
-
Seems to me, Vlad, that since evolutionary biologists don't factor 'God' into their work, pointing out that the TofE doesn't include divine intervention as a factor is a reasonable observation - but then you do tend to overreact at times.
I've also noticed, by the way, that all the cook-books I've read make no mention of divine intervention in recipes either, so presumably that too is philosophical naturalism (of the culinary variety), which no doubt also offends your sensibilities.
No it's methodological naturalism Gordon and as I have said I like that.
-
Sword,
Which is a logical contradiction bluehillside, therefore your statement is incorrect.
No doubt you'll be along soon to explain what that logical contradiction might be rather than just assert it then?
Incorrect
No doubt you'll be along soon to explain what that incorrectness might be rather than just assert it then?
No, they won't because as usual
1. You make it an either-or when no-one here is doing this.
2. There is at least one other option (I say, at least because there may be other options I've overlooked)
1. Yes they do do this, and even if no-one did it the force of the argument would remain.
2. No doubt you'll be along soon to share this "other option" then won't you?
-
AB,
You fundamentally misunderstand how evolution works, and for that matter how the reference point error works too.
Imagine a single cell organism that copies its DNA as it self-replicates.
Ok
Every now and then the copying will be imperfect, and mutations will occur.
Agreed
Often those mutations will be harmful or will have no effect, but sometimes they will be beneficial for subsequent generations.
Agreed
There's no-one there though with a set of blueprints hoping that one day the organism will evolve into albatrosses or sharks or people. Over time complexity builds and speciation occurs until we arrive at the flora and fauna we happen to observe today
This is what I take issue with. Mutation + natural selection is used to explain away a gain in genetic information.
What's the difference between complexity arising from something simple and a gain? Complexity can arise from what exists; what is already present. A gain cannot.
Example: You give me a black and white photo. An increase in complexity can lead to an enhancement of that photo (sharper image, etc). What cannot happen is a gain of information to turn it into a colour photo, or a hologram. The information for that has to come from outside of the photo.
Another example: I take my CD of Windows Vista. If I copied it perfectly, I would have a replica. If I copy it imperfectly, then copy the copy, then copy the copy, did this a few hundred times, how many here think that when I looked to see what I had, I found a nearly working version of Windows 7? Is it possible statistically? Yes, because the information on the files on the CD is numerical. Is it likely? Not really!
People are expected to believe that if you copy something perfectly, you end up with an identical version but if you copy something imperfectly, you end up with something greater than what you started with? Really? Observation shows that the options are an identical version, a variation, or something inferior. That is always going to be the problem with single-ancestry evolutionary theories; another something from nothing problem neatly covered up!!
-
No doubt you'll be along soon to explain what that logical contradiction might be rather than just assert it then?
ok
It's axiomatically true inasmuch as "God does not exist" is unknowable.
You are claiming as truth that we can't know what that truth is. The best you can say is that you don't know, or even you find it difficult to establish the truth (or otherwise) of the matter.
The most you can say is that there are no cogent reasons to think that God does exist.
That may be true for you. It's clearly not true for all, otherwise there would be no religious believers anywhere on the planet!
You may disagree with their reasons. That doesn't make them not cogent.
1. Yes they do do this, and even if no-one did it the force of the argument would remain.
Then you are contradicting yourself, because the whole point of the Celestial Teapot analogy is for those who would use absence of a disproof to claim proof by default. If no-one is doing that, then you are misusing the analogy to claim non-belief as a default so that there is never any burden of proof on your side.
2. No doubt you'll be along soon to share this "other option" then won't you?
Some here are honest enough to say, I don't know. Some can see merits in the arguments on both sides but retain an open mind.
-
Sword,
This is what I take issue with. Mutation + natural selection is used to explain away a gain in genetic information.
What's the difference between complexity arising from something simple and a gain? Complexity can arise from what exists; what is already present. A gain cannot.
Example: You give me a black and white photo. An increase in complexity can lead to an enhancement of that photo (sharper image, etc). What cannot happen is a gain of information to turn it into a colour photo, or a hologram. The information for that has to come from outside of the photo.
Another example: I take my CD of Windows Vista. If I copied it perfectly, I would have a replica. If I copy it imperfectly, then copy the copy, then copy the copy, did this a few hundred times, how many here think that when I looked to see what I had, I found a nearly working version of Windows 7? Is it possible statistically? Yes, because the information on the files on the CD is numerical. Is it likely? Not really!
People are expected to believe that if you copy something perfectly, you end up with an identical version but if you copy something imperfectly, you end up with something greater than what you started with? Really? Observation shows that the options are an identical version, a variation, or something inferior. That is always going to be the problem with single-ancestry evolutionary theories; another something from nothing problem neatly covered up!!
Oh dear. Suggest you start here for a basic primer:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information
-
Sword,
You are claiming as truth that we can't know what that truth is. The best you can say is that you don't know, or even you find it difficult to establish the truth (or otherwise) of the matter.
Oh dear redux. No, I'm claiming as a probabilistic truth that there's no way to eliminate unknown unknowns, so "God does not exist" is, in strict epistemic terms, unsupportable.
That may be true for you. It's clearly not true for all, otherwise there would be no religious believers anywhere on the planet!
First, there are lots of religious believers who don't rely on arguments - cogent or otherwise - for their faith beliefs.
Second, fallacious arguments aren't just "fallacious for me". A fallacy is a fallacy as I explained to AB earlier - if arguments are not cogent because they rely on fallacious thinking then they're not cogent because they rely on fallacious thinking regardless of who happens to be considering them.
You may disagree with their reasons. That doesn't make them not cogent.
Yes it does when the arguments are demonstrably false. "Lions are cats, therefore all cats are lions" is demonstrably false regardless of the "reasons" of the person who attempts that argument.
Then you are contradicting yourself, because the whole point of the Celestial Teapot analogy is for those who would use absence of a disproof to claim proof by default. If no-one is doing that, then you are misusing the analogy to claim non-belief as a default so that there is never any burden of proof on your side.
Oh dear yet again. First (again) people do do that, Hope being a good example. Presumably they did it too when Russell wrote his essay "Why I am not a Christian" for the same reason.
Second, a point in logic is a point in logic is a point in logic - whether it's addressing an argument anyone actually makes is entirely unnecessary for that to be so. Even if no-one ever said, "Lions are cats, therefore all cats are lions" the formation of the argument would still be false.
Some here are honest enough to say, I don't know. Some can see merits in the arguments on both sides but retain an open mind.
So? How does that help you?
The point I was making was in any case pretty much the same. We cannot know that there is no God, but we can know that - so far at least - no-one has managed to construct an argument for a "true for you too" God that's logically sound.
-
You are claiming as truth that we can't know what that truth is. The best you can say is that you don't know, or even you find it difficult to establish the truth (or otherwise) of the matter.
When it comes to unfalsifiable conjectures the notion of 'truth' is irrelevant - for everyone.
That may be true for you. It's clearly not true for all, otherwise there would be no religious believers anywhere on the planet!
You may disagree with their reasons. That doesn't make them not cogent.
Where their reasons are fallacious, or incoherent, then they aren't cogent no matter how much religious believers are convinced. Of course not all believers pin their faith on fallacies, as you seem to do.
Then you are contradicting yourself, because the whole point of the Celestial Teapot analogy is for those who would use absence of a disproof to claim proof by default. If no-one is doing that, then you are misusing the analogy to claim non-belief as a default so that there is never any burden of proof on your side.
It seems you still don't understand this fallacy, or fallacies in general.
Some here are honest enough to say, I don't know. Some can see merits in the arguments on both sides but retain an open mind.
There are no merits in fallacious reasoning: such arguments are devoid of merit and can simply be dismissed.
-
Sword,
Oh dear. Suggest you start here for a basic primer:
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Evolution_of_new_information
Or this article, perhaps?
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn13673-evolution-myths-mutations-can-only-destroy-information
-
This is what I take issue with. Mutation + natural selection is used to explain away a gain in genetic information.
You use the word 'gain' as if it must be something that is added to a living organism, but the word 'change' is more applicable I think, since a mutation could be the loss of something which in fact enables the species to survive.
-
No doubt you'll be along soon to share this "other option" then won't you?
Some here are honest enough to say, I don't know. Some can see merits in the arguments on both sides but retain an open mind.
You didn't mention what your 'other options' are, so how can people be expected to keep an open mind on them ?
-
This show you simply misunderstand the process of evolution by natural selection. Blue has probably already pulled you up on this, but it is absolutely incorrect to think that beneficial mutations require the extinction of other individuals of the same species to be passed on. Extinction happens to species, death happens to individuals, and change through natural selection works across populations over time. You have a beneficial mutation that allows you to tolerate lactose in adulthood, but it does not require the death of everybody else for that to be conserved. The human genome also carries some number of deleterious mutations that cause ill health such as cystic fibrosis, but it doesn't necessarily lead to the extinction of the species.
The point I am making involves the method by which incremental mutations get passed on to the species. For example, the ability to grip with your hand provides an obvious survival advantage. But each incremental mutation needed to develop a gripping hand has less obvious survival advantage. So I find it difficult to imagine how each of these incremental mutations get passed on through natural selection. (And this does not address the viability of how probable these incremental mutations can be generated by random events, but that is another subject)
And even if it were true that natural selection only provides a fine tuning, do you suppose there is some glass ceiling limiting the amount of change that selection pressures can induce in a population ? What you call 'fine tuning' is really just change across populations in response to environmental change and the longer the change goes on, the longer species will keep on evolving, it is a process and it is not going to suddenly and arbitrarily stop.
My point is that the fine tuning occurs on something which has already been developed to a high degree of complex functionality. You can't use the fine tuning technique to develop the complexity in the first place because it can only adjust existing complexity, it can't create it.
-
AB,
The point I am making involves the method by which incremental mutations get passed on to the species. For example, the ability to grip with your hand provides an obvious survival advantage. But each incremental mutation needed to develop a gripping hand has less obvious survival advantage. So I find it difficult to imagine how each of these incremental mutations get passed on through natural selection. (And this does not address the viability of how probable these incremental mutations can be generated by random events, but that is another subject)
My point is that the fine tuning occurs on something which has already been developed to a high degree of complex functionality. You can't use the fine tuning technique to develop the complexity in the first place because it can only adjust existing complexity, it can't create it.
Big nope. Consider the eye (which has evolved independently various times by the way). Each "incremental step" conferred enough benefit to the host organism to give it an evolutionary advantage. A slight dip in the skin surface for example would create a shadow at predicatble times of the day/night cycle, which in turn is key to circadian rhythms, which in turn would allow the organisms to release eggs and sperm on a co-ordinated basis, which in turn would lead to disproportionately more organisms with dips, which in turn would create a population with dips as the pool from which the next beneficial mutation would occur and so on until complex eyes emerged.
Here's a link that may help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
That you think some advantages to be "less obvious" and that you "find it difficult to imagine" something is neither here nor there. The overwhelming evidence from the disciplines that actually study these matters falsify your personal incredulity, so your position here is equivalent to flat-earthism.
incidentally, have you now abandoned your earlier mistake about extinction being necessary for a genetic mutation to become embedded in a population?
-
The point I am making involves the method by which incremental mutations get passed on to the species. For example, the ability to grip with your hand provides an obvious survival advantage. But each incremental mutation needed to develop a gripping hand has less obvious survival advantage. So I find it difficult to imagine how each of these incremental mutations get passed on through natural selection. (And this does not address the viability of how probable these incremental mutations can be generated by random events, but that is another subject)My point is that the fine tuning occurs on something which has already been developed to a high degree of complex functionality. You can't use the fine tuning technique to develop the complexity in the first place because it can only adjust existing complexity, it can't create it.
You're just regurgitating reheated old arguments from intelligent design that were debunked by real biologists years ago. Your incredulity is not an argument. If you struggle with the science that is just something for you to work on. I struggle with many areas of science, particularly relativity and quantum theory but I accept that is my own shortcoming and need to work harder to get my head round it. I don't work in those fields, I don't have a particle accelerator, so I am not justified in taking issue with people working in those fields. What is your justification for thinking you know better than people working in evolutionary biology ? That field anyway is one of the few areas of science that laymen should be able to understand, the base concepts of selection operating on descent with modification are not hugely counterintuitive as are many finds in relativity and quantum theory.
-
AB
your tag line is 'the truth will set you free'
you must be living a nightmare of eternal imprisonment languishing in darkness flailing your arms in desperation hoping someone will come and open the door.
The key to that door has been offered to you on this board, you could open that door yourself , just pick up the key and open that door to freedom.
-
see Torris excellent post above
-
Dear Waltz,
What door! Where is the door! Show me the door! Where is this key!
I have been a member of this forum and the old Beeb for more years than I care to mention and no one has shown/mentioned any key or door, maybe it is because there are so many atheists standing in front of the door blocking my view.
Nevermind, I will keep searching, reading/listening to great minds who no matter how much they keep waffling on about a world without God still can't help bringing God into the equation.
https://www.closertotruth.com/
Gonnagle.
-
The point I am making involves the method by which incremental mutations get passed on to the species. For example, the ability to grip with your hand provides an obvious survival advantage. But each incremental mutation needed to develop a gripping hand has less obvious survival advantage. So I find it difficult to imagine how each of these incremental mutations get passed on through natural selection. (And this does not address the viability of how probable these incremental mutations can be generated by random events, but that is another subject)My point is that the fine tuning occurs on something which has already been developed to a high degree of complex functionality. You can't use the fine tuning technique to develop the complexity in the first place because it can only adjust existing complexity, it can't create it.
Personal incredulity again.
-
Gonners,
Where is this key!
It's under the mat!
-
Gonners,
It's under the mat!
Where's the mat?
-
Where's the mat?
It's over the key, silly
-
Where's the mat?
You are sitting on it?
-
It's over the key, silly
Is this a circular mat? ;)
-
enki,
Where's the mat?
It's under the cat (which may be alive or dead, or both.)
-
Is this a circular mat? ;)
Standard issue for a theological household
-
enki,
Is this a circular mat? ;)
For Alan Burns a circular mat would be less obvious and more difficult to imagine so it can't exist.
-
Dear Blue,
Under the mat!! Typical atheist thinking!! My door is unlocked ;)
7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Under the mat!! Typical atheist thinking!! My door is unlocked ;)
Front and back doors presumably:
"Keep your minds open—but not so open that your brains fall out.”
(Prof. Walter Kotschnig)
-
Dear Blue,
Front and back doors presumably:
Revolving!! Old friend ;)
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
Revolving!! Old friend ;)
Ah, that explains why you're such an accomplished smoothie - you practice by walking into the revolving door behind someone and coming out ahead...
-
Dear Blue,
Under the mat!! Typical atheist thinking!! My door is unlocked ;)
Gonnagle.
I must be in the wrong house then. I've found the cat! I've found the key! Oh, shit, the key doesn't fit the doorlock! Well, I can't say that I'm curious anymore to see what's beyond the door. Oh shit, the cat's just popped its clogs. ;)
-
Well, AB's phrase, 'I find it hard to imagine' is hilarious really. I do find it hard to imagine how gravity could be a curvature in spacetime, or how quasars are so distant yet so bright, or how photons can't experience time. Furthermore I intend to write to the Royal Society informing them of my inability to imagine these things, and just what do they propose to do about it. I expect at least that an A-level in not imagining will be set up, where we look at lots of things that are hard to imagine. I've just about had enough of not being able to imagine!
-
Dear Blue,
Under the mat!! Typical atheist thinking!! My door is unlocked ;)
Gonnagle.
Opened for you, not open to you.
The door might still have to be unlocked before it is opened for you!
-
You're on your toes Mr Toe! :)
-
Dear Waltz,
What door! Where is the door! Show me the door! Where is this key!
I have been a member of this forum and the old Beeb for more years than I care to mention and no one has shown/mentioned any key or door, maybe it is because there are so many atheists standing in front of the door blocking my view.
Nevermind, I will keep searching, reading/listening to great minds who no matter how much they keep waffling on about a world without God still can't help bringing God into the equation.
https://www.closertotruth.com/
Gonnagle.
I am now going to introduce another concept which will no doubt confuse you too. A small BUBBLE, and you live in it , outside of that bubble exists a whole universe which you have no concept of. You are stuck my friend, STUCK
-
There are times when reading AB's posts that I feel the only thing to do is to sit and weep quietly in a corner!! :D However, the last collection of light-hearted posts and wigginhall's good one just above here have put that off for another day! So thank you all!
-
There are times when reading AB's posts that I feel the only thing to do is to sit and weep quietly in a corner!! :D However, the last collection of light-hearted posts and wigginhall's good one just above here have put that off for another day! So thank you all!
SD please do not despair, take my hands and together we can share a moment in quiet contemplation and CRITICAL THINKING .
-
AB
your tag line is 'the truth will set you free'
you must be living a nightmare of eternal imprisonment languishing in darkness flailing your arms in desperation hoping someone will come and open the door.
The key to that door has been offered to you on this board, you could open that door yourself , just pick up the key and open that door to freedom.
I have known God all my life.
How can I possibly doubt the existence of someone I know?
And why should I ever contemplate giving up the most precious gift anyone could ever possess?
-
AB,
Big nope. Consider the eye (which has evolved independently various times by the way). Each "incremental step" conferred enough benefit to the host organism to give it an evolutionary advantage. A slight dip in the skin surface for example would create a shadow at predicatble times of the day/night cycle, which in turn is key to circadian rhythms, which in turn would allow the organisms to release eggs and sperm on a co-ordinated basis, which in turn would lead to disproportionately more organisms with dips, which in turn would create a population with dips as the pool from which the next beneficial mutation would occur and so on until complex eyes emerged.
Here's a link that may help you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
I am well aware of attempts by very clever people to postulate a method by which the eye could evolve by discrete steps. But can you not see that this is showing just how intelligently guided evolution could work? The big assumption in such illustrations is that the specific mutations required for each step in the process will occur naturally by unguided random forces over time. The harsh reality is that such a specific sequence of mutations could never be produced by random events. The DNA molecule can be likened to a huge computer program with billions of instructions needed to construct and maintain a human being. From personal experience, I know that random copying errors in a computer program produce errors, not enhanced results. And you need someone intelligent to write the program in the first place.
incidentally, have you now abandoned your earlier mistake about extinction being necessary for a genetic mutation to become embedded in a population?
No.
For natural selection to work, a beneficial mutation needs to give survival advantage. Implying that those without the beneficial mutation will not survive - hence extinction.
-
I have known God all my life.
How can I possibly doubt the existence of someone I know?
And why should I ever contemplate giving up the most precious gift anyone could ever possess?
how come I don't know him? have I been ignored for a reason?
-
how come I don't know him? have I been ignored for a reason?
Try opening the door
-
Try opening the door
toosh, eh?
-
I am well aware of attempts by very clever people to postulate a method by which the eye could evolve by discrete steps. But can you not see that this is showing just how intelligently guided evolution could work?
In other words, 'intelligently guided selection' is indistinguishable from natural selection. So why then, would a god with design and purpose in mind opt to create his designs using apparently randomised methods that we cannot distinguish from unguided natural methods ? It's as if God is devious and cunning, hiding his intervention so that no one could detect his hand at work.
The big assumption in such illustrations is that the specific mutations required for each step in the process will occur naturally by unguided random forces over time. The harsh reality is that such a specific sequence of mutations could never be produced by random events. The DNA molecule can be likened to a huge computer program with billions of instructions needed to construct and maintain a human being. From personal experience, I know that random copying errors in a computer program produce errors, not enhanced results.No.
Well that is really just a poor analogy in the way you have framed it. There are, however, specialist computer modelling methods that are used in evolutionary biology to mimic the principles of descent with variation and selection, and these have no problems with speciation such as you imagine.
For natural selection to work, a beneficial mutation needs to give survival advantage. Implying that those without the beneficial mutation will not survive - hence extinction.
You've already been corrected on this by several posters. Absence of a beneficial mutation is not going to drive a species into extinction. Most humans lack the beneficial mutation of the LCT gene that allows adults to tolerate lactose into adulthood, and yet most humans have not gone extinct.
-
Try opening the door
If we open the door, is that going to mean that we all start misunderstanding things to the extent that you seem to display ? I'm really not sure if you get so many things wrong because of your faith, or do you have a faith because you get so many things wrong ! Which is it ?
-
'Intelligently guided evolution could work', well, yes this is correct. However, unguided evolution can also be shown to work. The ID people used to witter on about intermediate stages being missing, but in the case of the eye, there is plenty of work showing different kinds of eye, ranging from the 'eye-spot', which can detect light. In addition, these have evolved independently a number of times. I suppose if God is behind it, he kept trying new models!
As torridon says, why the hell would an all-powerful God use the gradual process of evolution, involving random mutations plus selection, in any case? I guess he's hiding.
-
AB
please answer with honesty, it was a serious question
-
AB
please answer with honesty, it was a serious question
It was a serious answer.
To allow God into your life you need to open up to the possibility that He exists.
-
It's possible God exists.
Now what?
-
In other words, 'intelligently guided selection' is indistinguishable from natural selection. So why then, would a god with design and purpose in mind opt to create his designs using apparently randomised methods that we cannot distinguish from unguided natural methods ? It's as if God is devious and cunning, hiding his intervention so that no one could detect his hand at work.
Well that is really just a poor analogy in the way you have framed it. There are, however, specialist computer modelling methods that are used in evolutionary biology to mimic the principles of descent with variation and selection, and these have no problems with speciation such as you imagine.
But no modelling system can mimic the true reality of unguided random events generating beneficial mutations to real DNA
Quote from: Alan Burns on Today at 11:45:45 AM
For natural selection to work, a beneficial mutation needs to give survival advantage. Implying that those without the beneficial mutation will not survive - hence extinction.
You've already been corrected on this by several posters. Absence of a beneficial mutation is not going to drive a species into extinction. Most humans lack the beneficial mutation of the LCT gene that allows adults to tolerate lactose into adulthood, and yet most humans have not gone extinct.
I was referring to the mutations which get inherited by the entire race. In particular the intermediate mutations needed to generate complex beneficial elements which offer little or no benefit in themselves. Perhaps it would be better to refer to them as inherited mutations.
-
But no modelling system can mimic the true reality of unguided random events generation beneficial mutations to real DNAYou've already been corrected on this by several posters. Absence of a beneficial mutation is not going to drive a species into extinction. Most humans lack the beneficial mutation of the LCT gene that allows adults to tolerate lactose into adulthood, and yet most humans have not gone extinct.
I was referring to the mutations which get inherited by the entire race. In particular the intermediate mutations needed to generate complex beneficial elements which offer little or no benefit in themselves. Perhaps it would be better to refer to them as inherited mutations.
AB
I am no expert on evolutionary biology ,but I know where you can find some . Are you an expert? if you are I think you are playing games with us, if not please refer to those who are .DONT just guess how stuff works in order for it to fit into how you would like it to work. This is all getting very tedious now
-
But no modelling system can mimic the true reality of unguided random events generating beneficial mutations to real DNAYou've already been corrected on this by several posters. Absence of a beneficial mutation is not going to drive a species into extinction. Most humans lack the beneficial mutation of the LCT gene that allows adults to tolerate lactose into adulthood, and yet most humans have not gone extinct.
I was referring to the mutations which get inherited by the entire race. In particular the intermediate mutations needed to generate complex beneficial elements which offer little or no benefit in themselves. Perhaps it would be better to refer to them as inherited mutations.
I wonder if you are going to provide some kind of mathematical or statistical back-up to your arguments. So far, you have made some unsupported assertions, that the combination of random mutations and selection cannot drive evolution. Obviously, professional biologists and geneticists have taken an interest in the mathematical aspects of this, and have modelled various lineages. Can you now provide such workings for your arguments?
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/52/22454.full
-
AB,
I am well aware of attempts by very clever people to postulate a method by which the eye could evolve by discrete steps.
It’s not “attempts by very clever people”, it’s facts and evidence supported by experiments and modelling and testable predictions. That the people doing it are often very clever is a good thing, not a bad one but even if they weren’t either the facts and evidence would stand on their merit or they wouldn’t.
But can you not see that this is showing just how intelligently guided evolution could work?
“Intelligently guided” anything could work any way the intelligence wanted it to. The conjecture is though not supported by the evidence and it's unnecessary given that evolution demonstrably works without it. It would also incidentally seem an odd way for an intelligent designer god to work – vast numbers of trial and error events, with only a very few succeeding.
The big assumption in such illustrations is that the specific mutations required for each step in the process will occur naturally by unguided random forces over time.
No, the “big assumption” is that the end (or current) results were the intended outcomes all along. Once you dispense with that assumption, all becomes clear.
The harsh reality is that such a specific sequence of mutations could never be produced by random events.
No, the “harsh reality” is that probabilistically people and giant redwoods and dragonflies may seem unlikely given the countless interactions of random mutations with environments they required, but it’s still a problem that disappears once you remove the daftness of thinking that these particular organisms were in some way the intended outcomes all along.
The DNA molecule can be likened to a huge computer program with billions of instructions needed to construct and maintain a human being. From personal experience, I know that random copying errors in a computer program produce errors, not enhanced results. And you need someone intelligent to write the program in the first place.
No you don’t because the analogy is a false one. Random mutations produce adaptations that may or may not better help the organism to survive and breed in its environment.
No.
For natural selection to work, a beneficial mutation needs to give survival advantage. Implying that those without the beneficial mutation will not survive - hence extinction.
No, it needs a “survival advantage” only in the sense that it enables populations with the mutation to establish, and that can be a localised phenomenon. There are countless examples of parent and daughter species co-existing.
Look, wouldn’t it be more honest if you just came clean here and said, “OK, I clearly know nothing about the theory I presume to critique but I don’t like it because it contradicts the version of religious faith I happen to have” and be done with it?
-
Blue given enough time we humans might evolve into a comb and brush set , who knows ? would AB still be using intelligent design to describe what's going on ? probably!
-
It was a serious answer.
To allow God into your life you need to open up to the possibility that He exists.
I shouldn't need to , it would be obvious for all to see. Therein lies your problem.
-
It's one of the killer blows to ID, that an intelligent all-powerful being would use trial and error on a vast scale, in order to produce slow changes in nature. Why on earth would it do that?
I was reading an account of a research team working in the Galapagos, who were studying the interaction between changes in climate and changes to biometrics in birds, for example, birds' beaks change, when the climate gets wetter or drier. No need for any 'guidance'.
Incidentally, on intelligent guidance, an ice-cube melting in a glass might be guided by an all-powerful intelligence. I wonder why physicists don't take that into account? Hmm.
http://bioscience.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/10/965.full
-
I am well aware of attempts by very clever people to postulate a method by which the eye could evolve by discrete steps. But can you not see that this is showing just how intelligently guided evolution could work?
How exactly does it work though?
What form does this guidance take?
-
AB,
I have known God all my life.
No, you have believed there to be a god all your life. Whether there's ever actually been a god there to believe in is moot, to put it mildly.
How can I possibly doubt the existence of someone I know?
What you can doubt is whether there's a "someone" there at all.
And why should I ever contemplate giving up the most precious gift anyone could ever possess?
No reason at all. If you think your belief to be well-founded and you find it comforting that's no-one's business but your own. What you can't expect though is for anyone else to take it seriously just because you happen to believe it, and nor for that matter are you entitled to your own facts - as you've attempted here about evolution for example.
-
How exactly does it work though?
What form does this guidance take?
god set up the electric potential between the inside and outside of the cell membrane and fucked off.
-
It's one of the killer blows to ID, that an intelligent all-powerful being would use trial and error on a vast scale, in order to produce slow changes in nature. Why on earth would it do that?
With our limited senses, we do not see enough of the big picture to presume to know why God does things in the way He does. But I do believe that God manipulates (not overrides) the existing laws of nature to bring about His creation, so the gradual manipulation of natural elements and forces to produce complex life forms over millions of years is no reason to doubt His existence.
-
With our limited senses, we do not see enough of the big picture to presume to know why God does things in the way He does. But I do believe that God manipulates (not overrides) the existing laws of nature to bring about His creation, so the gradual manipulation of natural elements and forces to produce complex life forms over millions of years is no reason to doubt His existence.
which laws are you referring to ?
the manipulation of laws is an oxymoron.
-
With our limited senses, we do not see enough of the big picture to presume to know why God does things in the way He does. But I do believe that God manipulates (not overrides) the existing laws of nature to bring about His creation, so the gradual manipulation of natural elements and forces to produce complex life forms over millions of years is no reason to doubt His existence.
You are having your cake and eating it.
It makes no sense to claim that God manipulates, not overrides. the laws of nature. Any supernatural intervention to alter the natural course of events is overriding what would otherwise happen according to the laws of nature. You are just playing with words.
Furthermore, this is every 'reason to doubt His existence', not least because it is so deeply self-contradictory. A God that is good and all powerful and omnibenevolent would not simultaneously appear to be such an incompetent devious fudger as you would have us believe.
-
which laws are you referring to ?
the manipulation of laws is an oxymoron.
So if I use my free will to manipulate a rock to fall on your head using the law of gravity would that be an oxymoron? Such actions demonstrate the amazing power of free will which God has given us to consciously interact with nature and its laws to bring about human creations (or human destruction).
-
When AB says, 'I do believe that ...', generally you know that a load of tripe is coming. But this time, it's beyond tripe, it's intellectual suicide. 'The gradual manipulation of natural elements' - who dreams up this garbage?
The strange thing about it is that it accepts that evolution is at work, but fakes some kind of God-driven agency behind it. No evidence, no research work, just a complete parasitic dependence on science, but 'God does it'.
How can any intelligent adult accept this?
-
remove the word 'intelligent' from your last sentence
-
So if I use my free will to manipulate a rock to fall on your head using the law of gravity would that be an oxymoron? Such actions demonstrate the amazing power of free will which God has given us to consciously interact with nature and its laws to bring about human creations (or human destruction).
What you refer to as human free will, is of course, not really free, it is a product of the laws of nature and subject to the laws of nature, neither supervening it nor overriding it. You could argue that there is a God with divine free will, which might be truly free, but you still end up with a logical paradox ultimately when you think through where god's desires (for intervention) come from.
-
AB
have a look on YouTube at Carl Sagan's 'Pale Blue Dot' and tell me why you think you/we are so special
-
So if I use my free will to manipulate a rock to fall on your head using the law of gravity would that be an oxymoron? Such actions demonstrate the amazing power of free will which God has given us to consciously interact with nature and its laws to bring about human creations (or human destruction).
Such an action is not a manipulation of the laws but an application of the laws (nor is it a demonstration of free will but that's been debated enough). So is God limited to working withing the existing laws?
-
Such an action is not a manipulation of the laws but an application of the laws (nor is it a demonstration of free will but that's been debated enough). So is God limited to working withing the existing laws?
That's the bizarre thing about these arguments. As far as I can see, AB seems to be saying that all the components of evolution, whether it be mutations, selection, genetic drift, and so on, are being faithfully modelled by God. Well, isn't that something? So when you see an ice-cube melting, have no doubt that God is 'manipulating' it somewhere, somehow. After all, it's to hard imagine anything else, isn't it?
-
#726
It was a serious answer.
To allow God into your life you need to open up to the possibility that He exists
I shouldn't need to , it would be obvious for all to see. Therein lies your problem.
If it were obvious for all to see (as you and Floo want), belief would not be necessary. You would have no choice in the matter. See for example the history of the Israelites in the Old Testament from when they came out of Egypt in Exodus. God dwelt among them, so no belief was necessary.
Would you prefer to be in a position where you have no choice, or would you prefer the existing situation where you have free-will and can choose?
-
Sword,
If it were obvious for all to see (as you and Floo want), belief would not be necessary. You would have no choice in the matter. See for example the history of the Israelites in the Old Testament from when they came out of Egypt in Exodus. God dwelt among them, so no belief was necessary.
Would you prefer to be in a position where you have no choice, or would you prefer the existing situation where you have free-will and can choose?
Actually, belief would be but “faith” in its religious sense wouldn’t. In any case, being “free to choose” is fine and dandy but do you not think that this “God” of yours should at least have had the decency to make the choice a meaningful one by providing some evidence for his existence at all?
And while he was at it, perhaps he could have armed those who evangelise for him with arguments for his existence that aren’t so evidently false. Of course the panoply of bad arguments they/you attempt do not of themselves mean that there is no god, but you’d have though he’d have given himself at least a fighting chance by provided a few good ones too.
-
#726If it were obvious for all to see (as you and Floo want), belief would not be necessary. You would have no choice in the matter. See for example the history of the Israelites in the Old Testament from when they came out of Egypt in Exodus. God dwelt among them, so no belief was necessary.
So the story goes: how would you exclude the risk that this aspect is fictional propaganda?
-
So the story goes: how would you exclude the risk that this aspect is fictional propaganda?
And now, as so often happens, I expect I shall be looking out in vain for a direct answer to this question.
-
#726If it were obvious for all to see (as you and Floo want), belief would not be necessary. You would have no choice in the matter. See for example the history of the Israelites in the Old Testament from when they came out of Egypt in Exodus. God dwelt among them, so no belief was necessary.
Would you prefer to be in a position where you have no choice, or would you prefer the existing situation where you have free-will and can choose?
This is a false dichotomy and that nonsense about the exodus is irrelevant. There's no evidence for it
-
You are having your cake and eating it.
It makes no sense to claim that God manipulates, not overrides. the laws of nature. Any supernatural intervention to alter the natural course of events is overriding what would otherwise happen according to the laws of nature. You are just playing with words.
But surely my "playing with words" is ample evidence that I can interact with the laws of nature using my powers of free will. Or do you really believe that everything that I (or anyone else) writes on this forum is the inevitable result of all the physical chain reactions that have occurred ever since the universe went Bang? So if we can do it, why not God?
-
But surely my "playing with words" is ample evidence that I can interact with the laws of nature using my powers of free will. Or do you really believe that everything that I (or anyone else) writes on this forum is the inevitable result of all the physical chain reactions that have occurred ever since the universe went Bang? So if we can do it, why not God?
AB
This is a genuine question,
after all the posts against you, what motivates you to keep going with you nonsense? ,I would have packed up and left ages ago.
-
That's the bizarre thing about these arguments. As far as I can see, AB seems to be saying that all the components of evolution, whether it be mutations, selection, genetic drift, and so on, are being faithfully modelled by God. Well, isn't that something? So when you see an ice-cube melting, have no doubt that God is 'manipulating' it somewhere, somehow. After all, it's to hard imagine anything else, isn't it?
It is pretty obvious that an ice cube needs no intelligent manipulation to help it to melt. But when you see an ice sculpture, you could correctly conclude that some intelligent manipulation was used to form the sculpture you see. And when you look at the human DNA molecule, the most complex thing known to exist, can you really compare it to the melting of an ice cube?
-
AB
This is a genuine question,
after all the posts against you, what motivates you to keep going with you nonsense? ,I would have packed up and left ages ago.
If I was here for an ego trip I agree I should have given up long ago.
(you may see further evidence of my persistence amongst over thirteen thousand posts on the "Searching for God" thread under the Christian topic)
But God calls me to be a witness to the truth, and despite all the negative comments and counter arguments I still have the will to carry on. I tried to give up and call it a day after just a few days on this forum, but after receiving several PM messages of encouragement I felt God was asking me to carry on. And when you say "Yes" to God, He will give you all the strength you need to carry out the task.
-
It is pretty obvious that an ice cube needs no intelligent manipulation to help it to melt. But when you see an ice sculpture, you could correctly conclude that some intelligent manipulation was used to form the sculpture you see. And when you look at the human DNA molecule, the most complex thing known to exist, can you really compare it to the melting of an ice cube?
Does God make each and every beautifully sculptured snowflake?
-
Does God make each and every beautifully sculptured snowflake?
There is natural beauty and complexity and there is created beauty and complexity. We can easily recognise the man made beauty in works of art, and the man made complexity in machines and computers. It is not so easy for some people to differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and the God made complexity we see in living creatures. Perhaps it was easier for our predecessors who saw the obvious link between creature and creation.
-
AB,
It is pretty obvious that an ice cube needs no intelligent manipulation to help it to melt. But when you see an ice sculpture, you could correctly conclude that some intelligent manipulation was used to form the sculpture you see. And when you look at the human DNA molecule, the most complex thing known to exist, can you really compare it to the melting of an ice cube?
So there we have it: ice melting looks simple to you (actually it involves some quite complex chemistry that you can't see, but let's not let the facts get in the way of your personal incredulity); ice sculptures look complicated (though snowflakes themselves appear to have remarkable symmetry and beauty, but again let's not let the facts disturb your personal incredulity); and you've made a false analogy between an evolved molecule and a non-evolved chemical process - the old Paley's watch mistake.
Apart from all that though...
Does not having the reasoning ability of a child trouble you at all?
Not even a little bit?
Nothing?
-
I tried to give up and call it a day after just a few days on this forum, but after receiving several PM messages of encouragement I felt God was asking me to carry on. And when you say "Yes" to God, He will give you all the strength you need to carry out the task.
That's the sort of comment I struggle to understand. Clearly it was the people who PM'd you who were asking you to carry on. I know you believe God was working through them but I just don't understand why.
-
If I was here for an ego trip I agree I should have given up long ago.
(you may see further evidence of my persistence amongst over thirteen thousand posts on the "Searching for God" thread under the Christian topic)
But God calls me to be a witness to the truth, and despite all the negative comments and counter arguments I still have the will to carry on. I tried to give up and call it a day after just a few days on this forum, but after receiving several PM messages of encouragement I felt God was asking me to carry on. And when you say "Yes" to God, He will give you all the strength you need to carry out the task.
AB
its a shame he doesn't give you much help though , you'd think he would at least peep through the clouds and say 'hello, you should all be listening to AB HE'S MY WITNESS' but nothing. I admire your tenacity but there it ends my friend. Good luck, I'm OUT.
-
There is natural beauty and complexity and there is created beauty and complexity. We can easily recognise the man made beauty in works of art, and the man made complexity in machines and computers. It is not so easy for some people to differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and the God made complexity we see in living creatures.
Unless of course they are both naturally occurring its just that you fail to see it. You being forced to shoehorn God into stuff you don't understand.
Simples.
-
Actually, belief would be but “faith” in its religious sense wouldn’t. In any case, being “free to choose” is fine and dandy but do you not think that this “God” of yours should at least have had the decency to make the choice a meaningful one by providing some evidence for his existence at all?
Then what would you consider as evidence?
-
If I was here for an ego trip I agree I should have given up long ago.
(you may see further evidence of my persistence amongst over thirteen thousand posts on the "Searching for God" thread under the Christian topic)
But God calls me to be a witness to the truth, and despite all the negative comments and counter arguments I still have the will to carry on.
But it seems you have zero will to actually listen to and try to understand the rebuttals of your claims from other posters. You are plain wrong about a considerable number of points of belief imo, and you show every sign of staying wrong because of this tunnel vision of yours forbidding you to start to understand that you might actually be wrong and others might actually be right.
-
Sword,
Then what would you consider as evidence?
A statement and a method to validate it by distinguishing it from just guessing about stuff.
-
Then what would you consider as evidence?
That is for you to propose: and don't forget the method you used to identify, categorise, describe, measure etc what you present as evidence.
The burden of proof is yours, whether you like it or not.
-
It is not so easy for some people to differentiate between naturally occurring complexity and the God made complexity we see in living creatures.
That's kind of odd, isn't it. We can identify human designed objects pretty easily, but surely, if nature was also designed, that wouldn't be possible.
If design is the quality that enables us to spot a watch in a desert as being man made or a painting in a wood, then the conclusion must be that the environment in which these objects reside is not designed, but that environment is exactly what you are claiming is designed. Paley's watch is actually an argument against a designed Universe.
By the way, the chief characteristic of a designed object is not complexity but simplicity.
-
If design is the quality that enables us to spot a watch in a desert as being man made or a painting in a wood, then the conclusion must be that the environment in which these objects reside is not designed, but that environment is exactly what you are claiming is designed.
But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert. I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.
-
But it seems you have zero will to actually listen to and try to understand the rebuttals of your claims from other posters. You are plain wrong about a considerable number of points of belief imo, and you show every sign of staying wrong because of this tunnel vision of yours forbidding you to start to understand that you might actually be wrong and others might actually be right.
I appreciate you honesty Torri. You have at least qualified your accusation that I am wrong by saying that it is your opinion. I hope one day your opinion will change when you come to know God.
-
But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert. I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.
You're fine, I don't think anyone noticed you shifting the goalposts, again!
-
But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert.
Do we? Always? Trees are alive aren't they? Well actually, about 98% of a tree is dead.
I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.
But we have already shown that God did not create the Universe, or if he did, he created it to look like it was not designed.
-
But we do recognise the difference between something living - the wood, and something dead - the desert. I recognise God's all creation, but in particular His ability to bring life out from the dead.
The old separation of things into living and inanimate is old hat now. Rather, there is a spectrum of lifelikeness that leads from biochemstry to biology. There is no magic required, this is why we expect to find evidence for life on Mars or Europa etc. Life is an inevitable consequence of natural law. I think you'd be much better off therefore trying to position your God as architect of natural law, rather than some bumbling meddler intervening in the operation of natural law and getting some things right and some things wrong.
-
I appreciate you honesty Torri. You have at least qualified your accusation that I am wrong by saying that it is your opinion. I hope one day your opinion will change when you come to know God.
Firstly, that would be up to God, not me, and the fact that he apparently reveals himself to some and not to others does not square with the claim that god is good. Just one of innumerable inconsistencies in your thinking.
Secondly, if God does decide to introduce himself to me is that going to mean that I end up being a science denier, making all manner of claims that are not consistent with evidence ? That would be a corrupting God, encouraging detachment from reality and truth, this again inconsistent with the claim that god is good.
-
Dear Jeremyp,
By the way, the chief characteristic of a designed object is not complexity but simplicity.
Correct.
But we have already shown that God did not create the Universe, or if he did, he created it to look like it was not designed.
Where have you shown that and you must be looking at a different Universe from the one I inhabit, this Universe is beautiful, it is all arranged to work, it is governed by four very simple laws, it is only man who complicates this very simple Universe in his ceaseless venture to know the mind of God.
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
...this Universe is beautiful....
Bone cancer in children?
Parasitic worms that burrow through eyes?
Tsunamis that kill thousands?
If you're going to bring aesthetics to the table there's a great deal about the universe that's hideous too, just as you'd expect to see if there was no benevolent hand at the tiller.
-
Dear Blue,
I am talking about the Universe as a whole, if you want to debate why we have such a thing as cancer, then go ahead, I don't have all the answers, what I will say is that I am told we can beat cancer, it just needs funding, well guess what! We have the funds, we are fuckin!! minted, ask any Tory politician who has a hole in his pocket when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. >:( >:(
Gonnagle.
-
Gonners,
I am talking about the Universe as a whole, if you want to debate why we have such a thing as cancer, then go ahead, I don't have all the answers, what I will say is that I am told we can beat cancer, it just needs funding, well guess what! We have the funds, we are fuckin!! minted, ask any Tory politician who has a hole in his pocket when it comes to weapons of mass destruction. >:( >:(
But what does "the Universe as a whole" even mean? Pictures from the Hubble telescope for example look pretty enough, but the reality of the places in the images is that they are either blisteringly hot or incredibly cold, or howling nightmares of savage forces deeply inhospitable to life. Or look at our planet specifically - over 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct, and for most of those that survive life is almost unremittingly terrifying as predators hunt down and tear apart their prey, diseases eat away at them from the inside out, they struggle to survive the climate etc.
It's all every well to be panglossian about the bits that appeal and use that as evidence for a benevolent god, but it only works if you close your eyes to the overwhelming silent evidence that suggests that any god of the omnis would actually be a scummy one.
-
Life is an inevitable consequence of natural law.
This is an assumption with no evidence. We have yet to find any sign of life outside our planet. It will take much more than the presence of basic ingredients to create the abundance of life as we know it. You need the master chef.
-
Where have you shown that and you must be looking at a different Universe from the one I inhabit, this Universe is beautiful, it is all arranged to work, it is governed by four very simple laws, it is only man who complicates this very simple Universe in his ceaseless venture to know the mind of God.
Those laws all encompassed when a nearby star goes supernova and wipes out all life, anywhere, within 100 light years of it!
-
It will take much more than the presence of basic ingredients to create the abundance of life as we know it. You need the master chef.
as someone once said
This is an assumption with no evidence.
-
Dear Blue,
This term "benevolent God" means nothing to me, as for what's out there, we, us humans only see a small fraction of what this Universe is or its potential, what I know, we are here, for all we know in some far flung galaxy more life is forming, or it could be that other more advanced life has formed, what we do know, a fact, this Universe is a life giving Universe, we are the evidence.
Adams puddle is a very big puddle, for all I know E.T is sitting in his own puddle thinking about the mystery of this life giving Universe, hell he may even worship the same God I worship. ;)
Gonnagle.
-
This is an assumption with no evidence.
That's a bit rich AB, you do the same in virtually every post. Can you see that?
-
#773
It will take much more than the presence of basic ingredients to create the abundance of life as we know it. You need the master chef.
as someone once said
This is an assumption with no evidence.
From Wikipedia about DNA:
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.
and
DNA stores biological information.
So why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
-
From Wikipedia about DNA:
andSo why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
An 'entity' could if it existed, but since that 'entity' is entirely an imagined idea only, you are making an assumption that is without evidence and could be called a good example of the elephant in the room.
-
Sword,
So why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
You misunderstand the meanings of "instructions" and "information" here - they're not analogous to their meanings in common parlance - but nonetheless, a supernatural "entity" could do anything it wanted to do. Why an entity of that kind would use such a hugely wasteful process of waiting for faulty copies of DNA to produce enough beneficial mutations to create new species rather than just fix it with a snap of "His" fingers is anyone's guess though, as for that matter is why "He'd" choose a method that looks precisely as you'd expect it to look if there was no god there at all.
That's your problem here when you try your, "but couldn't God have done X?" line - if you posit a god of the omnis, then that god could have done anything so it's a null question.
-
So why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
Yikes - just for starters this reads like a stupendous category error.
Music notation and letters are symbolic representations of other things: the pitch and arrangement of sound and/or meanings of letters when written in certain sequences that can also be expressed as speech: thus there is so such thing as an 'if' but we know what we mean when we see 'if' written or hear it said.
DNA is a different type of thing entirely, so your analogy fails.
-
Both jeremy and blue have made the interesting point that all this talk of God using the elements of evolution, such as mutation, selection, genetic drift, and so on, end up with the idea that God makes the universe so that it looks unmade. An all-powerful God could just create giraffes and stars like that. But apparently he goes through billions of years of change in order to arrive at today.
I've heard of the universe looking designed, but this is quite different - the idea that the universe looks non-designed, and that's how God does it. Come again?
It shows you the weird places that ID takes you, that is, a God who makes things seem uncreated.
-
#773
From Wikipedia about DNA:
andSo why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
Ignoring the 'not even wrong' parts of your reply, I was questioning AB's assertion that there 'needs' to be a 'master chef'
-
Round and FUCKING round
I wish I hadn't started this now, it was only a bit of fun. I already knew no one could do what I asked in the OP.
however I will say this ,it has shown that some people are smart and others are not. You know who you are.
-
An 'entity' could if it existed, but since that 'entity' is entirely an imagined idea only, you are making an assumption that is without evidence and could be called a good example of the elephant in the room.
How is it without evidence? If someone designs & builds something, then what they design/build is evidence of their handiwork.
If one suggested a designer, the nature of that designer can be left to a separate field of study, in the same way that abiogenesis is separated from common-descent evolutionary claims (the number of times I've heard something along the lines of, "we don't need to know how life started in order to know how it developed".
-
How is it without evidence? If someone designs & builds something, then what they design/build is evidence of their handiwork.
If one suggested a designer, the nature of that designer can be left to a separate field of study, in the same way that abiogenesis is separated from common-descent evolutionary claims (the number of times I've heard something along the lines of, "we don't need to know how life started in order to know how it developed".
You know who you are .
-
Dear Waltzer,
I wish I hadn't started this now, it was only a bit of fun. I already knew no one could do what I asked in the OP.
however I will say this ,it has shown that some people are smart and others are not. You know who you are.
Gee! thanks mate :-*
Gonnagle.
-
Round and FUCKING round
I wish I hadn't started this now, it was only a bit of fun. I already knew no one could do what I asked in the OP.
Well, what did you expect?
You want evidence. Evidence needs some sort of methodology to interpret it. The only methodology allowed is one that has natural causes and explanations only, because any other methodology is guesswork...right?
You're asking the question and at the same time trying to dictate the nature of the answer. Why bother then?
-
Dear Waltzer,
Gee! thanks mate :-*
Gonnagle.
you're welcome , however I shall be making another judgment later ::)
-
Well, what did you expect?
You want evidence. Evidence needs some sort of methodology to interpret it. The only methodology allowed is one that has natural causes and explanations only, because any other methodology is guesswork...right?
You're asking the question and at the same time trying to dictate the nature of the answer. Why bother then?
my reply would require my life ban . its one word it begins with C
-
Sword,
Well, what did you expect?
You want evidence. Evidence needs some sort of methodology to interpret it.
So far, so good. Absent a method, it's an assertion but it's not evidence.
The only methodology allowed is one that has natural causes and explanations only, because any other methodology is guesswork...right?
No. It's not that any other methodology is guesswork; it's that the complete absence of a method of any kind makes the claim indistinguishable from guesswork. If you think you do have a method of any kind though then - finally - why not tell us what it it?
You're asking the question and at the same time trying to dictate the nature of the answer. Why bother then?
Because that's not what he's doing. If you want to give something the status of "evidence", then it's for you to tell us what makes it so. And if you don't like empirical or naturalistic methods to do it, then think of a different one.
-
Walter,
my reply would require my life ban . its one word it begins with C
Casuist?
-
Walter,
Casuist?
FUCK ME ! Spot on, who knew?
-
Walter,
FUCK ME ! Spot on, who knew?
Well, ordinarily "casuist" would of course merit a life time ban, though - given the extreme provocation from Sword and others - perhaps on this occasion if you threw yourself on the mercy of the Mods some leniency might come your way?
-
Quote from Gonnagle's post 774:
what we do know, a fact, this Universe is a life giving Universe, we are the evidence.
If you want to put it in those terms, then we also know, a fact, this universe is a life taking away universe. The evidence is all around us. :)
-
Sword of the Spirit
As always, you fail to notice the elephant in the room, which is the entity you call a designer; you fail to explain who designed it and so on through the infinite regression question.
-
Sword of the Spirit
As always, you fail to notice the elephant in the room, which is the entity you call a designer; you fail to explain who designed it and so on through the infinite regression question.
I'm not sure there is an infinite regress here. There would be if the argument was nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer but if it is rather that the universe has the appearance of something designed then there is not necessarily a regress.
-
Walter,
Well, ordinarily "casuist" would of course merit a life time ban, though - given the extreme provocation from Sword and others - perhaps on this occasion if you threw yourself on the mercy of the Mods some leniency might come your way?
I have unconditional faith in them , I have sinned, I know not who they are , I shall pray to web site God sorry Mod
our Mod who art in web site
hallowed be thy name
thy will be done
on earth or in cyberspace
forgive us who have critical thinking skills
for they will find truth
forgive the deluded for they will cause wars
for ever and ever
for fuck sake
amen
-
.. why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
Burden of proof shifting.
It is the claim of such an entity that needs to be justified.
What is the evidence for this entity, and why would it need to use DNA ?
-
Actually, belief would be but “faith” in its religious sense wouldn’t. In any case, being “free to choose” is fine and dandy but do you not think that this “God” of yours should at least have had the decency to make the choice a meaningful one by providing some evidence for his existence at all?
Then what would you consider as evidence?
Burden of proof shifting (yet again).
It is for people making the (theist) claim to identify the evidence. But nothing is ever said about the nature of god that would qualify as evidence. Nothing about his coordinates, speed, temperature, density, provenance, constitution, mass, charge, spin, there is nothing that we could use to calibrate a god detecting machine with, so we cannot ever justify theist beliefs through empirical means. If we could, well that wouldn't be god would it ? God is an unevidencable concept, so on what grounds can anyone justify their belief ? Once objective empiricism is removed, all that is left are the deeper psychological motives and personal preferences of the believer. This god is the god of human mind, this is the kingdom within, the part phenomenological, part cultural, part philosophical, mental construct that works for some people in the sense that it provides a good enough working backdrop to our daily experience enabling us to make sense of things. But none of this is evidence, rather, it is personal justification.
-
Sword,
You misunderstand the meanings of "instructions" and "information" here - they're not analogous to their meanings in common parlance - but nonetheless, a supernatural "entity" could do anything it wanted to do. Why an entity of that kind would use such a hugely wasteful process of waiting for faulty copies of DNA to produce enough beneficial mutations to create new species rather than just fix it with a snap of "His" fingers is anyone's guess though, as for that matter is why "He'd" choose a method that looks precisely as you'd expect it to look if there was no god there at all.
First of all you are setting up an all powerful entity then complaining that it doesn't do what you expect!
Secondly you are clinging to an extreme phyletic gradualism. The fossil record does not record the wastage you suggest. This is because early on evolution provided the mechanisms for early foetal rejection of genetic aberration.
Continual relentless but imperceptible change is an hyperbole since it contradicts the systems of rejection AND the rarity of the beneficial mutation.
-
#794
Sword of the Spirit
As always, you fail to notice the elephant in the room, which is the entity you call a designer; you fail to explain who designed it and so on through the infinite regression question.
I agree with what Nearly Sane said in their #795 SusanDoris
I'm not sure there is an infinite regress here. There would be if the argument was nothing as complex as the universe could exist without a designer but if it is rather that the universe has the appearance of something designed then there is not necessarily a regress.
And I would also add that there is no regress imo because we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore, whether or not something is designed can be assessed in its own right without having to involve the nature of the designer.
-
Sword,
Therefore, whether or not something is designed can be assessed in its own right...
Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?
-
And I would also add that there is no regress imo because we know that human beings design and make things. Therefore, whether or not something is designed can be assessed in its own right without having to involve the nature of the designer.
We've already covered this ground. If your contention is that reality requires a superior being to design in then it is incumbent to follow through with an explanation of how the superior being came to be designed. This is a bigger problem than merely trying to understand our reality on its own terms without recourse to superior beings. This attitude seems either lazy or disingenuous to me.
-
#797
From Wikipedia about DNA:
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.
and
DNA stores biological information.
So why couldn't an entity use DNA as the blueprint for life in the same way that notes are the blueprint for music, or letters are the blueprint for alphabets, which in turn are used for written text?
Burden of proof shifting.
No burden of proof shifting. I am not inviting my assertion to be disproved and claiming that failure to do so means my point is therefore true. What I have said can be assessed in its own right.
It is the claim of such an entity that needs to be justified.
What is the evidence for this entity, and why would it need to use DNA ?
What we know of DNA is that it is the blueprint for all living organisms, in the same way that an alphabet in a language is a blueprint for all spoken and written text, or notes for music, or even computer code for computer software. That, in my opinion suggests a designer. I also noted the use of the words instructions and storage of information in the Wikipedia article which again, when compared with things human beings make that have similar characteristics, shows forethought and intent, in addition to design.
-
Sword,
Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?
Every day, at random times, my computer comes up with 'this page can't be displayed' for this forum - others work perfectly well - but I don't think I shall accidentally miss an answer to your post from Sword of the Spirit!!
I am, though, forever the optimist! :)
-
We've already covered this ground. If your contention is that reality requires a superior being to design in then it is incumbent to follow through with an explanation of how the superior being came to be designed. This is a bigger problem than merely trying to understand our reality on its own terms without recourse to superior beings. This attitude seems either lazy or disingenuous to me.
I don't think that is his contention. It's not that it needs a superior being but that it looks like it is designed, therefore there is a designer.
-
Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?
There you go again! Asking a question whilst trying to deny the person the method whereby to answer your question.
Stuff people make looks designed: Do human beings design things or not? Do human beings make things or not?
stuff in nature looks designed: Is DNA the blueprint for living organisms, or not?
Can the characteristics of what human beings make (blueprints, instructions, storage of information) be compared with what we know of DNA (blueprint, instructions, storage of information)?
If not, why not?
-
Sword,
Aside from the false reasoning of, "stuff people make looks designed, stuff in nature looks designed to me, therefore stuff in nature must have a designer too" how would you propose to do that?
The trouble is though you make the same type of reasoning when you suggest that the universe looks as if there is no God.
-
Sword,
What we know of DNA is that it is the blueprint for all living organisms, in the same way that an alphabet in a language is a blueprint for all spoken and written text, or notes for music, or even computer code for computer software. That, in my opinion suggests a designer. I also noted the use of the words instructions and storage of information in the Wikipedia article which again, when compared with things human beings make that have similar characteristics, shows forethought and intent, in addition to design.
Oh dear. You really do need at least to try to grasp the difference btween an evolved "blueprint" (like DNA), and a designed one (like a computer programme). I think perhaps it might help too if you read up a little on information theory. Try here to get you started:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Information_theory
-
as for that matter is why "He'd" choose a method that looks precisely as you'd expect it to look if there was no god there at all.
-
Sword,
There you go again! Asking a question whilst trying to deny the person the method whereby to answer your question.
What method? So far as I'm aware, you've never managed even to suggest one despite being asked to do so many times.
Stuff people make looks designed: Do human beings design things or not? Do human beings make things or not?
Er yes, as indeed do other animals make things. That wasn't though the point.
stuff in nature looks designed: Is DNA the blueprint for living organisms, or not?
Not in the analogous sense you're attempting to elide the term "blueprint" into it isn't, no.
Can the characteristics of what human beings make (blueprints, instructions, storage of information) be compared with what we know of DNA (blueprint, instructions, storage of information)?
No - one is designed, the other is evolved. They're also qualitatively different for reasons you'd understand if you knew something of information theory.
If not, why not?
See above.
-
We've already covered this ground. If your contention is that reality requires a superior being to design in then it is incumbent to follow through with an explanation of how the superior being came to be designed.
I'm more than happy to go where the evidence leads. To say that one must know all about the designer before concluding design is, in my opinion introducing bias, which can only prejudice an objective investigation.
The nature of the designer is not being avoided, by the way. For those of a religious belief, I would suggest that it may be a theological question.
-
I don't think that is his contention. It's not that it needs a superior being but that it looks like it is designed, therefore there is a designer.
In terms of the looks like it is designed, more specifically, where there are similar characteristics seen that are present in the things human beings design and make.
-
Sword,
I'm more than happy to go where the evidence leads.
Well that's new. I can suggest a few books on evolutionary theory to get you started if that helps?
To say that one must know all about the designer before concluding design is, in my opinion introducing bias, which can only prejudice an objective investigation.
That's a straw man - I've done no such thing. If there was logic of any kind that led to the conclusion "designer" then it would stand on its merits whether or not you knew anything about that designer. The point though is that there is no such logic - or at least none that anyone has ever been able to produce.
The nature of the designer is not being avoided, by the way. For those of a religious belief, I would suggest that it may be a theological question.
It may be, but it's still an irrelevant (and probably meaningless) one as there's no cogent reasoning that produces the outcome "designer".
-
Sword,
Oh dear. You really do need at least to try to grasp the difference btween an evolved "blueprint" (like DNA),
You are assuming that DNA evolved. If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.
-
Sword,
In terms of the looks like it is designed, more specifically, where there are similar characteristics seen that are present in the things human beings design and make.
So people design and make things that have similar characteristics to things found in nature, therefore nature was designed too?
Did you really mean to say that?
-
Sword,
You are assuming that DNA evolved.
Well that, "I go where the evidence leads" didn't last long did it. Oh well.
If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.
That'll be because you've failed to go where the evidence leads.
-
So people design and make things that have similar characteristics to things found in nature, therefore nature was designed too?
Did you really mean to say that?
perhaps you'll do better to stick to what I said. If that is what you want to believe, fair enough.
On the subject of DNA, Wikipedia says this:
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.
Care to outline how something that evolved had the forethought to 'evolve' instructions (a characteristic usually seen in something that is designed, therefore having purpose?
-
Sword,
Well that, "I go where the evidence leads" didn't last long did it. Oh well.
So your evidence that DNA evolved is...
-
Sword,
perhaps you'll do better to stick to what I said. If that is what you want to believe, fair enough.
That is what you said. If you want to express the thought, "stuff in nature looks to me like stuff people design and make" then you can express it equally as, "stuff people design and make looks to me like stuff in nature".
On the subject of DNA, Wikipedia says this:
Quote
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.
Care to outline how something that evolved had the forethought to 'evolve' instructions (a characteristic usually seen in something that is designed, therefore having purpose?
Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity combined with the ignorance of thinking that evolutionary processes are intended to reach predetermined outcomes. As it happens there are various theories about the evolution of DNA - here's one to get you started:
http://evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life
-
So your evidence that DNA evolved is...
We have precursor molecules to DNA. They didn't just appear by magic out of nowhere. Maybe you imagine RNA, for example, was God's first attempt at designing life processes, perfected later in DNA ?
-
Sword,
That is what you said. If you want to express the thought, "stuff in nature looks to me like stuff people design and make"
citation please
then you can express it equally as, "stuff people design and make looks to me like stuff in nature".
Erm...no
A implies B does not always mean B implies A.
Again, you are doing your classic bluehillsiding instead of countering directly the point being made.
Ah, the old argument from personal incredulity
Now who is ignoring the evidence!
-
I don't think that is his contention. It's not that it needs a superior being but that it looks like it is designed, therefore there is a designer.
And a designer is superior, in some sense, to that which is designed. A termite is a more complex thing than an insentient termite mound but I think it flawed reasoning to extrapolate from examples like that to a justification in principle that something seemingly designed probably has a designer because that sanctions an eternal regress of designers in principle. In reality, both termite and termite mound are products of inferior insentient processes, and we have simply a case of pockets of varying complexity within the overarching scheme of things in which complexity arises fundamentally from complex combinations of simpler constituents, not the reverse.
-
Sword,
citation please
For what - the statement that stuff in nature shares characteristics with stuff people design?
You've said it several times.
Erm...no
A implies B does not always mean B implies A.
Erm...yes - resemblance cuts both ways. If dolphins resemble porpoises, then porpoises resemble dolphins. If butterflies resemble moths, then moths....etc
Again, you are doing your classic bluehillsiding instead of countering directly the point being made.
No, I was doing the "classic bluehillsiding" of falsifying your reasoning - see above for an example.
Now who is ignoring the evidence!
You are. That something happens to stretch your personal incredulity is in evidential terms neither here nor there, and yet again you make your repeated mistake of assuming that DNA as we know it must have been the intended outcome all along.
-
Maybe you imagine RNA, for example, was God's first attempt at designing life processes, perfected later in DNA ?
At least you attempted to answer my question torridon...
On your question, no I don't see RNA as God's first attempt at designing life processes. Reading what Wikipedia has to say about RNA, it seems to have its own purpose, but even just taking the first sentence:
Ribonucleic acid (RNA) is a polymeric molecule essential in various biological roles in coding, decoding, regulation, and expression of genes.
Coding, decoding?
On the wider question being raised: I'm more than happy to accept evolutionary explanations that explain adaptation. From what I have seen (and it is observable), adaptation works with what is already present. My opinion is that extrapolation has been used to take what is observed here and explain origins, and however it is presented, it results in a something from nothing problem.
-
Sword,
For what - the statement that stuff in nature shares characteristics with stuff people design?
You've said it several times.
Then you will have no problem reproducing in full one of my exact quotes (instead of your paraphrase) and then we'll see if the assertion A implies B means that B implies A still holds.
-
Sword,
On the wider question being raised: I'm more than happy to accept evolutionary explanations that explain adaptation. From what I have seen (and it is observable), adaptation works with what is already present. My opinion is that extrapolation has been used to take what is observed here and explain origins, and however it is presented, it results in a something from nothing problem.
First, even if there was a problem it would be the "organic from inorganic" problem, not the "something from nothing" problem.
Second, you complained earlier that it would be wrong to argue conceptually agains a designer god because you knew nothing about that god yet here you try the same tactic - evolutionary theory explains speciation perfectly well without needing to know anything about abiogenesis.
Third, inroads are being made all the time into the abiogenesis question and moreover statistical models tell us that it wasn't nearly as unlikely an event (or perhaps multiple events) as creationists would have you believe.
Apart from that though...
-
And a designer is superior, in some sense, to that which is designed. A termite is a more complex thing than an insentient termite mound but I think it flawed reasoning to extrapolate from examples like that to a justification in principle that something seemingly designed probably has a designer because that sanctions an eternal regress of designers in principle. In reality, both termite and termite mound are products of inferior insentient processes, and we have simply a case of pockets of varying complexity within the overarching scheme of things in which complexity arises fundamentally from complex combinations of simpler constituents, not the reverse.
Again, torridon, I respect the fact that you are able to defend your position in its own right.
All I'll say from my perspective is that my conclusion that X is designed is based independent of whatever the designer of X may be. I can understand that this may be a problem for some, but it is not a case of avoiding the question of what the designer of X may be (if that is the conclusion). As I have a religious belief, I see God as the designer. If I didn't have a religious belief, I would be looking from some other explanations, because all of the assertions I've made on this (on this thread and on other threads previously) are independent of religious belief.
-
And a designer is superior, in some sense, to that which is designed. A termite is a more complex thing than an insentient termite mound but I think it flawed reasoning to extrapolate from examples like that to a justification in principle that something seemingly designed probably has a designer because that sanctions an eternal regress of designers in principle. In reality, both termite and termite mound are products of inferior insentient processes, and we have simply a case of pockets of varying complexity within the overarching scheme of things in which complexity arises fundamentally from complex combinations of simpler constituents, not the reverse.
No, I don't see that this works this way since you take the position that simplicity can give rise to complexity. Further I don't think you can add in something to SOTS' position that they don't argue. He may well believe that the designer is more complex but he's not stating there must be a designer because of the complexity.
-
Sword,
Then you will have no problem reproducing in full one of my exact quotes (instead of your paraphrase) and then we'll see if the assertion A implies B means that B implies A still holds.
That was your assertion, not mine. Mine was the simple observation that, if you think A resembles B, then B must resemble A. In your Reply 812 for example you said:
"In terms of the looks like it is designed, more specifically, where there are similar characteristics seen that are present in the things human beings design and make."
If you think there are "similar characteristics seen" in nature as those seen in designed products, you can equally express the sentiment in the other direction too.
Incidentally, any chance of you finally providing that method to get you from assertion to evidence? I'd hate for someone to nip in and nab that Templeton prize from under your nose just because of your tardiness!
-
Second, you complained earlier that it would be wrong to argue conceptually agains a designer god because you knew nothing about that god
Again, citation please. Reproduce what I said and then I'll defend it. I'm not going to counter your paraphrase of what I said.
-
Sword,
That was your assertion, not mine. Mine was the simple observation that, if you think A resembles B, then B must resemble A. In your Reply 812 for example you said:
"In terms of the looks like it is designed, more specifically, where there are similar characteristics seen that are present in the things human beings design and make."
And what similar characteristics was I referring to? Feel free to use other posts I've written.
-
NS,
He may well believe that the designer is more complex but he's not stating there must be a designer because of the complexity.
To be fair though, it's hard to know why he thinks there must be a designer. So far as I can tell he's religious, but then using his (mis)understanding of evolution to demonstrate "God" is just circular reasoning (and a god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity to boot). Apart from that though, it just seems to look designed to him but he's given no clues about why it seems that way. If not for complexity, then what?
-
NS,
To be fair though, it's hard to know why he thinks there must be a designer. So far as I can tell he's religious, but then using his (mis)understanding of evolution to demonstrate "God" is just circular reasoning (and a god of the gaps/argument from personal incredulity to boot). Apart from that though, it just seems to look designed to him but he's given no clues about why it seems that way. If not for complexity, then what?
He seems fairly clearly to me to be arguing that things look like they are designed by comparing them to things we know are designed. Indeed you have been arguing against him along that line with no problems, and no mention of complexity.
-
Sword,
Again, citation please. Reproduce what I said and then I'll defend it. I'm not going to counter your paraphrase of what I said.
Look it up for yourself - it was only a few posts ago, and besides you don't need to defend it in any case. I agreed with you: if the logic leads to "designer" then it leads to designer even if you know nothing whatever about that designer. The point I was actually making though was that it's hypocritical to use the very tactic of which you complain: evolutionary theory explains speciation perfectly well even if you know nothing at all about abiogenesis, so dragging something from nothing" into it is a red herring.
-
No surprise here, even Dawkins suggests the apparentness of design is understandable.
Mechanisms are designed and living things resemble mechanisms.
What surprises me is your faux surprise at this.
what surprise have I expressed?
-
Sword,
And what similar characteristics was I referring to? Feel free to use other posts I've written.
No idea because you didn't tell us what you think those similar characteristics to be. The point in logic stands though: if a porpoise has similar characteristics to a dolphin, then axiomatically a dolphin has similar characteristics to a porpoise. If things in nature have similar characteristics to designed good, then designed goods have similar characteristics to things in nature.
Why is this difficult for you?
-
what surprise have I expressed?
many apologies I was trying to comment on the post you were responding to not your response. I shall remove the post.
-
NS,
He seems fairly clearly to me to be arguing that things look like they are designed by comparing them to things we know are designed. Indeed you have been arguing against him along that line with no problems, and no mention of complexity.
Yes but I've also been arguing that it cuts both ways, and moreover he still hasn't told us what he means by "looks like". So far as I can tell it's just crude Paley's watch stuff, but if he has anything more sophisticated than that then it's only fair to allow him to tell us what it is. So far though, no luck.
-
Apart from that though, it just seems to look designed to him but he's given no clues about why it seems that way. If not for complexity, then what?
No surprise here, even Dawkins suggests the apparentness of design is understandable.
Mechanisms are designed and living things resemble mechanisms.
What surprises me is your faux surprise at this.
-
NS,
Yes but I've also been arguing that it cuts both ways, and moreover he still hasn't told us what he means by "looks like". So far as I can tell it's just crude Paley's watch stuff, but if he has anything more sophisticated than that then it's only fair to allow him to tell us what it is. So far though, no luck.
Whether it is sophisticated or not is irrelevant to the point that he isn't saying that complexity is the reason to think of a designer. Indeed as was pointed out by Jeremyp and to an extent agreed with by both torridon and SOTS, design is actually about simplicity.
-
as for that matter is why "He'd" choose a method that looks precisely as you'd expect it to look if there was no god there at all.
Hillside still hasn't told us what he means by "looks precisely as you'd expect". So far as I can tell it's just crude Dawkins ''Darwin made it intellectually respectable to be an atheist'' stuff, but if he has anything more sophisticated than that then it's only fair to allow him to tell us what it is. So far though, no luck.
-
NS,
what surprise have I expressed?
No-one has expressed surprise, faux or otherwise.
-
NS,
Whether it is sophisticated or not is irrelevant to the point that he isn't saying that complexity is the reason to think of a designer. Indeed as was pointed out by Jeremyp and to an extent agreed with by both torridon and SOTS, design is actually about simplicity.
Yes, but if not for complexity (or simplicity) what then is it that he's relying on that over stretches his credulity about it occurring naturally? Paley's watch is a bad argument, long since discounted. If that's all he has, so be it; if though he has something else to bring to the table (whether or not you'd call that more sophisticated) then it would serve him better to do so.
-
NS,
Yes, but if not for complexity (or simplicity) what then is it that he's relying on that over stretches his credulity about it occurring naturally? Paley's watch is a bad argument, long since discounted. If that's all he has, so be it; if though he has something else to bring to the table (whether or not you'd call that more sophisticated) then it would serve him better to do so.
I don't think he's using an argument from incredulity either. He doesn't say it is that it is unbelievable that it could have occurred naturally. Rather all he attempts to do is say that the similarity he sees, and the similarity in how DNA is described, with things that are designed allow for the idea of a designer to be validated. Now I don't see it as a particularly interesting argument, but I don't see that it is sensible to argue against points that he isn't making
-
NS,
I don't think he's using an argument from incredulity either. He doesn't say it is that it is unbelievable that it could have occurred naturally. Rather all he attempts to do is say that the similarity he sees, and the similarity in how DNA is described, with things that are designed allow for the idea of a designer to be validated. Now I don't see it as a particularly interesting argument, but I don't see that it is sensible to argue against points that he isn't making
I'm not - I'm arguing against the conclusions he's drawing.
-
NS,
I'm not - I'm arguing against the conclusions he's drawing.
You suggested he is using the argument by complexity and by incredulity, seems to me he isn't and that by suggesting it, you are precisely arguing against points he isn't making.
-
NS,
You suggested he is using the argument by complexity and by incredulity, seems to me he isn't and that by suggesting it, you are precisely arguing against points he isn't making.
Actually he's certainly done the former ("how did DNA happen then?" etc) but what I was actually doing was trying to get him to tell us what it is about, say, an oak tree that he thinks shares characteristics with, say, a watch such that it leads him to conclude "designer" instead of evolution.
-
NS,
Actually he's certainly done the former ("how did DNA happen then?" etc) but what I was actually doing was trying to get him to tell us what it is about, say, an oak tree that he thinks shares characteristics with, say, a watch such that it leads him to conclude "designer" instead of evolution.
I don't have any issue with you asking him for the characteristics of similarity and haven't questioned that. And I don't think he's saying that because it's hard to believe that DNA happened naturally, rather he's asking why he should believe that it isn't a designer when it looks to have similarities to what he looks on as designed.
-
Well, I just hope this page doesn't become unavailable on my computer before SotS responds!!
-
NS,
I don't have any issue with you asking him for the characteristics of similarity and haven't questioned that. And I don't think he's saying that because it's hard to believe that DNA happened naturally, rather he's asking why he should believe that it isn't a designer when it looks to have similarities to what he looks on as designed.
But again, what "similarities"? Even if there were similarities I don't see how that would help him, but we can't even get to that when he can't or won't tell us what he thinks them to be.
-
Well, I just hope this page doesn't become unavailable on my computer before SotS responds!!
Torridon has stated his position clearly and Nearly Sane (#844, #846, #848) sees where I'm coming from (whether he agrees or not) and has also correctly (in my opinion) identified that bluehillside is arguing against things I haven't said.
Bluehillside hasn't helped himself by refusing to provide citations of what I am supposed to said, and in the single case where he has done so, has only quoted my #812, but ignoring the specific content of my #773, #803 and #806 (for which #812 needs to be seen in context) where the specifics of the comparison I'm making are so clear that other posters can see it (whether they agree or not).
Incidentally, my #776, #803 and #806 may also answer this
But again, what "similarities"? Even if there were similarities I don't see how that would help him, but we can't even get to that when he can't or won't tell us what he thinks them to be.
But there will probably now be a debate about what is meant by similarities. ::)
Edit: Changed 773 to 776
-
NS,
But again, what "similarities"? Even if there were similarities I don't see how that would help him, but we can't even get to that when he can't or won't tell us what he thinks them to be.
As I said in the post you were replying to
'I don't have any issue with you asking him for the characteristics of similarity and haven't questioned that. '
-
Sword,
Torridon has stated his position clearly and Nearly Sane (#844, #846, #848) sees where I'm coming from (whether he agrees or not) and has also correctly (in my opinion) identified that bluehillside is arguing against things I haven't said.
Bluehillside hasn't helped himself by refusing to provide citations of what I am supposed to said, and in the single case where he has done so, has only quoted my #812, but ignoring the specific content of my #773, #803 and #806 (for which #812 needs to be seen in context) where the specifics of the comparison I'm making are so clear that other posters can see it (whether they agree or not).
Incidentally, my #773, #803 and #806 may also answer this
That’s not true. 773 is a post by Sebastian Toe in any case, and I rebutted your 803 and 806. On both occasions though you just ignored the rebuttals (as you generally do by the way).
But there will probably now be a debate about what is meant by similarities.
As there should be given that you’ve used the term but not bothered to tell us what you mean by it. What similarities do you think there to be?
-
Torridon has stated his position clearly and Nearly Sane (#844, #846, #848) sees where I'm coming from (whether he agrees or not) and has also correctly (in my opinion) identified that bluehillside is arguing against things I haven't said.
I think my take boils down to this - that something from nothing is challenging to understand, but something from something more challenging to understand still has effectively negative explanatory value. Ockham's razor suggests my (first) option as the least worst option
-
What similarities do you think there to be?
Classic bluehillsiding again. Say why what I've said in the posts #776, #803, #806 are not similarities, then ask for similarities...
Goodnight.
-
I think my take boils down to this - that something from nothing is challenging to understand, but something from something more challenging to understand still has effectively negative explanatory value. Ockham's razor suggests my (first) option as the least worst option
As ever, I appreciate your honesty and can understand why you have reached this conclusion.
-
Classic bluehillsiding again. Say why what I've said in the posts #776, #803, #806 are not similarities, then ask for similarities...
Goodnight.
I'd have thought my #779 dealt adequately with your #776 and also your #803:I think you are making the same category error in both your posts.
-
There you go again! Asking a question whilst trying to deny the person the method whereby to answer your question.
Stuff people make looks designed: Do human beings design things or not? Do human beings make things or not?
stuff in nature looks designed: Is DNA the blueprint for living organisms, or not?
Can the characteristics of what human beings make (blueprints, instructions, storage of information) be compared with what we know of DNA (blueprint, instructions, storage of information)?
If not, why not?
I think you need to unpack 'looks designed'. You mention three characteristics: blueprints, instructions, storage of information', where the first two allude to plans and I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'information', so that might need some clarification in relation to the objects being compared - something clearly designed by humans and DNA.
I'm fortunate to own several tasty guitars and one of these is one of the most iconic electric guitars: the Fender Stratocaster, which was designed by the late great Leo Fender, and comes with a handbook that contains a blueprint (of how it is assembled) and also instructions for use.
So, in what way is my Strat analogous to DNA?
-
I think my take boils down to this - that something from nothing is challenging to understand, but something from something more challenging to understand still has effectively negative explanatory value. Ockham's razor suggests my (first) option as the least worst option
As ever, I appreciate your honesty and can understand why you have reached this conclusion.
Well if you reach a different conclusion, show your working.
To me it looks like a no-brainer, it looks like a choice between rising to the challenge to understand our reality or failing to rise to that challenge substituting instead a naive falsity of some unseen higher power contriving it all through an act of intentional willpower thereby placing the answers to our deepest questions effectively out of reach behind some fantasy wall of unknowableness. Thinking like this has evolved over time, I would say, it is a very human thing to do granted, but it is not the product of fearless and dogged pursuit of truth through evidence and reason, rather it generally has the character of a strategy of truth-avoidance, like the excuses we make to avoid going to the dentist. We avoid the challenge of understanding our reality in part because we don't want to go there; we'd rather not face up to the nihilist nightmare of a meaningless universe, we can sleep more easily in our beds at night without the existential angst of our mortality, so we set about inducing beliefs to counter those states of mind. Beliefs spread quite often, not because they are true, but more because they hold appeal for the human mind.
-
#859
If only people, SotS and AB in particular would read and actually internalise such rational common sense ...
-
You are assuming that DNA evolved. If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.
How can such a position be a matter of personal opinion ? Unless you are a specialist in those fields of course. As far as I understand the science, DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability. DNA didn't just appear out of nowhere - this is, again, just magic thinking to avoid putting in the hard yards to understand the real provenance of things.
-
For anyone interested in the history of the scientific investigation of abiogenesis (inc. RNA and DNA research) this from the BBC sites covers much of the ground, and although it isn't a quick read it is worth the effort.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161026-the-secret-of-how-life-on-earth-began
-
You are assuming that DNA evolved. If you believe that from something else, DNA evolved to have the ability to to be the blueprint for all living organisms, including the ability to store information and the forethought to hold instructions, fair enough. I don't.
You use the word 'forethought', but this implies planning and purpose. Can you explain why you think DNA can do this?
-
You use the word 'forethought', but this implies planning and purpose. Can you explain why you think DNA can do this?
SOTS
is not qualified to answer this . He can only guess , make assumptions, argue idiotically. His religion has blinded him .Just think about that for a minute. Having a belief so strong it causes you to reject reality. Why would anyone in their right mind
allow themselves to be manipulated in this way?
-
Hi Susan,
You use the word 'forethought', but this implies planning and purpose. Can you explain why you think DNA can do this?
He thinks it essentially for the same reason that a puddle might marvel at the hole he’s in for fitting him so exactly. No matter how many times you explain that evolution is unguided he just ignores the evidence, goes quiet for a bit, then returns with his, “yes, but what are the chances of DNA knowing how to make little ol’ me?” type questions (“forethought” etc).
The answer of course is that’s a 100% certain that DNA would encode for him (and for howler monkeys and for tree ferns etc) because that’s what it does - and had the adaptations been different then it would be 100% certain that DNA would have encoded for whatever different organisms happened to appear.
What’s frustrating here I find is that, rather than try to respond to the argument that undoes him, he just ignores it as if it didn’t exist and repeats his questions from incredulity with no sense that they’re null.
Oh well.
-
DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability.
How did that work? What is the evidence for this if chemicals by definition do not die as such...and if they don't die, how can chemicals become extinct.
I'm afraid without justification this just sounds like an ultradarwinian flight of fancy.
-
Gordon,
I'd have thought my #779 dealt adequately with your #776 and also your #803:I think you are making the same category error in both your posts.
And 778 for that matter. Be nice if he at least tried to engage with the rebuttals that undo him, though I guess repeating his category error instead takes less effort.
-
Spoof,
How did that work? What is the evidence for this if chemicals by definition do not die as such...and if they don't die, how can chemicals become extinct.
I'm afraid without justification this just sounds like an ultradarwinian flight of fancy.
Not "chemicals", combinations of chemicals.
-
Spoof,
Not "chemicals", combinations of chemicals.
combinations? combined how? chemical reaction? That just produces different chemicals
how would it account for some bastardised definition of extinction when chemicals do not die?
I am prepared to be persuaded on this since I understand evolution and even DNA 'evolving' through mutation. But something other than RNA or DNA having once been sounds more like legend.
-
Spoof,
combinations? combined how? chemical reaction? That just produces different chemicals
how would it account for some bastardised definition of extinction when chemicals do not die?
I am prepared to be persuaded on this since I understand evolution and even DNA 'evolving' through mutation. But something other than RNA or DNA having once been sounds more like legend.
Dodos were combinations of chemicals. Dodos are extinct. QED.
-
What’s frustrating here I find is that, rather than try to respond to the argument that undoes him, he just ignores it as if it didn’t exist and repeats his questions from incredulity with no sense that they’re null.
Oh well.
It's not just that he ignores them, I get the impression that he reads them with a slightly* patronising smile, thinking, 'But of course I know better.'
* I refrain from using 'very' here!
-
Spoof,
Dodos were combinations of chemicals. Dodos are extinct. QED.
Blue
I really don't know why you involve yourself in this shit storm. You risk becoming contaminated.
-
Spoof,
Dodos were combinations of chemicals. Dodos are extinct. QED.
No because Torridon was talking about self replicating molecules becoming extinct.
How does a class of self replicating molecules like DNA or RNA become extinct.
I think you are trading on the fact that nobody actually reads atheist posts critically as Walter so demonstrates....
Ah well, perhaps Torridon can explain himself instead of leaving you to ''polish his turds.''
-
Ah well, perhaps Torridon can explain himself instead of leaving you to ''polish his turds.''
By using your own.
-
No because Torridon was talking about self replicating molecules becoming extinct.
How does a class of self replicating molecules like DNA or RNA become extinct.
I think you are trading on the fact that nobody actually reads atheist posts critically as Walter so demonstrates....
Ah well, perhaps Torridon can explain himself instead of leaving you to ''polish his turds.''
Spoof
there are no atheist posts, there are atheist posters.
There are also idiot posters.
-
Spoof,
No because Torridon was talking about self replicating molecules becoming extinct.
How does a class of self replicating molecules like DNA or RNA become extinct.
Oh dear.
-
Spoof,
Oh dear.
that's you best post by far, Blue just leave it at that.
-
Walter,
that's you best post by far, Blue just leave it at that.
You're probably right - why someone would think that natural selection works for dodos but not for self-replicating molecules is anyone's guess, but there's none so blind and all that.
-
Walter,
You're probably right - why someone would think that natural selection works for dodos but not for self-replicating molecules is anyone's guess, but there's none so blind and all that.
Yes we have stuffed Dodos and skeletal remains and fossils of Brontosaurus.....where is the evidence of an 'extinct' class of self replicating molecule as suggested by Torridon?
-
DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability.
Citations are necessary here...
So far there have only been shite-ations on this.
-
Citations are necessary here...
So far there have only been shite-ations on this.
Has this thread simply been a vehicle for you to make that 'joke'
-
Has this thread simply been a vehicle for you to make that 'joke'
Most of the time when somebody says "that was a shite joke" the joke tellers would be a bit disappointed. But for one poster, that comment his one and only goal in life!
-
Most of the time when somebody says "that was a shite joke" the joke tellers would be a bit disappointed. But for one poster, that comment his one and only goal in life!
Do you mean me? My life's ambition is to be funnier than you Seb. My only disappointment is sharing that achievement with everybody else on the planet.
-
Do you mean me? My life's ambition is to be funnier than you Seb. My only disappointment is sharing that achievement with everybody else on the planet.
What, no mention if excrement? You seem to have gone off piste Vlad!
Never one to disappoint though, just for you:
That was a shite joke.
-
It is interesting that the idea of 'blueprint' and 'dna' have been linked together in this discussion. Here is another take on this, which suggests that this metaphor is far too simplistic and should not be one to be taken too literally. Although I haven't read either of the two books mentioned, I find this article quite intriguing.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22630251-000-dna-is-lifes-blueprint-no-theres-far-more-to-it-than-that/
-
It is interesting that the idea of 'blueprint' and 'dna' have been linked together in this discussion. Here is another take on this, which suggests that this metaphor is far too simplistic and should not be one to be taken too literally.
Yes....I blame science journalism and popular science.
-
Yes....I blame science journalism and popular science.
For SOTS's attempts to argue by metaphor?
-
DNA is the preeminent extant survivor of a process of evolution within the world of self replicating molecules in which a form of selection operated with increasingly complex long chain molecules proliferating at the expense of shorter chain ones with inferior information encoding ability.
How did that work? What is the evidence for this if chemicals by definition do not die as such...and if they don't die, how can chemicals become extinct.
I'm afraid without justification this just sounds like an ultradarwinian flight of fancy.
Darwinian evolution by natural selection is really an application of a broader principle to the particular field of biology; in the simpler world of organic chemistry the insatiable bonding appetite of carbon and oxygen in particular sees simpler short chain carbon compounds being absorbed over time into longer chain compounds of greater complexity. These precursor compounds leave no rock-bound fossils for us to study so it is harder for us to reconstruct the ancient pathways that led to the formation of DNA. But DNA is so extraordinarily complex, a landmark in the evolution of complexity on this planet, that there is no way it could have just appeared spontaneously out of nowhere. Figuring out those pathways is the stuff of abiogenesis. One precursor compound, RNA, is still with us, and is involved in gene expression within every cell of your body, and some believe that before DNA there was an 'RNA World' supporting simpler forms of pre life but incapable of the range of function that comes with DNA. We have created self replicating RNA in the lab now, so this is not just science fiction. Here's an article on RNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/#A1133 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/#A1133)
-
Darwinian evolution by natural selection is really an application of a broader principle to the particular field of biology; in the simpler world of organic chemistry the insatiable bonding appetite of carbon and oxygen in particular sees simpler short chain carbon compounds being absorbed over time into longer chain compounds of greater complexity. These precursor compounds leave no rock-bound fossils for us
So it is an unevidenced piece of ultradarwinism then insatiable bonding not equating to evolution in the Darwinian sense.
I notice we have ''created'' self replicating RNA. Irony aside has evolution of this been observed? or evolution INTO this molecule from precursor been observed.
-
Yes....I blame science journalism and popular science.
I'm inclined to agree with you. I would also suggest that those who jump to such conclusions in order to further their own beliefs, without investigating more thoroughly, are also to blame.
-
Torri,
Darwinian evolution by natural selection is really an application of a broader principle to the particular field of biology; in the simpler world of organic chemistry the insatiable bonding appetite of carbon and oxygen in particular sees simpler short chain carbon compounds being absorbed over time into longer chain compounds of greater complexity. These precursor compounds leave no rock-bound fossils for us to study so it is harder for us to reconstruct the ancient pathways that led to the formation of DNA. But DNA is so extraordinarily complex, a landmark in the evolution of complexity on this planet, that there is no way it could have just appeared spontaneously out of nowhere. Figuring out those pathways is the stuff of abiogenesis. One precursor compound, RNA, is still with us, and is involved in gene expression within every cell of your body, and some believe that before DNA there was an 'RNA World' supporting simpler forms of pre life but incapable of the range of function that comes with DNA. We have created self replicating RNA in the lab now, so this is not just science fiction. Here's an article on RNA
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK26876/#A1133
Yup indeed. Worth pointing out that chromosome counts give a big clue to the evolution of DNA too. We have 46 (23 pairs), earthworms 36, goldfish 104. Some species of fern on the other hand have 1,200. Does that mean the goldfish and ferns are in some way more "sophisticated" species than Homo sapiens?
Nope - it just means that they've been around longer so their DNA has had more opportunities to mutate, just as you'd expect in fact with an evolutionary process subject to natural selection.
Funny that.
-
Torri,
Yup indeed. Worth pointing out that chromosome counts give a big clue to the evolution of DNA too. We have 46 (23 pairs), earthworms 36, goldfish 104. Some species of fern on the other hand have 1,200. Does that mean the goldfish and ferns are in some way more "sophisticated" species than Homo sapiens?
Nope - it just means that they've been around longer so their DNA has had more opportunities to mutate, just as you'd expect in fact with an evolutionary process subject to natural selection.
Funny that.
Non sequitur since the article concerns the evolution of self replicating RNA.
-
I'm inclined to agree with you. I would also suggest that those who jump to such conclusions in order to further their own beliefs, without investigating more thoroughly, are also to blame.
Yes and there is the dangerous allure of ''elegance.''
-
Yes and there is the dangerous allure of ''elegance.''
Indeed.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard Feynman
-
Indeed.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard Feynman
he certainly was a fine man
-
Nope - it just means that they've been around longer so their DNA has had more opportunities to mutate, just as you'd expect in fact with an evolutionary process subject to natural selection.
I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Most other apes have 24. That tells us that our ancestors had more chromosomes than us and that two pairs fused together.
-
Indeed.
“It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong.”
― Richard Feynman
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
-
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
You're talking bollocks.
-
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
eh!
tell me more....
-
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
It's not a platitude, it is fundamental to the way science works. When the orbit of Mercury was found not to be consistent with Newton's Theory of Gravity, it was the principle that forced scientists to turn away from Newton's theory and find something better. Newton is as close to a god as science has ever had and yet, when his ideas were found not to be congruent with nature, the problems weren't covered up, instead people went out and found better ones.
So you see it's not a platitude and if you think it is, you fundamentally misunderstand what science is and why it works.
-
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
Not sure what is meant by that. Have any examples to quote ?
-
So it is an unevidenced piece of ultradarwinism then insatiable bonding not equating to evolution in the Darwinian sense.
I notice we have ''created'' self replicating RNA. Irony aside has evolution of this been observed? or evolution INTO this molecule from precursor been observed.
I don't know, probably not, in short. Of course we don't always need to 'observe' something in real time. no one observed zebras evolving from a horse-like ancestor, it's what the extant evidence suggests. This was a pretty stunning piece of fundamental research though in its own right. Trying to recreate possible biochemical conditions of the primordial Earth, the researchers synthesised 100 trillion initial distinct variants of the RNA molecule to find one capable of transcription and replication and after several generations of selection molecules emerged replicating themselves 40,000 times per day. Over a few days they had achieved what might have taken a billion years of random biochemical mixing and selection on early Earth. That in itself is not life, in the fullest sense, but it one of the characterising aspects of life standing on one of several borderlines between chemistry and biology.
-
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
In that case then surely the breakthrough was made because the experiment showed the existing theory to be wrong - which is what Feynman was saying - so really don't see why you would think this a platitude.
-
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
'Unfortunately' for you, it seems you have utterly missed the point Feynman was making.
-
'Unfortunately' for you, it seems you have utterly missed the point Feynman was making.
So, here we have it , a perfect illustration of why some people are religious and others are not. That one sentence has exposed Hopes inability to understand reality and I don't think he does it deliberately. Its like me not understanding Dutch but pretending I do to avoid appearing stupid .
He is unaware of why he's wrong but continues to be wrong with increasing confidence as he's got older because he believes he now has more authority.
Hope, may your god go with you but don't piss up my back and tell me its raining.
-
jeremyp,
I'm afraid that doesn't follow at all. Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes. Most other apes have 24. That tells us that our ancestors had more chromosomes than us and that two pairs fused together.
I think it does - random cell fusion does occur, but so do mistakes during meiosis that increase the number of chromosomal pairs. And for lots of extra chromosonal pairs you need lots of time. That's why ancient ferns have so many more base pairs than we do - they've been around much longer, so have had more opportunities for meiotic copying errors.
-
Hope,
Unfortunately for Feynman, there have been enough occasions when breakthroughs have occurred only after something has 'disagreed with experiment' to make this more of a platitude than a scientific truth.
In which the Hopester shoots himself in the foot with quite spectacular effect.
-
I don't know whether stuff about information and codes is still live, but this is an interesting blog about them.
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html
-
I don't know whether stuff about information and codes is still live, but this is an interesting blog about them.
http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html
Wiggy that was a brilliant link ,thanks
-
I don't know, probably not, in short. Of course we don't always need to 'observe' something in real time. no one observed zebras evolving from a horse-like ancestor,
Yes, but these leave fossil evidence. Your citation itself states these chemicals would have left no fossil evidence so analogy with the evolution of life is futile unless one dabbles in a bit of ultradarwinism.
I draw parallels with your support for this with some string theory advocacy. It's a good theory....and that's all unless a means to test it is found.
-
jeremyp,
I think it does - random cell fusion does occur, but so do mistakes during meiosis that increase the number of chromosomal pairs. And for lots of extra chromosonal pairs you need lots of time. That's why ancient ferns have so many more base pairs than we do - they've been around much longer, so have had more opportunities for meiotic copying errors.
Ferns aren't ancient. They have been evolving for the same amount of time as humans. and earthworms.
-
Yes, but these leave fossil evidence. Your citation itself states these chemicals would have left no fossil evidence so analogy with the evolution of life is futile unless one dabbles in a bit of ultradarwinism.
I draw parallels with your support for this with some string theory advocacy. It's a good theory....and that's all unless a means to test it is found.
The underlying principle of chemical evolution is not controversial, nor is it speculative like string theory, we have understood this since the Miller experiment in the 1950's. What we are not sure of is the full pathways from simple elements to replicating organic compounds of which there are potentially billions. Research on self-replicating RNA at the Scripps Institute is essentially a proof of concept of this process.
-
Walter,
Wiggy that was a brilliant link ,thanks
Yes it is good – it essentially sets out the position I’ve been trying to explain to SOTS, albeit without success. He too confuses information with meaning, or purpose: he marvels at the unlikelihood of DNA producing him or giant redwoods or golden tree frogs just as any other sentient being that evolution might have produced instead that was also given to the reference point error might have marvelled at the unlikelihood of his existence. What are the chances eh?
It’s quite seductive I suppose: “I’m special, the chances of special me coming about by chance are infinitesimally small, therefore it didn’t happen” etc but it’s utterly backwards nonetheless. It’s circular too of course if you want to use your incredulity about evolution as an argument for “God”, while at the same time deciding that it was also this god who intended for you to be the end game all along.
Odd stuff indeed, but there it is: the triumph of solipsism.
-
And also that God is somehow engineering evolution the whole time. As has been said, why would an all-powerful being use such an protracted hit and miss process like this, with many extinctions, mass extinctions, and so on. Why is God so wasteful?
-
jeremy,
Ferns aren't ancient. They have been evolving for the same amount of time as humans. and earthworms.
Well, I'm happy to defer to you on this if the facts bear you out but pretty much every source I access suggests that the ancient-ness (?) of ferns is instrumental in their chromosomal profligacy. Here for example from the UC Santa Barbara science website:
The adder’s tongue fern is generally believed to have the largest number of chromosomes with 1262 compared to human’s 46. However, the number of chromosomes is not a good indicator of complexity. A lot of DNA in bigger genomes, like the ferns, is “junk DNA” and doesn’t actually code for anything useful. Humans on the other hand are more careful with no accumulating junk DNA and therefore have a smaller, more information-dense genome. In fact, the reason that ferns can have so many chromosomes is that they are ancient enough to have accumulated so many chromosomes.
(http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=4976)
-
Wiggs,
And also that God is somehow engineering evolution the whole time. As has been said, why would an all-powerful being use such an protracted hit and miss process like this, with many extinctions, mass extinctions, and so on. Why is God so wasteful?
Yes - that's weirder in a way than straight ahead green-inked creationism: "OK, so evolution happens but there's also a tinkerer God who gives it a nudge from time-to-time in order for it to produce the species he wanted all along". Maybe the answer is that, rather than an intelligent designer, there's a stupid one? God: "Look, making people and octopi and stuff is like, really haaard man, so, you know, the best I can manage is a really rubbish process that wastes bajillions of efforts but hey - it gets there in the end right?"
-
And also that God is somehow engineering evolution the whole time. As has been said, why would an all-powerful being use such an protracted hit and miss process like this, with many extinctions, mass extinctions, and so on. Why is God so wasteful?
if god was an engineer he would have been sacked ages ago (don't remember who first said that)
perhaps god is just a baby , have you seen how wasteful they are?
-
Walter,
Yes it is good – it essentially sets out the position I’ve been trying to explain to SOTS, albeit without success. He too confuses information with meaning, or purpose: he marvels at the unlikelihood of DNA producing him or giant redwoods or golden tree frogs just as any other sentient being that evolution might have produced instead that was also given to the reference point error might have marvelled at the unlikelihood of his existence. What are the chances eh?
It’s quite seductive I suppose: “I’m special, the chances of special me coming about by chance are infinitesimally small, therefore it didn’t happen” etc but it’s utterly backwards nonetheless. It’s circular too of course if you want to use your incredulity about evolution as an argument for “God”, while at the same time deciding that it was also this god who intended for you to be the end game all along.
Odd stuff indeed, but there it is: the triumph of solipsism.
And I can see why you continue to find it necessary to misrepresent my position completely in order to make your point.
Ok, some comments in response to the link below that wigginhall posted:
Who Put it There? Information in DNA (http://reciprocity-giving-something-back.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/who-put-it-there-information-in-dna.html)
The first paragraph:
Among the claims that surface with the regularity of a pulsar are the claims that DNA is a code and, as such, requires the intervention of an intelligence to 'put the information there'. In this post, I want to give a brief treatment of that claim, and show why it doesn't stack up.
No citations. It’s certainly not something that I’ve claimed, nor seen any one else here claim. So already, it appears that the article may be addressing a problem that doesn’t exist!
What the article does do, in my opinion is do a good job of explaining how things happen working with what is already present.
The illustration with the string of 1’s. no argument from me about the increase in information
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
to
11111111101111111110111111111011111111101111111110111111111
01111111110111111111011111111101111111110
As the increase comes from a change in some of the digits. All that is done is built on what exists, namely digits. Now, if you had this:
111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111
1111111111111111111111111111111111111111
to
111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111
X111111111X111111111X111111111X111111111X
That would represent a gain in information. The question would be, where did the X’s come from as they are not digits.
SAND DUNES
Sand dunes exist, and the patterns shown in the photo are created from what is already present, by what is already present.
Forgive me if I skip the dogshit one… :)
Onto what is said about DNA. I found this interesting…
DNA is information in the sense that it informs us about the system, not that it contains a message. It is not a code, more something akin to a cipher, in which the chemical bases are treated as the letters of the language.
From Wikipedia(1): In cryptography, a cipher (or cypher) is an algorithm for performing encryption or decryption—a series of well-defined steps that can be followed as a procedure.
So the objection to the use of a word because it allows some to argue for an intelligent cause is replaced by … a word that allows some to argue for an intelligent cause!!
The article ends thus:
Moving on to the 'genetic code', in DNA, we have the nucleobases Cytosine, Adenine, Guanine and Thymine (In RNA, thymine is replaced by uracil (U)). These are the digital states of DNA. We use only the initial letters in our treatment, CAGT. Further, they come in pairs, with C always pairing with G, and A always pairing with T (or with U in RNA).
From here, we can build up lots of 'words', in that when they pair in certain ordered sequences (no teleology here), they produce specific proteins, that go into building organisms (loosely). The point is that this is all just chemistry, while the code itself is our treatment of it. In other words, the map is not the terrain.
Considering all the criticism I was getting for comparing DNA with the alphabet, musical notes or computer code, the above supports all that I was saying!
But here’s the proverbial elephant in the room: All that is said in that link, every analogy and illustration works with what is already present. What is not addressed is, where did that which is already present come from?
The problem is always going to be, the taking of a process that works with what is already present, to explain how that which is already present came to be. In other words, circular reasoning; assuming evolution to prove evolution.
(1): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cipher
-
SOTS,
And I can see why you continue to find it necessary to misrepresent my position completely in order to make your point.
What misrepresenting do you think I have done? You commit the reference point error over and again, and - so far as I'm aware - you've not even indicated that you're aware of the problem it gives you.
-
SOTS,
That would represent a gain in information.
Nope. If, say, the sequence of unbroken 1s happened to be the code for a safe and the sequence with the Xs in it rendered the lock inoperable the latter would be a reduction in information. Again, you mistake information for purpose or meaning.
-
Wiggs,
Yes - that's weirder in a way than straight ahead green-inked creationism: "OK, so evolution happens but there's also a tinkerer God who gives it a nudge from time-to-time in order for it to produce the species he wanted all along". Maybe the answer is that, rather than an intelligent designer, there's a stupid one? God: "Look, making people and octopi and stuff is like, really haaard man, so, you know, the best I can manage is a really rubbish process that wastes bajillions of efforts but hey - it gets there in the end right?"
You know, Bergson in his Creative Evolution used the eye of the octopus and the pecten (another form of mollusc) as examples of how the 'Life Force' had done its best on that line of evolution to consolidate its ultimate plan (in fact the job was done better than the equivalent human eye). Unfortunately, the 'plan' seems to have got just about everything else wrong on that line of invertebrate evolution :)
-
Sword.
Re, evolution and information;
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
(Typo corrected)
-
Hi Dicky,
You know, Bergson in his Creative Evolution used the eye of the octopus and the pecten (another form of mollusc) as examples of how the 'Life Force' had done its best on that line of evolution to consolidate its ultimate plan (in fact the job was done better than the equivalent human eye). Unfortunately, the 'plan' seems to have got just about everything else wrong on that line of invertebrate evolution :)
Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all? There's also something called convergent evolution (from memory) - disparate organisms arrive at solutions that are analogous but different, the eyes of cephalopods and of mammals being a good example. There was something on the TV the other night that was discussing the way a mammal (I forget which) has found a way on its island to occupy the same niche that woodpeckers occupy in their habitats.
-
The underlying principle of chemical evolution is not controversial, nor is it speculative like string theory, we have understood this since the Miller experiment in the 1950's. What we are not sure of is the full pathways from simple elements to replicating organic compounds of which there are potentially billions. Research on self-replicating RNA at the Scripps Institute is essentially a proof of concept of this process.
Yes it's all good stuff but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?
-
Yes it's all good stuff but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?
Aw - bless. In which Vlad confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Maybe he and Spud should get a room or something?
-
Hi Dicky,
Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all? There's also something called convergent evolution (from memory) - disparate organisms arrive at solutions that are analogous but different, the eyes of cephalopods and of mammals being a good example. There was something on the TV the other night that was discussing the way a mammal (I forget which) has found a way on its island to occupy the same niche that woodpeckers occupy in their habitats.
http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2012/03/lemurs-aye-ayes-mammal-woodpeckers.html
-
Hi Dicky,
Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all?
Because.....to paraphrase Huxley, God must be inordinately fond of people like Dawkins.......evolution is a Dawkins shaped hole...to paraphrase Douglas Adams.
-
Hi Dicky,
Thanks for that. Of course though the same question arises for Bergson: if there was an omniscient god with an ultimate plan then why bother with evolutionary processes at all? There's also something called convergent evolution (from memory) - disparate organisms arrive at solutions that are analogous but different, the eyes of cephalopods and of mammals being a good example. There was something on the TV the other night that was discussing the way a mammal (I forget which) has found a way on its island to occupy the same niche that woodpeckers occupy in their habitats.
Yes indeed! I prefer the convergent evolution explanation.
-
Aw - bless. In which Vlad confuses evolution with abiogenesis. Maybe he and Spud should get a room or something?
Well get a room while you get a life.....
-
NS,
http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2012/03/lemurs-aye-ayes-mammal-woodpeckers.html
The very chaps - thank you.
-
Sword.
Re, evolution and information;
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
(Typo corrected)
Some interesting stuff here. It strikes me that creationists regularly exploit the ambiguity of the term 'information', so that they can equivocate. For example, people use the term to refer to meaning, but of course, in information theory it often does not mean that at all, so that random noise is information. You could say that information is data, so a random mutation adds information.
I keep thinking of the analogy of the TV channel getting interference, as according to Shannon this is a decrease in information, since the channel is degraded, but acc. to Kolmogorov, it is an increase, (I think). The moral is, please define what you mean by information.
-
Some interesting stuff here. It strikes me that creationists regularly exploit the ambiguity of the term 'information', so that they can equivocate. For example, people use the term to refer to meaning, but of course, in information theory it often does not mean that at all, so that random noise is information. You could say that information is data, so a random mutation adds information.
I keep thinking of the analogy of the TV channel getting interference, as according to Shannon this is a decrease in information, since the channel is degraded, but acc. to Kolmogorov, it is an increase, (I think). The moral is, please define what you mean by information.
as in many circumstances, especially for people like me, a definition of terms is very important at the start. Its got me into bother a few times.
-
http://www.scienceminusdetails.com/2012/03/lemurs-aye-ayes-mammal-woodpeckers.html
Interesting and unusual example, NS. The woodcreepers of South America and the treecreepers of the Palearctic and the Nearctic are also good examples of convergent evolution.
-
SOTS,
Considering all the criticism I was getting for comparing DNA with the alphabet, musical notes or computer code, the above supports all that I was saying!
No it doesn't. They're only "words" for you if you happen to think the "language" to be the one intended to make you all along.
Are these words too: wewe ni makosa kabisa?
Actually they are, but only if you've decided first that Swahili is the intended language. That's your problem - if DNA had just happened to produce a completely different but sentient organism that was also given to the reference point error, it too would marvel at the fantastic unlikeliness of DNA's "words" producing little old him.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
-
SOTS,
No it doesn't. They're only "words" for you if you happen to think the "language" to be the one intended to make you all along.
Are these words too: wewe ni makosa kabisa?
Actually they are, but only if you've decided first that Swahili is the intended language. That's your problem - if DNA had just happened to produce a completely different but sentient organism that was also given to the reference point error, it too would marvel at the fantastic unlikeliness of DNA's "words" producing little old him.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
because it terrifies him to think he's been wrong for most of his life and all that that entails OR he is intellectually incapable .
Either way is abhorrent so its better to carry on with the pretence in the hope he can finally ask a question which causes all scientists in the field to rethink what they know.
-
I suppose the ID people want to say that information can only be created by an intelligence, but as we know, they equivocate massively about what information is. For example, atoms contain 'information' about what kind of element they are, and how to interact with other atoms. Are we going to say that this must be intelligently driven? I don't see why.
And IDers will try to compare DNA to a book or an alphabet, so they can then say, see, it's all intelligently created. More equivocation.
-
I suppose the ID people want to say that information can only be created by an intelligence, but as we know, they equivocate massively about what information is. For example, atoms contain 'information' about what kind of element they are, and how to interact with other atoms. Are we going to say that this must be intelligently driven? I don't see why.
And IDers will try to compare DNA to a book or an alphabet, so they can then say, see, it's all intelligently created. More equivocation.
information at this level is simply a technical term which, for instance , could mean the transfer of an electron from one ion to another as in the nitrogen cycle of plants. It doesn't mean the plant now knows more than it did before.
-
Walter,
information at this level is simply a technical term which, for instance , could mean the transfer of an electron from one ion to another as in the nitrogen cycle of plants. It doesn't mean the plant now knows more than it did before.
Yes - "information" is any example of cause and effect within a system, and essentially it's an answer to a question. What Sword does though is to confuse "information" (which does not necessarily require an observer) with "knowledge" (which does). He's every bit as enthralled by the reference point error as Hope is by the negative proof fallacy too - which is why he returns endlessly to the "what are the chances of DNA making me?" line without ever managing to grasp that, as the answer has no significance for his position, it's entirely the wrong question to ask.
Ah well.
-
Walter,
Yes - "information" is any example of cause and effect within a system, and essentially it's an answer to a question. What Sword does though is to confuse "information" (which does not necessarily require an observer) with "knowledge" (which does). He's every bit as enthralled by the reference point error as Hope is by the negative proof fallacy too - which is why he returns endlessly to the "what are the chances of DNA making me?" line without ever managing to grasp that, as the answer has no significance for his position, it's entirely the wrong question to ask.
Ah well.
maybe SOTS is a PLANT in in more than one meaning of the word.
-
#925
Aw - bless. In which Vlad confuses evolution with abiogenesis.
No, he did not.
(emphasis mine)
but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?
Precisely!
It was a similar point to the one I made at the end of my #918:
The problem is always going to be, the taking of a process that works with what is already present, to explain how that which is already present came to be.
Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.
You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?
-
Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.
We don't need an explanation but there will be one (or perhaps there will be several) - meantime, 'don't know' is the holding position while the research continues.
You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?
That would be a straw man, and it seems you are still confusing abiogenesis and evolution - perhaps you've been taking science lessons from ~TW~.
-
SOTS,
No, he did not.
(emphasis mine)
Yes he did
(mistake yours)
Quote from: The Burden of Spoof
but explaining the existence of an evident self replicating molecule by means of the evolution of previous self replicating molecules can't help with the origin of self replicating molecules can it? In other words isn't there a point where the darwinianism has to stop?
Precisely!
It was a similar point to the one I made at the end of my #918:
Precisely wrong. “Darwinianism” – ie, evolution by natural selection – “stops” when there’s nothing on which it can act that’s susceptible to natural selection. That though says nothing whatever about the validity of the theory of evolution itself. If you now want to abandon your incredulity about the TofE and change horses for a discussion about how organic life began at all that’s fine, but you can’t just conflate the two.
Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.
No it isn’t. No-one says that Darwinian evolution was what gave rise to the first organic life.
You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...
Ooh, it's been a while since anyone attempted the god of the gaps fallacy....
Ugg: “So Hagar, I’ve been looking at this thunder stuff. Have you noticed that it only happens when there are black clouds and then it rains afterwards?"
Hagar: “Aw Ugg, you’re not going to go with that "it’s all natural” crap again are you? Really?”
Ugg (slightly abashed): ”Well, you know – everything else we’ve figured out so far is natural – growing trees to build the long boats and all that – so I’m just saying that there are some big clues already about how thunder could happen too."
Hagar: “But why bother with all that? It’s Thor doing it, so obviously that answers everything we need to know about thunder just there."
Ugg: “But “Thor” is just a word – it explains nothing!”
Hagar: “Yeah right - you do have an explanation for thunder then, don’t you...”
…or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?
That’s a lot to get wrong in just a few words. No-one says that evolution is responsible for “something ultimately evolving from nothing” so why even bother with the straw man?
-
Whatever point one chooses to investigate, evolution is assumed to be the cause of how that point was arrived at. If you keep going back far enough, you need an explanation for the start, i.e. abiogenesis, hence the Burden of Spoof’s point.
You do have an explanation for abiogenesis, don’t you...or are you going to tell us that evolution by natural selection is responsible for something ultimately evolving from nothing?
Evolution by natural selection is really just common sense applied to the particular world of biology. That the fittest survive should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is bleedin' obvious surely, on which planet would a slow gazelle stand the same chance of passing on it characteristics as a quick nimble gazelle ? Evolution by natural selection is just the application to biology of the general principle that successful things will proliferate at the expense of less successful things and this more general formulation has wide application, such as for instance in the world of biochemistry where similar principles see increasingly complex organic compounds gradually absorbing smaller simpler less successful ones, a process that leads to replication, one of the main defining characteristics of life, with no recourse to magic.
-
Evolution by natural selection is really just common sense applied to the particular world of biology. That the fittest survive should not come as a surprise to anyone, it is bleedin' obvious surely, on which planet would a slow gazelle stand the same chance of passing on it characteristics as a quick nimble gazelle ? Evolution by natural selection is just the application to biology of the general principle that successful things will proliferate at the expense of less successful things and this more general formulation has wide application, such as for instance in the world of biochemistry where similar principles see increasingly complex organic compounds gradually absorbing smaller simpler less successful ones, a process that leads to replication, one of the main defining characteristics of life, with no recourse to magic.
my understanding of the term survival of the fittest was initially referring to the molecular level , not the creature who those genes were in. tell me if I'm wrong
-
my understanding of the term survival of the fittest was initially referring to the molecular level , not the creature who those genes were in. tell me if I'm wrong
I think the phrase dates back to Darwin's light bulb moment of realising that most species produce many offspring, the reason being that nature is harsh and all but the strongest/fastest/fittest etc will not survive, thus optimising the lineage in the future. He had a talent for coining a phrase and so it has gained usage in wider contexts since.
-
It isn't a coinage of Darwin, it's Herbert Spencer
-
my understanding of the term survival of the fittest was initially referring to the molecular level , not the creature who those genes were in. tell me if I'm wrong
Are you not both correct.
The genes express themselves in body attributes, and are selected by their ability to create a body that fits its environment?
-
Are you not both correct.
The genes express themselves in body attributes, and are selected by their ability to create a body that fits its environment?
as in snot balls that hang from the ceilings of dark caves, nice!
-
Walter,
It isn't a coinage of Darwin, it's Herbert Spencer
It's also something of a misnomer because people sometimes think that "fittest" must mean "fastest", "sharpest-eyed" etc whereas in fact it means something closer to "best adapted to the environmental niche it occupies". Thus previously sighted species will become blind when they live underground, while other characteristics will enhance.
-
Walter,
It's also something of a misnomer because people sometimes think that "fittest" must mean "fastest", "sharpest-eyed" etc whereas in fact it means something closer to "best adapted to the environmental niche it occupies". Thus previously sighted species will become blind when they live underground, while other characteristics will enhance.
and even that environmental niche is at the molecular level , I think.
-
Walter,
and even that environmental niche is at the molecular level , I think.
Yes:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_evolution
-
give us a chance to evaluate your claims once and for all, we might even get some converts.
off you go..
Just looking at our new grandson, I have to say that surely the miracle of new life is all the evidence you will ever need.
-
Just looking at our new grandson, I have to say that surely the miracle of new life is all the evidence you will ever need.
And when my cousin died at 7 hours after she was born? Your god likes to kill children.
-
And when my cousin died at 7 hours after she was born? Your god likes to kill children.
The one thing that is certain is that we all have to die at some time. The timing and manner of our death may not be what we would expect or hope for, but we cant see the bigger picture. We tend to put much emphasis on our earthly existence, which is all we can perceive with our physical senses. But God has given us a spiritual sense which many of us try to suppress, but our spiritual perception may help us to see that there is far more to our existence than our short earthly life.
-
The one thing that is certain is that we all have to die at some time. . timing and manner of our death may not be what we would expect or hope for, but we cant see the bigger picture. We tend to put much emphasis on our earthly existence, which is all we can perceive with our physical senses. But God has given us a spiritual sense which many of us try to suppress, but our spiritual perception may help us to see that there is far more to our existence than our short earthly life.
Mmm so what you take from my cousin dying, is that I'm lying about my 'spiritual perception'. Sorry, Alan, but wrong.
-
... We tend to put much emphasis on our earthly existence, which is all we can perceive with our physical senses. But God has given us a spiritual sense which many of us try to suppress...
Why would anyone want to suppress their spiritual sense ?
... but our spiritual perception may help us to see that there is far more to our existence than our short earthly life.
Is the same true for giraffes and haddock ?
-
torri,
Is the same true for giraffes and haddock ?
No, because to make it all work he's magicked up a little man at the controls he calls a "soul" that is in some unexplained way free of the constraints of cause and effect, but that also has a hotline to this "spiritual sense". So far as I can tell, he's also decided that people have these "souls" but that other creatures don't, though how for example elephants can show every sign of grieving for their dead without souls of their own he's yet to tell us.
All he has to do to complete the picture is to look for examples of sugar and spice and all things nice and to claim them as evidence for "God", but suddenly to remember he has an appointment elsewhere when someone points out that we also experience lots of things that aren't very nice at all.
Job done!
-
torri,
No, because to make it all work he's magicked up a little man at the controls he calls a "soul" that is in some unexplained way free of the constraints of cause and effect,
But somehow, according to you, we have Nature which seems to be free from the constrains of cause and effect....oh, sorry, we're waiting for science to invent the machine which has the answers......which favour your ideas.
Seems to me you are trying to sneak 'memes' in again
-
I do credit you though with the invention of 'The Hillside Device'' a hypothetical machine, technique or means which will, in the future, confirm whatever proposal you put forward.
-
torri,
No, because to make it all work he's magicked up a little man at the controls he calls a "soul" that is in some unexplained way free of the constraints of cause and effect, but that also has a hotline to this "spiritual sense". So far as I can tell, he's also decided that people have these "souls" but that other creatures don't, though how for example elephants can show every sign of grieving for their dead without souls of their own he's yet to tell us.
All he has to do to complete the picture is to look for examples of sugar and spice and all things nice and to claim them as evidence for "God", but suddenly to remember he has an appointment elsewhere when someone points out that we also experience lots of things that aren't very nice at all.
Job done!
I rather think you are caricaturing the position here.
I don't think the Bible elevates mankind above the creation and we are only ever taken to that level as ''adopted sons of God''.
That said even Dawkins admits that through intelligence and creativity in it's broadest sense we have transcended evolution which you either see as the key and overarching driver of human change or you don't.
-
Just looking at our new grandson, I have to say that surely the miracle of new life is all the evidence you will ever need.
Well, congratulations on that, but by the same token, the spectacle of young children dying all over the world, could be taken as evidence for an evil God, could it not?
-
The one thing that is certain is that we all have to die at some time. The timing and manner of our death may not be what we would expect or hope for, but we cant see the bigger picture. We tend to put much emphasis on our earthly existence, which is all we can perceive with our physical senses. But God has given us a spiritual sense which many of us try to suppress, but our spiritual perception may help us to see that there is far more to our existence than our short earthly life.
So, let me get this right, your spiritual perception is alive and well, and giving you plenty of information about God's beneficence, but other people's spiritual sense has been suppressed, so that they object to young children dying. But you know better. Gosh, this theology business is clever, isn't it?
-
So, let me get this right, your spiritual perception is alive and well, and giving you plenty of information about God's beneficence, but other people's spiritual sense has been suppressed, so that they object to young children dying. But you know better. Gosh, this theology business is clever, isn't it?
And yet on another thread another laddy is proposing that true human courage is found in an acceptance of life's unfairness. Gosh this atheism business is clever isn't it?
Of course we want all children to survive and no doubt all that is wanting is redistribution of resources for that and the political will for that.
-
... we have transcended evolution which you either see as the key and overarching driver of human change or you don't.
The word 'transcend' and its various forms seems to crop up quite a lot both here and on other forums. Can you say what you are thinking of here when you use it?
-
The word 'transcend' and its various forms seems to crop up quite a lot both here and on other forums. Can you say what you are thinking of here when you use it?
Here I am using the definition ''No longer subject to the rules and regulation of Darwinian evolution....changes in the human condition due to factors which are other than Darwinian....for instances rapid changes and innovations due to intelligence''.
-
And yet on another thread another laddy is proposing that true human courage is found in an acceptance of life's unfairness. Gosh this atheism business is clever isn't it?
Of course we want all children to survive and no doubt all that is wanting is redistribution of resources for that and the political will for that.
I can't see any connection between my criticisms of AB's points and your post. I know that you start to talk about atheism as a kind of reflex gesture, but I wasn't. I was talking about AB's argument that a good spiritual sense will tell us how God is good, and childbirth manifests this. But what about children dying? What does that tell us about God - that he is evil, maybe.
-
Just looking at our new grandson, I have to say that surely the miracle of new life is all the evidence you will ever need.
For you, perhaps. For me, and I have two children(one of whom I helped deliver) and 5 grandchildren, no evidence at all. :)
-
For you, perhaps. For me, and I have two children(one of whom I helped deliver) and 5 grandchildren, no evidence at all. :)
Interesting that AB said 'all the evidence that you will ever need'. But this is not true, as you say. Plenty of people will not see a new child as evidence of God. AB then says that some people's spiritual sense has been suppressed. That sounds like the old Christian arrogance, that I know these spiritual truths, but you are blind to them. However, I can help you with this, if you would just accept my ropy old arguments which were second hand when Aristotle was a nipper.
-
Interesting that AB said 'all the evidence that you will ever need'. But this is not true, as you say. Plenty of people will not see a new child as evidence of God. AB then says that some people's spiritual sense has been suppressed. That sounds like the old Christian arrogance, that I know these spiritual truths, but you are blind to them. However, I can help you with this, if you would just accept my ropy old arguments which were second hand when Aristotle was a nipper.
Yes, I know. I also love the way he hives off the word 'spirituality' exclusively for his own use and people who think like him, assuming, quite incorrectly I would say, that in some peculiar way anyone who doesn't think like him is somehow suppressing their own 'spirituality'. Personally, at the moment, I'm listening to the Graceland LP by Paul Simon, and find its effect to be quite'spiritual' in a homely kind of way. :)
-
And when my cousin died at 7 hours after she was born? Your god likes to kill children.
How do you see the hand of God in this sad occurrence?
Or do you believe that the fact there was no divine intervention to save her life, means that God killed her?
We're back to, "Why doesn't God stop...?".
Christians, and others, accept that we live in a world where good and bad things happen.
That isn't going to change.
How we deal with both is what is important.
-
How do you see the hand of God in this sad occurrence?
Or do you believe that the fact there was no divine intervention to save her life, means that God killed her?
We're back to, "Why doesn't God stop...?".
Christians, and others, accept that we live in a world where good and bad things happen.
That isn't going to change.
How we deal with both is what is important.
Yeah, but this is in reply to AB, who claims to see God's love in the birth of a child. It seems reasonable then to ask about the death of a child - what does this show? That God killed her, or just let it happen, or what?
I think it's a lucky dip - God sort of spins the roulette wheel, and your kid may live or die. It's more exciting this way.
-
I can't see it quite that way, Wigginhall.
-
I can't see it quite that way, Wigginhall.
Well, neither do I. But once somebody says, 'I see God's love in situation X', then surely they are faced with other questions about situations Y and Z. So once AB says that a child's birth is evidence of God, the questions are bound to come, e.g. about a child's death. If you say that God is not involved there, then that suggests that sometimes God is involved, and sometimes is not. OK. God is hit and miss.
-
Well, neither do I. But once somebody says, 'I see God's love in situation X', then surely they are faced with other questions about situations Y and Z. So once AB says that a child's birth is evidence of God, the questions are bound to come, e.g. about a child's death. If you say that God is not involved there, then that suggests that sometimes God is involved, and sometimes is not. OK. God is hit and miss.
Some people seem to see other people's misfortunes as a reason not to believe in God, because He is expected to intervene to prevent such misfortunes, if He exists. But if God did intervene to prevent all misfortunes, it would not be seen as intervention, but something natural. Intervention by definition can only be defined or detected when compared with things which are allowed to occur naturally. And if God did intervene in every case of potential misfortune, human ingenuity would no doubt come up with some theory as to how everything happens naturally. I do not claim to know what ultimately causes other people's misfortune, or why they are allowed to occur, but I know that God can help bring something good from them if we put our trust in Him.
-
Well, neither do I. But once somebody says, 'I see God's love in situation X', then surely they are faced with other questions about situations Y and Z. So once AB says that a child's birth is evidence of God, the questions are bound to come, e.g. about a child's death. If you say that God is not involved there, then that suggests that sometimes God is involved, and sometimes is not. OK. God is hit and miss.
I don't know how you feel about people giving personal examples, wigginhall, I'm reluctant to do that but this story came to mind and seems relevant:
My friend, Elaine, died aged 57. She had been diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer fifteen months before.
She had two operations, lots of treatment, then she faded and died.
I was closely involved with her and her husband during Elaine's illness and remember her saying to me, "We've found out more about God's love during my illness than ever before".
Never forgotten that.
-
Never forgotten that.
In a good or bad way?
-
Some people seem to see other people's misfortunes as a reason not to believe in God, because He is expected to intervene to prevent such misfortunes, if He exists.....
I don't think we need reasons to not believe, rather we need positive reasons to justify belief. That's in part why I am here, perennially baffled as to why this belief is so widespread, and the reasons perhaps are many, and Wiggs shows one example quite neatly here, that belief can derive from a simple habit of mind that is selective rather than balanced. Whenever good things happen, Praise the Lord, but when bad things happen, we don't likewise blame the Lord. A habitual prejudice in operation.
-
I don't think we need reasons to not believe, rather we need positive reasons to justify belief. That's in part why I am here, perennially baffled as to why this belief is so widespread, and the reasons perhaps are many, and Wiggs shows one example quite neatly here, that belief can derive from a simple habit of mind that is selective rather than balanced. Whenever good things happen, Praise the Lord, but when bad things happen, we don't likewise blame the Lord. A habitual prejudice in operation.
A caricature view of religion if ever there was one. In any case people like yourself are the first to write off God blamers as theists.
-
A caricature view of religion if ever there was one. In any case people like yourself are the first to write off God blamers as theists.
I suppose you are right in a sense; I remember the appalling comments of some American tele-evangelists following the Asian tsunami, seemingly happy to equate such events with God's vengence on Thai bar girls. A much more obnoxious class of theist, that.
-
There was some of that after the New Orleans flooding, Torridon. Including a couple of people on forums. Quite distasteful.
-
I don't think we need reasons to not believe, rather we need positive reasons to justify belief ...
The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief. Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves? Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?
-
The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief. Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves? Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?
Both.
-
I'm not sure that everyone is capable of belief, or non-belief.
(Seb, answering your question in a previous post, in a good way.)
-
The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief. Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves? Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?
I don't see how that follows.
Does it follow that if one is capable of believing something, it therefore must be true ? Beliefs can be mistaken.
Does it follow that because sentient beings capable of thought with a sense of self exist they must have been made by some sort of higher such being ?
I don't see how that follows. These are not reasons, they are non-sequiturs.
-
I don't know how you feel about people giving personal examples, wigginhall, I'm reluctant to do that but this story came to mind and seems relevant:
My friend, Elaine, died aged 57. She had been diagnosed with advanced colorectal cancer fifteen months before.
She had two operations, lots of treatment, then she faded and died.
I was closely involved with her and her husband during Elaine's illness and remember her saying to me, "We've found out more about God's love during my illness than ever before".
Never forgotten that.
Yes...I can understand that. During trying times we can feel the presence of a Higher Being very clearly. During happy times the Ego is in the forefront and the Higher Self goes into the background.
Trials and tribulations are Natures way of forcing the Ego self into the background and of bringing the Higher Self into the forefront.
We are not here just for the Ego self to have a happy time....and God/Higher Self is not obligated to keep that happiness going all the time. Any happiness that the Ego feels is a carrot dangled by the Higher Self to make it go in a particular direction. That direction will eventually lead to the Ego's own erosion which is never liked by the Ego, obviously. But that's the way it is.
-
The positive reason is that you are capable of belief, or non belief. Just ask yourself, what is it that believes or disbelieves? Is it just some deterministic chemical reaction driven by the unintelligent forces of nature, or is it you?
Can you prove that they are not the same thing?
-
Can you prove that they are not the same thing?
It is not possible to prove the existence of supernatural if you restrict evidence to what is perceived to be natural. But you can look at the logical pointers which suggest the existence of something supernatural which can't be defined in material terms, such as conscious perception and free will. Of course you can dismiss the idea of such pointers by claiming that there is no evidence, but in dismissing them you could also be dismissing the opportunity to discover the truth and acquire the most precious gift anyone could ever possess.
-
It is not possible to prove the existence of supernatural if you restrict evidence to what is perceived to be natural. But you can look at the logical pointers which suggest the existence of something supernatural which can't be defined in material terms, such as conscious perception and free will. Of course you can dismiss the idea of such pointers by claiming that there is no evidence, but in dismissing them you could also be dismissing the opportunity to discover the truth and acquire the most precious gift anyone could ever possess.
Your incredulity is not a method!
-
I don't see how that follows.
Does it follow that if one is capable of believing something, it therefore must be true ? Beliefs can be mistaken.
I think you have misunderstood my point. It is the concept of being able to believe in something, not the subject of the belief, which I claim is not capable of being defined by the unguided unintelligent forces of nature.
-
Your incredulity is not a method!
Which is precisely the point I was making. By insisting on your idea of "method", you may miss the truth.
-
It is not possible to prove the existence of supernatural if you restrict evidence to what is perceived to be natural. But you can look at the logical pointers which suggest the existence of something supernatural which can't be defined in material terms, such as conscious perception and free will. Of course you can dismiss the idea of such pointers by claiming that there is no evidence, but in dismissing them you could also be dismissing the opportunity to discover the truth and acquire the most precious gift anyone could ever possess.
So you can't, and therefore the choice you offered was meaningless.
-
Which is precisely the point I was making. By insisting on your idea of "method", you may miss the truth.
I am asking for your method. Your incredulity isn't one. You are just sating you think you are right because you think you are right. This is illogical
-
AB,
Which is precisely the point I was making. By insisting on your idea of "method", you may miss the truth.
But without a method to investigate and test your beliefs, how would you know whether or not they are true?
-
AB,
But without a method to investigate and test your beliefs, how would you know whether or not they are true?
My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.
I suspect that my method would not meet with your approval, but I do wish you would try it.
-
My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.
I suspect that my method would not meet with your approval, but I do wish you would try it.
That's not really what is meant by method in this context. That is more akin to mind-training or self-development techniques, it is personal rather than objective. If you take a young lad, start him on a regime of daily reading and reciting the Qur'an, by the time is is 18 he likely will be a god-fearing devout muslim. What you suggest comes from that stable, it is more mind training than an objective method to establish epistemic truth. What objective methods are there ?
-
My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.
I suspect that my method would not meet with your approval, but I do wish you would try it.
If someone does read the scriptures with an open mind and the result is not enlightenment with the truth?
I suspect that you will not be claiming that as proof of the non existence of your god or the failure of your method!
-
That's not really what is meant by method in this context. That is more akin to mind-training or self-development techniques, it is personal rather than objective. If you take a young lad, start him on a regime of daily reading and reciting the Qur'an, by the time is is 18 he likely will be a god-fearing devout muslim. What you suggest comes from that stable, it is more mind training than an objective method to establish epistemic truth. What objective methods are there ?
I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth. If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone? You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation. And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.
-
I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth. If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone? You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation. And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.
Why not?
What if I read it with an open mind, and conclude it is nonsense?
You are simply claiming you are right because you think you are right. This is pointless.
-
I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth. If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone? You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation. And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.
just to note that you are begging the question that the truth you are talking about exists. Why do you use so many logical fallacies? Here's a suggestion, next time when you are praying to your god to find your contact lens, while children die in pain, ask him to help you avoid the logical fallacies in your posts.
BTW have you read the Qu'ran with an open mind?
-
AB,
I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth. If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone? You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation. And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.
You're missing the point. You've just assumed that the Bible is true, and that the problem is that people don't approach it with an "open mind". You need to back up a bit - the question concerns what method you use to determine that the Bible is true in the first place, and for that matter that the Qur'an isn't.
And no, neither you personal incredulity about the facts we know about the world and nor your "faith" constitute methods.
-
just to note that you are begging the question that the truth you are talking about exists. Why do you use so many logical fallacies?
Is it a fallacy to say that I have discovered the reality of God's love?
-
Is it a fallacy to say that I have discovered the reality of God's love?
That depends on the arguments you use to support your claims of discovery: and to date they include begging the question (as NS points out) and your oft noted descent into personal incredulity (among other fallacies).
So, yes - your 'discovery' looks to be based on fallacious reasoning.
-
AB,
Is it a fallacy to say that I have discovered the reality of God's love?
Yes. Believing and discovering are not the same thing - if you want to elevate the former to the latter, then just asserting it to be so is fallacious.
-
AB,
You're missing the point. You've just assumed that the Bible is true, and that the problem is that people don't approach it with an "open mind". You need to back up a bit - the question concerns what method you use to determine that the Bible is true in the first place
Having never approached the Bible from the viewpoint of a non believer, I can't give a personal witness to discovering its truth. I can only quote many personal testimonies from other people who have come to know God through these divinely inspired words.
So from the sceptic point of view, how could you show that the message of the New Testament does not reveal the truth?
-
AB,
Having never approached the Bible from the viewpoint of a non believer, I can't give a personal witness to discovering its truth. I can only quote many personal testimonies from other people who have come to know God through these divinely inspired words.
So from the sceptic point of view, how could you show that the message of the New Testament does not reveal the truth?
How could you show that the message of the Qu'ran does not reveal the truth?
-
AB,
How could you show that the message of the Qu'ran does not reveal the truth?
If the Bible does reveal the truth, your question has no relevance. There is only one truth.
-
If the Bible does reveal the truth, your question has no relevance. There is only one truth.
As usual, you have avoided answering the question.
-
As usual, you have avoided answering the question.
I know of several Muslim converts who will testify that the Qu'ran does not reveal the reality of God's love which they discovered in reading the New Testament.
-
AB,
If the Bible does reveal the truth, your question has no relevance. There is only one truth.
If it does, you're probably right. How would you propose to demonstrate that "if"?
Do you even comprehend the problem you've given yourself here?
-
Is it a fallacy to say that I have discovered the reality of God's love?
Now you are misrepresenting what was said and begging the question again.
-
Having never approached the Bible from the viewpoint of a non believer, I can't give a personal witness to discovering its truth. I can only quote many personal testimonies from other people who have come to know God through these divinely inspired words.
So from the sceptic point of view, how could you show that the message of the New Testament does not reveal the truth?
Ignoring the NPF, might it be that you and these others are quite simply wrong - and even here your 'have come to know God through these divinely inspired words' has you using even more fallacies.
-
I know of several Muslim converts who will testify that the Qu'ran does not reveal the reality of God's love which they discovered in reading the New Testament.
Being selective again Alan, there will be many muslims claiming the opposite - Islam is growing at the expense of Christianity not just because of birth rates and such like, it is fuelled by faith conversions which are overwhelmingly in the direction of Christianity to Islam. You need to take your 'I am always right' confirmation bias blinkers off to see things as they actually are.
-
I was not suggesting indoctrination, just reading the Christian bible with an open mind to allow the word of God to reveal the truth. If the truth is revealed to us by the message of the bible, how could you possibly discover that truth by scientific investigation alone? You will never discover God's love in scientific investigation. And you will not find it in the Qur'an either.
Your bias showing again. Maybe you never read the Qur'an with a similarly 'open' mind; I've certainly met muslims full of elation and joy gained through their faith rather like you find through yours. A journey to personal enlightenment is personal, it seems, there is no one-size fits all route as every person is different.
-
I know of several Muslim converts who will testify that the Qu'ran does not reveal the reality of God's love which they discovered in reading the New Testament.
And here is proof of someone who feels better for making the opposite journey.
https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2010/08/09/confessions-of-a-convert-to-islam/5094
So now you know that there are others who do not feel the way that you do.
-
And here is proof of someone who feels better for making the opposite journey.
https://www.onfaith.co/onfaith/2010/08/09/confessions-of-a-convert-to-islam/5094
So now you know that there are others who do not feel the way that you do.
An interesting testimony from someone who genuinely sought God, but was disillusioned with Christianity, mainly because of corruption within the church by people who were exploiting it for their own use rather than following Christ's teachings.
I must admit that I am puzzled as to how the Muslim faith accepts Jesus and Mary as part of their faith, but fails to recognise the central message that Jesus is our Saviour. The Qu'ran may be full of poetic verse about how to live our lives, but fails to grasp the central concept that: God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
-
AB,
An interesting testimony from someone who genuinely sought God, but was disillusioned with Christianity, mainly because of corruption within the church by people who were exploiting it for their own use rather than following Christ's teachings.
I must admit that I am puzzled as to how the Muslim faith accepts Jesus and Mary as part of their faith, but fails to recognise the central message that Jesus is our Saviour. The Qu'ran may be full of poetic verse about how to live our lives, but fails to grasp the central concept that: God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
It's perfectly possible to "grasp" a claim without believing it to be true - especially when people like you fail to provide a method of any kind to indicate that it is true. (And no, typing something in bold does not constitute an argument.)
-
My method would involve reading the scriptures with an open mind, allowing the word of God to enlighten you to the truth.
I originally did that when I was but a callow lad and accepted what the scriptures were supposed to be saying. Later in life, I still tried to read with an open mind, but was met with a mass of irreconcilable contradictions.
The clincher for my unbelief, though - as I've mentioned before - was the total absence of any sense of a caring God in my lowest moments, when a sense of such a presence might have made a considerable difference.
-
I must admit that I am puzzled as to how the Muslim faith accepts Jesus and Mary as part of their faith, but fails to recognise the central message that Jesus is our Saviour. The Qu'ran may be full of poetic verse about how to live our lives, but fails to grasp the central concept that: God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through Him.
I think the take home message is that spiritual bliss can arise out of the practice of a faith; the particular detailed content of the underlying beliefs to an extent are not so important. When one of my muslim friends came back from haaj, she was as if walking on air for weeks afterwards, so uplifted was she by the experience. I've never been on a haaj myself although I have done a catholic equivalent - I went to Lourdes a couple of months ago, took part in all the candlelight Marian processions, and I saw reflected in the faces of the pilgrims there the same devotional peacefulness that I saw in my muslim friend. My conclusion is that it must be the practice of a faith that delivers, rather the content of the beliefs.
-
torri,
I think the take home message is that spiritual bliss can arise out of the practice of a faith; the particular detailed content of the underlying beliefs to an extent are not so important. When one of my muslim friends came back from haaj, she was as if walking on air for weeks afterwards, so uplifted was she by the experience. I've never been on a haaj myself although I have done a catholic equivalent - I went to Lourdes a couple of months ago, took part in all the candlelight Marian processions, and I saw reflected in the faces of the pilgrims there the same devotional peacefulness that I saw in my muslim friend. My conclusion is that it must be the practice of a faith that delivers, rather the content of the beliefs.
I wonder if the pleasurable feelings from thinking about God, Allah etc at an impressionable age aren't embedded and then triggered later on whenever the same thought occurs as a self-induced dopamine kick reward sensation. All the subject has to do is to create a narrative that he's experiencing "God's love" or similar when it happens, and Robert's yer aunty's husband.
I remember for example the thrill of just thinking of Father Christmas when I was a nipper - it doesn't seem much of a stretch to me to think that something similar could happen in later life for those who still believe in their various myths.
-
I must admit that I am puzzled as to how the Muslim faith accepts Jesus and Mary as part of their faith, but fails to recognise the central message that Jesus is our Saviour.
And equally there will be Muslims who are puzzled as to why you fail to grasp that Mohammed was the last Prophet sent to mankind.
-
I must admit that I am puzzled as to how the Muslim faith accepts Jesus and Mary as part of their faith, but fails to recognise the central message that Jesus is our Saviour.
And equally there will be Muslims who are puzzled as to why you fail to grasp that Mohammed was the last Prophet sent to mankind.
There is no equally unless Mohammed is also part of the Christian faith.
-
SOTS,
There is no equally unless Mohammed is also part of the Christian faith.
Yes there is - they're both faith claims, and epistemically therefore the same.
-
Yes there is - they're both faith claims, and epistemically therefore the same.
Which just shows that you don't understand the point Alan Burns was making in his #1015. Feel free to prove me wrong below...
-
Which just shows that you don't understand the point Alan Burns was making in his #1015. Feel free to prove me wrong below...
Shifting the burden of proof (which I now hear to the sound of Ultravox, Dancing with Tears in My Eyes)again. Your claim, your fallacy
-
There is no equally unless Mohammed is also part of the Christian faith.
Thev"equally" referred to the fact that both parties would be puzzled regarding the claims of the other. Not the veracity or otherwise of the claims themselves.
-
SOTS,
Which just shows that you don't understand the point Alan Burns was making in his #1015. Feel free to prove me wrong below...
You really do love this shifting of the burden of proof thing don't you. If you think I don't understand something AB said then it's for you to demonstrate that, not for me to falsify your unargued assertion.
-
Thev"equally" referred to the fact that both parties would be puzzled regarding the claims of the other. Not the veracity or otherwise of the claims themselves.
So if we leave the word "puzzled" out and just stick to the facts.
Christianity came before Islam, but while Islam accepts some teachings of Jesus, it ignores crucifixion, claiming it never happened, but without any justification for doing so. We once had some Muslim women visiting our local church. All was going well until they came to a crucifix, when one of the women pointed to it and said out loud "That is a lie". I admire the sincerity, morality and devoutness in the Muslim faith, but I could never regard Islam on an equal footing with Christianity.
-
So if we leave the word "puzzled" out and just stick to the facts.
Christianity came before Islam, but while Islam accepts some teachings of Jesus, it ignores crucifixion, claiming it never happened, but without any justification for doing so.
Are we talking the crucifixion story of the resurrection story here? Many might agree that there may well have been a person on which the Jesus character is portrayed, and that this person was crucified, but not that the resurrection claim is justified by the anecdotal accounts in the NT (given the risks of mistakes or lies in these accounts).
We once had some Muslim women visiting our local church. All was going well until they came to a crucifix, when one of the women pointed to it and said out loud "That is a lie".
They may have a point though in that in all anecdotal accounts there is a risk of lies (and mistakes), so it would be essential to exclude these: how did you counter their doubts?
I admire the sincerity, morality and devoutness in the Muslim faith, but I could never regard Islam on an equal footing with Christianity.
That would be due to your personal biases: no doubt Muslims would have a similar view of Christianity.
-
AB,
...just stick to the facts.
...but while Islam accepts some teachings of Jesus, it ignores crucifixion, claiming it never happened, but without any justification for doing so
That's not a fact. While Muslims may well recognise that lots of people were crucified, their justification for not recognising the resurrection is that there's insufficient reason and evidence to think it to be true. A Muslim may equally say that, as you fail to recognise Mohammed's ascent on a winged horse, he could never recognise Christianity as having an equal footing to Islam.
-
So if we leave the word "puzzled" out and just stick to the facts.
Christianity came before Islam, but while Islam accepts some teachings of Jesus, it ignores crucifixion, claiming it never happened, but without any justification for doing so.
Here is justification, which if you had read and understood the Quran with a open heart and mind, you would have understood.
Having explained so many general principles on the subject of life and death, it was not necessary that the Holy Quran should speak specifically of the death of Jesus. Nevertheless, Almighty God has particularly mentioned Jesus’ death in the Quran. When the Jews succeeded in their plans to have Jesus sentenced to crucifixion, he prayed to God to be delivered from this fate, and was answered by Him thus :
"O Jesus, I will cause you to die, and exalt you to My presence, and clear you of those who disbelieve and make those who follow you above those who disbelieve till the day of Judgment." (3:54)
Here God made with Jesus four promises:
"Cause you to die" (tawaffa), i.e., Jesus would not be killed by the Jews, but would die a natural death.
"Exalt you in My presence" (raf‘a), i.e., he would not be crucified, which the Jews sought to do to prove him accursed, but rather he would receive Divine nearness. In fact, raf‘a is the opposite of wad‘a, the latter meaning disgrace and the former meaning honouring.
"Clear you of those who disbelieve" (tathir), i.e., he would be cleared of the Jews’ allegations against him, as he was by the Holy Prophet Muhammad.
"Make those who follow you above those who disbelieve till the day of Judgement", i.e. his followers would forever have the upper hand over his rejectors.
The above verse proves that Jesus has died, for raf‘a (exaltation to God’s presence) is attained only after death when all the material veils have been removed. Every righteous person is granted raf‘a to God after his death. The Holy Prophet has said:
"When a believer nears death, angels come to him. So if he is righteous, they say: ‘O pure soul! leave, you were in a pure body’ … So that pure soul comes out, then they take it to the heavens and its gates are opened for it." (Mishkat).
Hence, whenever a righteous individual dies, the angels take his soul up to heaven. The very same happened in Jesus’ case, so that after his death it was his soul that was raised to heaven, and he joined the ranks of the righteous among the dead.
Thus God fulfilled all the above promises in order: He rescued Jesus from the hands of the Jews, and eventually granted him a natural death; after his death, God honoured his soul with Divine nearness; He cleared him of the Jews’ allegations against him through the Holy Prophet Muhammad (may peace and the blessings of Allah be upon him) and He gave Jesus’ followers the upper hand over his rejectors
-
Here is justification, which if you had read and understood the Quran with a open heart and mind, you would have understood. .......
Yes, I understand what the Quran says about Jesus being spared from crucifixion. But I am not aware of any historical evidence to back it up. (In addition to the eye witness accounts in the Gospels, there are Roman records which back up the story of Jesus' crucifixion.) It conveniently allows Jesus to be categorised as a prophet, rather than a saviour or redeemer, thus allowing Muhammad to assume the role of a superior prophet without having to sacrifice his own life.
-
Yes, I understand what the Quran says about Jesus being spared from crucifixion. But I am not aware of any historical evidence to back it up. (In addition to the eye witness accounts in the Gospels, there are Roman records which back up the story of Jesus' crucifixion.)
The gospel accounts are solely anecdotal though, and without excluding the risks of mistakes or lies they aren't reliable evidence of historical fact. What Roman records are you referring to?
It conveniently allows Jesus to be categorised as a prophet, rather than a saviour or redeemer, thus allowing Muhammad to assume the role of a superior prophet without having to sacrifice his own life.
They might say that you Christians have conveniently over-egged the pudding when it comes to Jesus and that by closing updates to your holy book by around the 4th century CE you missed the superior prophet yet to come by a couple of centuries or so.
You can't both be right, but you can both be wrong.
-
Yes, I understand what the Quran says about Jesus being spared from crucifixion. But I am not aware of any historical evidence to back it up. (In addition to the eye witness accounts in the Gospels, there are Roman records which back up the story of Jesus' crucifixion.) It conveniently allows Jesus to be categorised as a prophet, rather than a saviour or redeemer, thus allowing Muhammad to assume the role of a superior prophet without having to sacrifice his own life.
Roman records? Do you mean Tacitus? I don't think there are any surviving Roman records about anything, except maybe tax.
-
Yes, I understand what the Quran says about Jesus being spared from crucifixion. But I am not aware of any historical evidence to back it up. (In addition to the eye witness accounts in the Gospels, there are Roman records which back up the story of Jesus' crucifixion.) It conveniently allows Jesus to be categorised as a prophet, rather than a saviour or redeemer, thus allowing Muhammad to assume the role of a superior prophet without having to sacrifice his own life.
You asked about justification. I gave it to you. Now all you are doing again (as you do for your 'soul' assertions) is moving the goalposts. Do you have a contract with Pickfords?