Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on December 01, 2018, 07:27:51 AM
-
Charismatic gifts were exercised after pentecost.
In laterNT epistles the emphasis is on pastoral matters ,church organisation and ethical matters.
In patristic literature the emphasis is the same.
In medievel times the onus in supernatural gifts is on post mortem miracles by the sainted.
Indeed quite early on charismatic gifts are attached more to the fringe such as the montanists.
By the early modern times the mainstream view is that the apostolic age in which charismatic gifts exercised by the living had ended with the fathers centuries before.
Appearences of the gifts were very much associated with the fringe and occasional.
Aside from this An openly and avowed Charismatic church only appears at the beginning of the 20 th century and only penetrates the mainstream churches at the latter part of the 20th century.
-
Charisbloodymatics, and their older brethren Pentecostalists, are extreme, dangerous, irresponsible idiots.
-
Charisbloodymatics, and their older brethren Pentecostalists, are extreme, dangerous, irresponsible idiots.
My main concern is that the extremes act as a typifier for antitheists on this forum. Remember when sometimes it seemed as if Fred Phelps was held up as a typical christian?
-
Charisbloodymatics, and their older brethren Pentecostalists, are extreme, dangerous, irresponsible idiots.
I agree, having been unfortunate enough to have had too much experience of that unpleasant garbage during my youth. :o
-
My main concern is that the extremes act as a typifier for antitheists on this forum
New irony meter required.
-
Charismatic gifts were exercised after pentecost. In laterNT epistles the emphasis is on pastoral matters ,church organisation and ethical matters. In patristic literature the emphasis is the same. In medievel times the onus in supernatural gifts is on post mortem miracles by the sainted. Indeed quite early on charismatic gifts are attached more to the fringe such as the montanists. By the early modern times the mainstream view is that the apostolic age in which charismatic gifts exercised by the living had ended with the fathers centuries before. Appearences of the gifts were very much associated with the fringe and occasional. Aside from this An openly and avowed Charismatic church only appears at the beginning of the 20 th century and only penetrates the mainstream churches at the latter part of the 20th century.
I used to categorise charismatics as a bunch of Yankee influenced nut jobs....till I started to use the charisma. That was with the discussion of a Presbyterian Charismatic minister from Prestwick...howzat for a triple oxymoron? He showed me that there are no reasons in the New Testament for the withdrawal of the gifts, and, indeed, they are a 'by product' ofthe work of the Holy Spirit as 'Parakletos' as per John 15. It appears that, as the church became structured - and beaurocratic - the gifts were 'suppressed' and confined t clergy - with no reason whatsoever. That they have re-emerged over the last two centuries is not really any cause for concern, except in those denominations where they are elevated to the detriment of the study of Scripture, preaching, sacrameent and theology. They can - and do - work in mainstream denominations. I recommend you read theAnglican Michael Green's "I believe in the Holy Spirit' for a reasoned argument for their use.
-
Charisbloodymatics, and their older brethren Pentecostalists, are extreme, dangerous, irresponsible idiots.
Whoa!
Sweeping generalisation there!
Yes, there are some off the wall extreme denominations; there are also many Charismatic Anglican, Presbyterian,RC, Methodist, and, yes, even Pentecostalists - who excercise the charisma quietly, without fuss or boasting about it.
-
I used to categorise charismatics as a bunch of Yankee influenced nut jobs....till I started to use the charisma. That was with the discussion of a Presbyterian Charismatic minister from Prestwick...howzat for a triple oxymoron? He showed me that there are no reasons in the New Testament for the withdrawal of the gifts, and, indeed, they are a 'by product' ofthe work of the Holy Spirit as 'Parakletos' as per John 15. It appears that, as the church became structured - and beaurocratic - the gifts were 'suppressed' and confined t clergy - with no reason whatsoever. That they have re-emerged over the last two centuries is not really any cause for concern, except in those denominations where they are elevated to the detriment of the study of Scripture, preaching, sacrameent and theology. They can - and do - work in mainstream denominations. I recommend you read theAnglican Michael Green's "I believe in the Holy Spirit' for a reasoned argument for their use.
In that case, why don't they actually appear?
I spent 15 years as a charismatic, to my undying shame, back in the 80s, and saw healings and miracles regularly prayed for, and prayed for them myself, but saw absolutely nothing that couldn't most easily be explained as self-deception: the lame, didn't walk, the blind didn't see, the deaf didn't hear, and two young people, one with MS and one with cancer, died on scedule despite fervent prayer, which served only to raise false hopes, and make their suffering worse. As for the other gifts: anyone can talk gobbledegook, and prohesy was usually a load of vaguely encouraging, ego-tickling stuff delivered in a ridiculous pastiche of 17th-century English, as were intepretations of tongues.
As for the fruit: they were notably selfish in their attitude to the traditionalists, refusing to give an inch in their insistence on their ghastly, repetitive, glutinously sentimental, often ungrammatical and theologically dubious if not downright heretical "worship songs"; and very narrow-minded as regards social issues.
-
As I have mentioned before when my husband suffered his brain haemorrhage a 'born again' friend of ours was suffering from a brain tumour. Prayers for healing were said for both of them, my husband survived our friend died. :o As devastating as my husband's demise would have been, at least our children were adults and leading their own lives. Our friend's children were still quite young and his death was more than traumatic for his wife and kids. :o
When I posed the question as to why my atheist husband was the fortunate one, I was told god spared him so he could retrieve his lost faith. I pointed out that my husband claimed that whilst still in a coma he had an experience which convinced him beyond all doubt no god or afterlife existed.
-
In that case, why don't they actually appear?
I spent 15 years as a charismatic, to my undying shame, back in the 80s, and saw healings and miracles regularly prayed for, and prayed for them myself, but saw absolutely nothing that couldn't most easily be explained as self-deception: the lame, didn't walk, the blind didn't see, the deaf didn't hear, and two young people, one with MS and one with cancer, died on scedule despite fervent prayer, which served only to raise false hopes, and make their suffering worse. As for the other gifts: anyone can talk gobbledegook, and prohesy was usually a load of vaguely encouraging, ego-tickling stuff delivered in a ridiculous pastiche of 17th-century English, as were intepretations of tongues.
As for the fruit: they were notably selfish in their attitude to the traditionalists, refusing to give an inch in their insistence on their ghastly, repetitive, glutinously sentimental, often ungrammatical and theologically dubious if not downright heretical "worship songs"; and very narrow-minded as regards social issues.
As my friend, Arthur Kent, said, the list Paul gives for the charisma is not finite.
Sometimes, admin, or preaching...or cleaning, washing, supervising, etc, are every bit as important in advancing the Kingdom as healing, knowledge, or, dare I say it, tongues?
I don't know why you have not received them...maybe it's becausee you don't need them?
I wasn't looking for the 'filling of the Spirit'.
God, however,had other ideas.
-
The gifts of the Holy Spirit never faded. However, psychobabble was never one of them.
-
The gifts of the Holy Spirit never faded. However, psychobabble was never one of them.
There is no evidence the HS exists, hopefully not, as its so called 'gifts' are not something one would wish to have, imo.
-
I must say I found this entry on the whole subject of glossolalia(from the Skeptics Dictionary) to be quite fascinating. I've never really thought about it much before. One of the interesting conclusions suggested in this article is the difference between this and meditation. There seems to be some evidence that glossolalia is linked to a decrease in frontal lobe function, and increased activity in the parietal brain region, with the suggestion that for those who practise it, control is loosened whilst intense personal experience is strengthened. With meditation, on the other hand, it is suggested that the the opposite occurs, pointing to the idea of focus and control being strengthened whilst sensory activity was reduced.
http://skepdic.com/glossol.html
-
The gifts of the Holy Spirit never faded. However, psychobabble was never one of them.
No-one said it was.
-
As my friend, Arthur Kent, said, the list Paul gives for the charisma is not finite.
Sometimes, admin, or preaching...or cleaning, washing, supervising, etc, are every bit as important in advancing the Kingdom as healing, knowledge, or, dare I say it, tongues?
I don't know why you have not received them...maybe it's becausee you don't need them?
I wasn't looking for the 'filling of the Spirit'.
God, however,had other ideas.
Who said I didn't receive them? I spoke in tongues - i.e. gabbled gobbledegook - with the best of them, and occasionally "interpreted" and "prophesied" as well, though at least I avoided the ridiculous 17th-century-English-pastiche. Miracles and healings, though, never happened, though we managed to convince ourselves that they did - usually invisible, self-diagnosed ailments. I did witness one example of "Chinese whispers" exaggeration of a supposed healing: a teenager at the church suffered a serious injury in a game of football, and it was expected that he'd have to spend weeks lying flat on his back to avoid a detached retina. He was, of course, prayed for, and in the event his recovery was unexpectedly quick, and he suffered no permanent ill-effects. Well, you can attribute that to the prayer if you like, and I wouldn't necessarily even disagree, but some time later, I heard a particularly hysterical and stupid female member of the congregation tell my then wife that the boy had been blinded, and told he'd be blind for life, but he'd been prayed for and had instantly received his sight! Complete bollocks, as I knew, but the daft old biddy was obviously completely sincere. That case was the only example that could possibly be attributed to prayer - and then doubtfully.
I eventually left that church, and for almost exactly a year renounced Christianity and joined what was then called the British Humanist Association, because I could no longer avoid seeing the mis-match between the claims and the reality. I eventualy came back to liberal, Tillichian Christianity, and started going to another church, but it was charismatic evangelicalism which destroyed my faith, and liberal Christianity which restored it, contrary to what the happy-clappys like to claim.
-
Steve H,
...a teenager at the church suffered a serious injury in a game of football, and it was expected that he'd have to spend weeks lying flat on his back to avoid a detached retina. He was, of course, prayed for, and in the event his recovery was unexpectedly quick, and he suffered no permanent ill-effects. Well, you can attribute that to the prayer if you like...
And speaking of the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, by chance only today I came across a nice example of it. Turns out that women who own horses live longer than women who don't. Therefore horse ownership increases life expectancy right?
Oh hang on though - horse ownership is an expensive business, and it also turns out that those who can afford it can also afford access to better healthcare.
Oh well.
-
Paul states that the gifts were for the building of the church. If those who use them are used to increase thechuech, and men and women are rought to the place where they can decide for Christ, then I d onot see a problem. If, however, the charism become the focus of the church, ratger than thesaving grace of Christ Jesus, then that church is in error; pure and simple.
-
Paul states that the gifts were for the building of the church. If those who use them are used to increase thechuech, and men and women are rought to the place where they can decide for Christ, then I d onot see a problem. If, however, the charism become the focus of the church, ratger than thesaving grace of Christ Jesus, then that church is in error; pure and simple.
So why do healings, miracles etc. never happen, in any church? You haven't answered that.
-
Steven I never dreamed you had such experience of the charismatic branch of the church. Wow. They were very interesting posts, thanks for sharing with us. I don't have personal experience, only read about. Glad you got out of it but it must have been difficult at the time.
As I have mentioned before ...
Yes, many times.
-
So why do healings, miracles etc. never happen, in any church? You haven't answered that.
Because they have.
Niot very often, and not like some holy national health service AKA Benny Hinn, but, like the original miracles of Christ as reciorded inScripture, to illustrate a point or help growth.
Should we document them - or even be surprised if, and when they happen?
Not if we accept that the Holy Spirit has neverbeen withdrawn, nor will He be.
-
Steven I never dreamed you had such experience of the charismatic branch of the church. Wow. They were very interesting posts, thanks for sharing with us. I don't have personal experience, only read about. Glad you got out of it but it must have been difficult at the time.
Yes, many times.
Havw you ever read "Chasing the Dragon" or its'sequal, "Acrack in thw wasll" by Jackie Pullinger? Both books document the remarkable story of her workamongst the drug addicts, prostitures and triads of Hong Kong, and the foundation and spread of the "St Stephen society".
Thought provoking, and awhole new slant on just why the charisma appear to have been manifest for a specific purpose.
-
So why do healings, miracles etc. never happen, in any church? You haven't answered that.
I have witnessed many spiritual healings within the charismatic movement, which have far more value in the bigger picture of our lives than physical healings.
-
I have witnessed many spiritual healings within the charismatic movement, which have far more value in the bigger picture of our lives than physical healings.
That's exactly the sort of bollocks that charismatics come up with to explain away the lack of results from their prayers.
-
I have witnessed many spiritual healings within the charismatic movement, which have far more value in the bigger picture of our lives than physical healings.
No you haven't
-
I have witnessed many spiritual healings within the charismatic movement, which have far more value in the bigger picture of our lives than physical healings.
Yeh right. You do seem to have am overactive imagination if your posts are an indication of your mindset. ::)
-
Yeh right. You do seem to have am overactive imagination if your posts are an indication of your mindset. ::)
Actually I put the initial potted history of the Charisms down to counteract the impression that the healing commision of the church was just charismatic.I notice there was no comeback by those like yourself on that.I take it then that that ignorance has been put straight.
-
That's exactly the sort of bollocks that charismatics come up with to explain away the lack of results from their prayers.
Why is it 'bolocks'?
As somerone registered blind and suffering from MS, I consider spiritual healing - real wholeness - more important than physical.
-
I must say I found this entry on the whole subject of glossolalia(from the Skeptics Dictionary) to be quite fascinating. I've never really thought about it much before. One of the interesting conclusions suggested in this article is the difference between this and meditation. There seems to be some evidence that glossolalia is linked to a decrease in frontal lobe function, and increased activity in the parietal brain region, with the suggestion that for those who practise it, control is loosened whilst intense personal experience is strengthened. With meditation, on the other hand, it is suggested that the the opposite occurs, pointing to the idea of focus and control being strengthened whilst sensory activity was reduced.
http://skepdic.com/glossol.html
Sounds like an explanation for the two words .... glossolalia ... to speak unintelligibly and glossolego to speak with intelligence. It's strange that Jesus chose meditation and some followers chose glossolalia. I suppose that's what happens when you turn too much water into wine. ;)
-
Sounds like an explanation for the two words .... glossolalia ... to speak unintelligibly and glossolego to speak with intelligence. It's strange that Jesus chose meditation and some followers chose glossolalia. I suppose that's what happens when you turn too much water into wine. ;)
Alcohol did seem to feature rather prominently in the life of Jesus.
-
Because they have.
Niot very often,
Yes, because, if it happened often enough not to be explainable by chance, that would be evidence of God and we all know that without Faith, God is nothing.
-
Alcohol did seem to feature rather prominently in the life of Jesus.
Alcohol featured prominently in everybody’s life back then, mainly because it was too dangerous to drink the water.
-
Alcohol featured prominently in everybody’s life back then, mainly because it was too dangerous to drink the water.
Alcohol in quantity can muddle the brain, that could explain some of the less than credible claims in the Bible .
-
Alcohol in quantity can muddle the brain, that could explain some of the less than credible claims in the Bible .
Youhave evidence that those who either witnessed those claims, orwrote of them, consumed too much alcohol?
I mean, you wouldn't make such an assertion without evidence, would you?
Er....would you?
-
Youhave evidence that those who either witnessed those claims, orwrote of them, consumed too much alcohol?
I mean, you wouldn't make such an assertion without evidence, would you?
Er....would you?
I don't have the evidence, as they all pegged out so long ago. However, as many of the claims are as credible as one claiming fairies exist, they have to be taken with a large pinch of salt, until there is verifiable evidence to substantiate them.
-
Why is it 'bolocks'?
As somerone registered blind and suffering from MS, I consider spiritual healing - real wholeness - more important than physical.
Well, more fool you.
-
Well, more fool you.
Yep.
As Paul put it, "a fool for Christ's sake"
-
That's exactly the sort of bollocks that charismatics come up with to explain away the lack of results from their prayers.
You seem to have had a bad experience with the charismatics. All religious groups seem to get infiltrated by some people who are there for the wrong reasons. I have come across some who are obviously on their own ego trip, and some who quite frankly seem to be mentally disturbed. But in my experience within the charismatic movement of the Catholic Church I have met hundreds of genuine people whose faith has been deeply enriched. I am one of them. This is an extract from an earlier post I made on this forum:
Up until my mid twenties, I thought I knew all about God. I went to church, attended the sacraments, said my prayers. I may have known about God, but God brought me into a situation in which I came to know Him, not just know about Him.
My experience was triggered by a priest inviting me to "Life in the Spirit" seminars which he said would change your life. But I did not want my life to be changed - I was quite happy with a good circle of friends, a good job, my own house and a brand new silver TR7 with a soft top and what I felt to be strong faith. But I felt curious and was drawn to these seminars (despite misgivings about leaving my TR7 in a rough council estate during dark November evenings). It really was a life changing experience. I invited the Holy Spirit into my life and discovered a God who loved me. Reading scriptures became a new experience as deeper and deeper meanings were revealed. Music became a powerful prayer, and when I volunteered to play guitar I was teamed up with my future wife! Since then I have had a wonderful prayer partner in my lovely wife with whom I could share this new dimension to my faith.
-
Yep.
As Paul put it, "a fool for Christ's sake"
That chap Paul said some very stupid things! >:(
-
You seem to have had a bad experience with the charismatics. All religious groups seem to get infiltrated by some people who are there for the wrong reasons. I have come across some who are obviously on their own ego trip, and some who quite frankly seem to be mentally disturbed. But in my experience within the charismatic movement of the Catholic Church I have met hundreds of genuine people whose faith has been deeply enriched. I am one of them.
And this "you seem to have had a bad experience..." crap is another typical load of Charismatic balls, which they trot out to explain away criticism. My church was an anglican one, not all that extreme as charismatic churches go, and it did not contain any control-freaks.
-
Well, more fool you.
Here's Anchorman arguing for the importance of the 'spirit' and you denigrating him. Yet elsewhere you're opposing LR and appearing to suggest that there is evidence for Christ's resurrection, quoting the witness of St Paul (doesn't Paul say that "the spirit helps us in our weakness"?)
I don't believe any of this, but I know where I stand. I wish you'd make up your bloody mind.
P.S.
Just checked the reference from Romans 8. Verses 5&6 seem to indicate that Anchorman's approach is at least in accordance with Paul's ideas:
[5] For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.
[6] To set the mind on the flesh is death, but to set the mind on the Spirit is life and peace.
-
Here's Anchorman arguing for the importance of the 'spirit' and you denigrating him. Yet elsewhere you're opposing LR and appearing to suggest that there is evidence for Christ's resurrection, quoting the witness of St Paul (doesn't Paul say that "the spirit helps us in our weakness"?)
I don't believe any of this, but I know where I stand. I wish you'd make up your bloody mind.
I'm agnostic about the (literal, physical) resurrection of Christ. I was just reacting against LR's usual infuriatingly tiresome and very arrogant way of airily dismissing beliefs with her usual parrot-squawk of "There is no evidence for... imo", with not a shred of logical argument.
-
I'm agnostic about the (literal, physical) resurrection of Christ. I was just reacting against LR's usual infuriatingly tiresome and very arrogant way of airily dismissing beliefs with her usual parrot-squawk of "There is no evidence for... imo", with not a shred of logical argument.
There is no verifiable evidence any god exists, that is FACT, whether you like it or not.
-
There is no verifiable evidence any god exists, that is FACT, whether you like it or not.
There are many arguments for God which convince people far more intelligent and better-educated than either of us, so you are obviously wrong. whether YOU like it or not.
-
There are many arguments for God which convince people far more intelligent and better-educated than either of us, so you are obviously wrong. whether YOU like it or not.
.....FACT!!!
-
There are many arguments for God which convince people far more intelligent and better-educated than either of us, so you are obviously wrong. whether YOU like it or not.
There are arguments for the existence of god, I have never denied that. However, until there is evidence supporting those arguments, which as yet there isn't, its existence has to be in doubt.
-
There are many arguments for God which convince people far more intelligent and better-educated than either of us
What are they?
-
Steve H,
There are many arguments for God which convince people far more intelligent and better-educated than either of us, so you are obviously wrong. whether YOU like it or not.
Leaving aside for now the rather clunky attempt at an argument from authority (no matter how intelligent these people may be, the arguments themselves stand or fall on their merits) that doesn’t rebut what Floo said, which was that “There is no verifiable evidence any god exist”.
-
Steve H,
Leaving aside for now the rather clunky attempt at an argument from authority (no matter how intelligent these people may be, the arguments themselves stand or fall on their merits) that doesn’t rebut what Floo said, which was that “There is no verifiable evidence any god exist”.
You're right, of course, but I was just yet again pissed off with her dim-witted and arrogant flat statement with no argument to support it.
-
Steve H,
You're right, of course, but I was just yet again pissed off with her dim-witted and arrogant flat statement with no argument to support it.
Fair enough my friend. Maybe she should sign up for the clergy or something? ;)
-
You're right, of course, but I was just yet again pissed off with her dim-witted and arrogant flat statement with no argument to support it.
My statement is a fact, even if you don't regard it as such.
-
My statement is a fact, even if you don't regard it as such.
Your statement is your opinion, and as I've pointed out many, many times before, a bare statement of opinion, whether or not followed by "imo", is not an argument. You need to defend it with arguments and evidence (which does not include personal experiences, which prove nothing). In the case of your oft-repeated opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, you could try demolishing, with logic and appropriate references, other people's claimed evidence.
-
Your statement is your opinion, and as I've pointed out many, many times before, a bare statement of opinion, whether or not followed by "imo", is not an argument. You need to defend it with arguments and evidence (which does not include personal experiences, which prove nothing). In the case of your oft-repeated opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, you could try demolishing, with logic and appropriate references, other people's claimed evidence.
No it isn't an opinion, there is no evidence to substantiate god's existence, however much some people wish it to be so. You have never presented any evidence that can be verified.
-
Floo,
No it isn't an opinion, there is no evidence to substantiate god's existence, however much some people wish it to be so. You have never presented any evidence that can be verified.
Strictly Steve H is right – you cannot prove a negative. There may or may not be evidence for god(s), just as there may or may not be evidence for leprechauns. What you can say is, “I have never seen evidence for…”, “to my knowledge no evidence has ever been produced” etc but a definitive “there is no evidence” puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the claim, which is logically impossible to do.
-
No it isn't an opinion, there is no evidence to substantiate god's existence, however much some people wish it to be so. You have never presented any evidence that can be verified.
Actually it's a positive claim and you need to demonstrate it to be more than mere assertion.
-
Floo,
Strictly Steve H is right – you cannot prove a negative. There may or may not be evidence for god(s), just as there may or may not be evidence for leprechauns. What you can say is, “I have never seen evidence for…”, “to my knowledge no evidence has ever been produced” etc but a definitive “there is no evidence” puts the burden of proof on you to demonstrate the claim, which is logically impossible to do.
Except of course you can in some cases prove a negative.
-
NS,
Except of course you can in some cases prove a negative.
But not by assertion.
-
Put it another way, what evidence is there any god exists outside of the human imagination ?
-
NS,
But not by assertion.
Indeed which is why Steve is right, not sure what the qualification 'strictly ' adds to that.
-
Put it another way, what evidence is there any god exists outside of the human imagination ?
That isn't putting your claim that there is no evidence for God being a fact in another way. It's a perfectly interesting question but needs the words evidence and god clearly defined.
But before we do that, could you clearly state that you understand that your claim was merely an assertion?
-
Put it another way, what evidence is there any god exists outside of the human imagination ?
Your opinion is obviously "none", but it is your opinion: some people think there is evidence.
-
Your opinion is obviously "none", but it is your opinion: some people think there is evidence.
But have never produced any. As belief in god is a matter of faith only, no one has actually seen it, which makes its existence doubtful.
-
Floo,
But have never produced any. As belief in god is a matter of faith only, no one has actually seen it, which makes its existence doubtful.
Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never. All you can say with certainty is that you've never seen it or similar. I've never seen any either, and if there was some it seems very unlikely to me that such a momentous piece of evidence would not have come to my attention but, nonetheless, I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist.
-
Floo,
Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never. All you can say with certainty is that you've never seen it or similar. I've never seen any either, and if there was some it seems very unlikely to me that such a momentous piece of evidence would not have come to my attention but, nonetheless, I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist.
I have never said god doesn't exist! I have said there is no verifiable evidence that it does.
-
I have never said god doesn't exist! I have said there is no verifiable evidence that it does.
And bhs's post talks entirely about the evidence. Which makes your response a non sequitur.
-
And bhs's post talks entirely about the evidence. Which makes your response a non sequitur.
Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never.
I understood that sentence to mean that I had said god didn't exist.
-
Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never.
I understood that sentence to mean that I had said god didn't exist.
That sentence is clearly talking about the existence of evidence
-
That sentence is clearly talking about the existence of evidence
If you say so, it wasn't clear to me. ::)
-
Your statement is your opinion, and as I've pointed out many, many times before, a bare statement of opinion, whether or not followed by "imo", is not an argument. You need to defend it with arguments and evidence (which does not include personal experiences, which prove nothing). In the case of your oft-repeated opinion that there is no evidence to support the existence of God, you could try demolishing, with logic and appropriate references, other people's claimed evidence.
You could end the argument straight away by providing the alleged existing verifiable evidence. Why are you not doing that instead of browbeating LR?
-
Floo,
Again, unless you have some means of investigating every possible instance in which evidence could have been produced you can't say never. All you can say with certainty is that you've never seen it or similar. I've never seen any either, and if there was some it seems very unlikely to me that such a momentous piece of evidence would not have come to my attention but, nonetheless, I cannot say definitively that it doesn't exist.
But LR's statement is a statement about the real world. There is no absolute proof of anything in the real world, all we can do is weigh the evidence for both sides of an argument. She says there is no verifiable evidence. The fact that religionists have failed to provide any verifiable evidence despite having thousands of years to come up with the goods, puts the balance of probabilities strongly in favour of LR being correct.
Minor point of information: When LR rejoined the forum, she requested not to be addressed as "Floo" anymore.
-
You could end the argument straight away by providing the alleged existing verifiable evidence. Why are you not doing that instead of browbeating LR?
Perhaps because she claims her statement is a fact, rather than an assertion, and a positive claim, which she doesn't justify?
-
Perhaps because she claims her statement is a fact, rather than an assertion, and a positive claim, which she doesn't justify?
See my previous response.
-
But LR's statement is a statement about the real world. There is no absolute proof of anything in the real world, all we can do is weigh the evidence for both sides of an argument. She says there is no verifiable evidence. The fact that religionists have failed to provide any verifiable evidence despite having thousands of years to come up with the goods, puts the balance of probabilities strongly in favour of LR being correct.
Minor point of information: When LR rejoined the forum, she requested not to be addressed as "Floo" anymore.
Balance of probabilties doesn't make it a fact.
-
See my previous response.
Yeah, it was wrong.
-
Balance of probabilties doesn't make it a fact.
This is the real world NS. It's all we have got.
-
Yeah, it was wrong.
Counter example please.
-
This is the real world NS. It's all we have got.
ah so you have solved the problem of hard solipsism?
-
ah so you have solved the problem of hard solipsism?
That makes no sense NS. Hard solipsism is taking the idea that you can't prove anything in the real world to the extreme i.e. you can't be sure there even is a real world.
-
Counter example please.
A counter example to you being wrong about epistemology? So I would have to offer being wrong as well? You seem confused. To state there is no evidence of x, is a claim that needs absolute knowledge. If you want to say LR has that then justify it.
-
That makes no sense NS. Hard solipsism is taking the idea that you can't prove anything in the real world to the extreme i.e. you can't be sure there even is a real world.
Exactly.
-
Floo,
I have never said god doesn't exist!
NS has already addressed this, but I never said you did. I expressly talked about you claim re evidence, not about what such evidence would demonstrate.
I have said there is no verifiable evidence that it does.
Which is a repetition of the same mistake. To know that you’d have to be omniscient. Unless you are omniscient, the most you can say is that you are not aware of verifiable evidence that there is a god. Nor am I. Nor so far as I’m aware is anyone else. That though doesn’t allow me to state as a fact that it does not exist.
-
Floo,
NS has already addressed this, but I never said you did. I expressly talked about you claim re evidence, not about what such evidence would demonstrate.
Which is a repetition of the same mistake. To know that you’d have to be omniscient. Unless you are omniscient, the most you can say is that you are not aware of verifiable evidence that there is a god. Nor am I. Nor so far as I’m aware is anyone else. That though doesn’t allow me to state as a fact that it does not exist.
While I'm in full agreement, I'd add that without a definition of god and evidence, it's pretty much a meaningless statement.
-
Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe, the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.
-
NS,
While I'm in full agreement, I'd add that without a definition of god and evidence, it's pretty much a meaningless statement.
Yes. I’m pretty much ignostic I think – ie, “I have no idea what you mean by “God” (and nor have you), so any discussion consequent on that term is for now meaningless”. Nonetheless, in practice there’s a sort of “OK, let’s both pretend we do know what’s meant by “God”, and examine the arguments made for it on that basis”.
You’re right though. Anyone proselytising here for his god should first be made to tell us what he means by “god”. Probably be the end of the site if we did though!
-
Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe, the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.
Some definitions of god(s) would have it/them as beings in or indeed made up by the universe. For your definition, you would need first to come up with a methodology which would lead to a definition of evidence. In the absence of that 'evidence' is just meaningless
-
Steve H,
Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe,…
That is the assertion some make about their faith belief “god”, yes. It is just an assertion though.
… the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.
But wouldn’t the notion of evidence itself be problematic because it’s a naturalistic concept? How could a naturalistic approach demonstrate a (supposedly) non-natural entity?
-
Since God, whatever God is, is not a being in the universe, the evidence would be different from the evidence you'd demand for the existance of (say) Australia or the horsehead nebula.
Not only that, but God is not part of the natural world. As others have said, I would think that notions such as evidence and probability flow from the idea of the natural world, so to apply them elsewhere seems odd, well, more than odd, incoherent. Is there non-natural evidence?
-
NS,
Yes. I’m pretty much ignostic I think – ie, “I have no idea what you mean by “God” (and nor have you), so any discussion consequent on that term is for now meaningless”. Nonetheless, in practice there’s a sort of “OK, let’s both pretend we do know what’s meant by “God”, and examine the arguments made for it on that basis”.
You’re right though. Anyone proselytising here for his god should first be made to tell us what he means by “god”. Probably be the end of the site if we did though!
Yep, I get that there's a sort of default idea of 'God' based around a supposition of some characteristics given to a 'Christian God' but whenever you actually to get into any real detail it seems to me to fall apart.
To be honest the god debates are about the least interesting part of this site for me, in part because of the sheer nebulous quality of any definition.
-
Not only that, but God is not part of the natural world. As others have said, I would think that notions such as evidence and probability flow from the idea of the natural world, so to apply them elsewhere seems odd, well, more than odd, incoherent. Is there non-natural evidence?
I think that the most common apologetic approach is to argue it from logical premises but I doubt that anyone really believes in god(s) because of anything like the Kalam.
-
Yep, I get that there's a sort of default idea of 'God' based around a supposition of some characteristics given to a 'Christian God' but whenever you actually to get into any real detail it seems to me to fall apart.
Can you give an example?
-
Can you give an example?
The trinity
-
The trinity
You aren't the chap who stopped using 3 in1 oil on grounds of logical incoherence are you?
-
You aren't the chap who stopped using 3 in1 oil on grounds of logical incoherence are you?
;D ;D ;D
-
You aren't the chap who stopped using 3 in1 oil on grounds of logical incoherence are you?
Good line, irrelevant though.
-
Good line, irrelevant though.
Since the trinity is analogically........in what way is the analogy irrelevant?
-
Since the trinity is analogically........in what way is the analogy irrelevant?
First of all, it's irrelevant because you raised the ides of logical coherence which wasn't somethinh I was talking about. Secondly 3-1 is a methodlogically naturalistic description so it cannot be used to demonstrate the meaning of the trinity.
That said, it looks to me as if your 'analogy' actually makes my point for me. In attempting to explain your meaning to the concept of the trinity, you have used something that is utterly unhelpful.
-
Exactly.
So asking LR to provide proof of a negative is unreasonable. Asking her to provide evidence, however is fine as long as you do not assume hard solipsism - if you do, we might as well all go home, because we can't ague about anything.
LR stated there is no verifiable evidence for God and the fact that people have been trying to find such evidence for centuries and failing is evidence for her case.
-
So asking LR to provide proof of a negative is unreasonable. Asking her to provide evidence, however is fine as long as you do not assume hard solipsism - if you do, we might as well all go home, because we can't ague about anything.
LR stated there is no verifiable evidence for God and the fact that people have been trying to find such evidence for centuries and failing is evidence for her case.
And it needs omniscience to state there isn't,l so she has to demonstrate that.
It also needs a clear definition of what such 'evidence' would be.
-
And it needs omniscience to state there isn't,l so she has to demonstrate that.
No it doesn't. I clearly saw her post the statement in question and I'm pretty sure she is not omniscient.
-
No it doesn't. I clearly saw her post the statement in question and I'm pretty sure she is not omniscient.
So when she claimed that there is no evidence as a fact, then she was wrong.
-
So when she claimed that there is no evidence as a fact, then she was wrong.
So if there is evidence, why is it so well hidden? Of course I am omniscient, how dare anyone suggest otherwise. ;D ;D ;D
-
So if there is evidence, why is it so well hidden? Of course I am omniscient, how dare anyone suggest otherwise. ;D ;D ;D
;D
I don't think we have a valid definition of god and we have no method to cover evidence for the supernatural, so the statement evidence for god, is as coherent as 'joputre for hudsyby'
-
;D
I don't think we have a valid definition of god and we have no method to cover evidence for the supernatural, so the statement evidence for god, is as coherent as 'joputre for hudsyby'
Now you are trying to confuse my single brain cell. ::)
-
Now you are trying to confuse my single brain cell. ::)
It's simple enough: before you look for evidence for God, you have to have a clear definition of the God you're looking for evidence for. This is a problem in other areas. The God many atheists don't believe in is also a God most intelligent, educated Christians don't believe in: the atheists are often attacking a straw man - or rather, a straw God.
-
So if there is evidence, why is it so well hidden? Of course I am omniscient, how dare anyone suggest otherwise. ;D ;D ;D
Omniscient? Is that Latin for laughing at your own jokes?
;D ;D ;D
-
It's simple enough: before you look for evidence for God, you have to have a clear definition of the God you're looking for evidence for. This is a problem in other areas. The God many atheists don't believe in is also a God most intelligent, educated Christians don't believe in: the atheists are often attacking a straw man - or rather, a straw God.
I have never come across any evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god, the one with which I am most familiar.
-
It's simple enough: before you look for evidence for God, you have to have a clear definition of the God you're looking for evidence for. This is a problem in other areas. The God many atheists don't believe in is also a God most intelligent, educated Christians don't believe in: the atheists are often attacking a straw man - or rather, a straw God.
And evidence is defined by the methodology. As we don't have a supernaturalistic methodology, we don't have a definition of what we mean by evidence.
I think you can really only deal with each individual's definition of god though, and the idea that there is a description believed consistently by ' most intelligent, educated Christians' seems incorrect to me.
-
I have never come across any evidence to support the existence of the Biblical god, the one with which I am most familiar.
You mean, judging by your many posts on the subject, the Old Testasment God, who is rasther different from the New Testament one, but even the OT God is a muich more complex figure than your "evil psycho" caricature. You really ought to open your mind a bit, and do some readin of books by liberal Christians. 'Honest to God' by JAT Robinson, very dated though it is in some ways now, having been published in the early 60s, would be one place to start. For a more conservative view, but still an intelligent, educated one, try CS Lewis's 'Mere Christianity', the literary style of which can be excruciatingly patronising in places, but is nevertheless worth reading (Lewis was no good at writing in a popular style, for people less well-educated than himself), or any of his other books of apologetics.
-
Steve H,
It's simple enough: before you look for evidence for God, you have to have a clear definition of the God you're looking for evidence for. This is a problem in other areas. The God many atheists don't believe in is also a God most intelligent, educated Christians don't believe in: the atheists are often attacking a straw man - or rather, a straw God.
Is that right though? There isn’t a “God many atheists don’t believe in” so far as I’m aware, but rather atheism is just finding the arguments theists attempt to validate their various belief(s) in various gods to be flawed.
I take the point that before you can get to atheism there’s ignosticism – ie, “I have no idea what you mean by “god” (and nor have you), so the white noise you’re proposing isn’t truth apt”, but for the most part there’s a sort of unspoken “OK, let’s treat the assertions you make about your god as a given – what then is the quality of the arguments you make for it?”. On that basis, atheism seems to me to be the inevitable outcome, at least until someone produces an argument for whatever he means by "god" that isn’t hopeless.
-
You mean, judging by your many posts on the subject, the Old Testasment God, who is rasther different from the New Testament one, but even the OT God is a muich more complex figure than your "evil psycho" caricature. You really ought to open your mind a bit, and do some readin of books by liberal Christians. 'Honest to God' by JAT Robinson, very dated though it is in some ways now, having been published in the early 60s, would be one place to start. For a more conservative view, but still an intelligent, educated one, try CS Lewis's 'Mere Christianity', the literary style of which can be excruciatingly patronising in places, but is nevertheless worth reading (Lewis was no good at writing in a popular style, for people less well-educated than himself), or any of his other books of apologetics.
The NT version of god isn't any better, imo. As I have said boringly often no one has provided evidence for god which is verifiable.
-
The NT version of god isn't any better, imo. As I have said boringly often no one has provided evidence for god which is verifiable.
All these various scriptures are simply "words about God", written by different people - and as Steve suggests, they differ considerably (I would contend that that they differ enormously). The Old Testament god is represented in far more contrasting ways than you continually state. I would distance myself from Steve in suggesting that the New Testament ideas of God are many and various too, and some don't point to a very nice god, as you say. Blanket condemnation of what are simply words on paper by different people is simply avoiding the responsibility of thinking. Cherry-picking is inevitable, unless you take the fundamentalist view - everything about God in the Bible is good.
Conversely, there is your form of resistance to cherry-picking, which is to say that everything said about God mediated by his prophets etc is bad. You seem strangely reluctant to relax this viewpoint. Since the Bible, both OT and NT, calls on humans to be merciful and forgiving, it doesn't reflect well on you if you think these ideas are all part of the portrait of "The Evil God of the Bible". It does not matter that God in some parts of the Bible is portrayed as a sadistic monster - other parts enjoin us to show forgiveness, and indeed portray 'him' as being forgiving. Such qualities are good in themselves, no matter how they are presented by other material in the huge library of the Bible. It is not a matter of believing in supernatural entities - that is not the point at all, as far as I'm concerned.
-
Everyone is entitled to their view of the Biblical god.
-
Everyone is entitled to their view of the Biblical god.
I don't recognise ONE Biblical god! Just different views by different prophets.
-
Yes. V much like your post 109 Dicky. I will read it again and again.
-
I don't recognise ONE Biblical god! Just different views by different prophets.
Whatever.
-
Fllo,
Whatever.
Why so rude?
-
So when she claimed that there is no evidence as a fact, then she was wrong.
Is she?
Demonstrate it.
-
It's simple enough: before you look for evidence for God, you have to have a clear definition of the God you're looking for evidence for.
OK. Define God then.
This is a problem in other areas. The God many atheists don't believe in is also a God most intelligent, educated Christians don't believe in: the atheists are often attacking a straw man - or rather, a straw God.
Agreed. Whatever god that is, I don't believe in it. I also don't believe in the Christian god. Or in fact, in any god. You name a god, I don't believe in it.
Also, leprechauns.
-
You mean, judging by your many posts on the subject, the Old Testasment God,
Now you are constructing a straw man. LR never said it was specifically the OT god (or Christian god mark I) that there is no evidence for.
who is rasther different from the New Testament one, but even the OT God is a muich more complex figure than your "evil psycho" caricature. You really ought to open your mind a bit, and do some readin of books by liberal Christians. 'Honest to God' by JAT Robinson, very dated though it is in some ways now, having been published in the early 60s, would be one place to start. For a more conservative view, but still an intelligent, educated one, try CS Lewis's 'Mere Christianity', the literary style of which can be excruciatingly patronising in places, but is nevertheless worth reading (Lewis was no good at writing in a popular style, for people less well-educated than himself), or any of his other books of apologetics.
You know you could end the whole argument simply by telling us what the evidence is that LR claims does not exist. The only reason I can think of for why you are adopting your current tactics is that the evidence LR claims does not exist, in fact does not exist.
-
Is she?
Demonstrate it.
It's simply the logical conclusion if you think Floo isn't omniscient. And since you don't , you would simply be illogical to conclude that she cpuld know there is no evidence for something.
-
It's simply the logical conclusion if you think Floo isn't omniscient. And since you don't , you would simply be illogical to conclude that she cpuld know there is no evidence for something.
No. You have made an assertion that LR is wrong in her claim that there is no evidence for god(s). Demonstrate the truth of your assertion.
-
No. You have made an assertion that LR is wrong in her claim that there is no evidence for god(s). Demonstrate the truth of your assertion.
No, I took your statement that she wasn't omniscient to its logical conclusion that if you believe that you, jeremyp, would have to argue that she couldn't claim it to be a fact that there was no evidence. The post didn't imply that she was wrong about there being no evidence, but that she was wrong to claim it as a fact.
-
No, I took your statement that she wasn't omniscient to its logical conclusion that if you believe that you, jeremyp, would have to argue that she couldn't claim it to be a fact that there was no evidence. The post didn't imply that she was wrong about there being no evidence, but that she was wrong to claim it as a fact.
If you had claimed she was unjustified, you might have the merest smidgeon of a point, but you didn’ty. You claimed she was wrong.
-
jeremy,
No. You have made an assertion that LR is wrong in her claim that there is no evidence for god(s). Demonstrate the truth of your assertion.
NS has beaten me to it, but it's the status of the claim that's the problem, not the claim itself. Call it an opinion and no-one could object; call it a fact and it's overreaching into the unknowable.
-
Jeremy,
You claimed she was wrong.
For asserting something she could not know to be a fact to be a fact, yes.
-
jeremy,
NS has beaten me to it, but it's the status of the claim that's the problem, not the claim itself. Call it an opinion and no-one could object; call it a fact and it's overreaching into the unknowable.
Nope.
LR claimed that there is no verifiable evidence for God. To falsify her claim, all anybody needs to do is present some verifiable evidence of a god - any god.
Nobody has done that. In fact, nobody has done that in spite of trying to find said evidence for hundreds of years. How long do we have to go on before you accept that there is no verifiable evidence for God? How long is it going to be before you accept leprechauns aren’t real?
-
Jeremy,
For asserting something she could not know to be a fact to be a fact, yes.
But she is right. There is no verifiable evidence for God. Otherwise where is it?
-
Jeremy,
Nope.
LR claimed that there is no verifiable evidence for God. To falsify her claim, all anybody needs to do is present some verifiable evidence of a god - any god.
Nobody has done that. In fact, nobody has done that in spite of trying to find said evidence for hundreds of years. How long do we have to go on before you accept that there is no verifiable evidence for God? How long is it going to be before you accept leprechauns aren’t real?
You're not getting it. Her claim is necessarily wrong when she calls it a fact. Why? Because her non-omniscience falsifies it ipso facto. You're focusing on the content of the claim, but the wrongness concerns something else - the status she attaches to it.
-
Jeremy,
But she is right. There is no verifiable evidence for God. Otherwise where is it?
She may or may not be right about there being no verifiable evidence for god (or for leprechauns). Where she is wrong though is to assert as a fact something she cannot know to be a fact.
-
But she is right. There is no verifiable evidence for God. Otherwise where is it?
A big hello to the problem of induction.
And that's leaving aside the question of what god and evidence would be.
-
Fllo,
Why so rude?
Nothing rude about that!
-
Jeremy,
She may or may not be right about there being no verifiable evidence for god (or for leprechauns). Where she is wrong though is to assert as a fact something she cannot know to be a fact.
I am NOT wrong when I say there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god.
-
Floo,
I am NOT wrong when I say there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god.
How do you know that? You may or may not be wrong about whether there is such evidence, but you are wrong to state as a fact that's there's no evidence because that's not something you can know to be true (unless you are in fact omniscient). You can believe it to be true, you can assert it to be true, you can anything you like it to be true in fact short of knowing it to be true.
-
Floo,
You may or may not be wrong about whether there is such evidence, but you are wrong to state as a fact that's there's no evidence because that's not something you can know to be true (unless you are in fact omniscient). You can believe it to be true, you can assert it to be true, you can anything you like in fact short of knowing it to be true.
It is a FACT that at present there is no evidence, which can be substantiated, that god exists.
-
Floo,
It is a FACT that at present there is no evidence, which can be substantiated, that god exists.
Typing "FACT" in capitals doesn't make a non-fact into a fact.
If you think it's a fact, then demonstrate it. What you actually mean is something like, "I'm not aware of any verifiable...." etc, which is epistemologically a different statement.
-
I am NOT wrong when I say there is no verifiable evidence for the existence of god.
You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.
-
You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.
You do realise how comically circular this is, don't you?
...don't you?
-
You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.
When you say things like that you just sound like one of those empty headed disparate street preachers, or a JW who comes a knocking at the door. Surely you've a mind better than that, AB?
-
You are the verifiable evidence, Rose, for you are God's creation.
No dear, unless god had it off with my Mum, I am my parents creation.
BTW, Roses, but NEVER Rose, thanks.
-
Jeremy,
Her claim is necessarily wrong when she calls it a fact.
Rubbish. Otherwise all statements about the real world are wrong
There is no verifiable evidence of leprechauns.
Right or wrong? I'd suggest right.
Why? Because her non-omniscience falsifies it
No it doesn't.
ipso facto. You're focusing on the content of the claim
Of course. What determines the truth ofd a statement is what the statement says, not who made the statement. Your argument is an ad hominem.
-
A big hello to the problem of induction.
Induction is not a problem. Why do you think there is a problem with induction? Bear in mind everything we know about the real world is known because of induction.
-
Jeremy,
Rubbish. Otherwise all statements about the real world are wrong
No they’re not – just the unwarranted ones obtained from induction. Think black swans.
There is no verifiable evidence of leprechauns.
How do you know that?
Right or wrong? I'd suggest right.
I’d suggest it too, but I wouldn’t overreach into calling it a fact.
No it doesn't.
Yes it does. The only way you can say definitively that something doesn’t exist is to have the omniscience to know every possible location in which it could exist, and means to have found it not to be in any of them.
Of course. What determines the truth ofd a statement is what the statement says, not who made the statement. Your argument is an ad hominem.
No it isn’t. Ad hominem means something else, and in any case I made no comment about who made the statement. What I commented on is the status attached to it – ie, that it was a fact – when there was no logically coherent justification for it.
-
Jeremy,
Induction is not a problem. Why do you think there is a problem with induction? Bear in mind everything we know about the real world is known because of induction.
It's a problem when for example on the basis that someone has only ever seen white swans he asserts it to be a fact that there are no black swans.
-
Jeremy,
It's a problem when for example on the basis that someone has only ever seen white swans he asserts it to be a fact that there are no black swans.
Not a good analogy. It is easy enough to find out if black swans exist, which of course they do. Looking for verifiable evidence to support the existence of god is a totally different ball game.
-
Floo,
Not a good analogy. It is easy enough to find out if black swans exist, which of course they do. Looking for verifiable evidence to support the existence of god is a totally different ball game.
It's a perfectly good analogy, and you're missing it still: unless you have some means of knowing and investigating every possible location in which something could exist, you cannot assert it to be a fact that it doesn't exist. What that thing is – a black swan or anything else – doesn't make any difference to that basic point.
It's very simple.
-
Floo,
It's a perfectly good analogy, and you're missing it still: unless you have some means of knowing and investigating every possible location in which something could exist, you cannot assert it to be a fact that it doesn't exist. What that thing is – a black swan or anything else – doesn't make any difference to that basic point.
It's very simple.
In one sense, it is very simple but it's also a bit of a rabbit hole
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
-
Floo,
It's a perfectly good analogy, and you're missing it still: unless you have some means of knowing and investigating every possible location in which something could exist, you cannot assert it to be a fact that it doesn't exist. What that thing is – a black swan or anything else – doesn't make any difference to that basic point.
It's very simple.
OK then, if it is so simple how does one set about proving or disproving the existence of god?
-
OK then, if it is so simple how does one set about proving or disproving the existence of god?
That's a non sequitur to bhs's post.
-
That's a non sequitur to bhs's post.
I was pointing out that you can prove black swans exist, you can't as yet prove or otherwise the same about god.
-
I was pointing out that you can prove black swans exist, you can't as yet prove or otherwise the same about god.
which is irrelevant to the problem of induction.
-
which is irrelevant to the problem of induction.
Sometimes I think we are talking different languages! ::)
-
Floo,
OK then, if it is so simple how does one set about proving or disproving the existence of god?
Relevance? The point was about asserting as a fact that there's no verifiable evidence for god. What verifiable evidence would or should consist of is a different question.
-
NS,
In one sense, it is very simple but it's also a bit of a rabbit hole
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/
Thanks for the link.
Yes, but for the purpose of the argument I was making the simple version is fine I think.
-
NS,
Thanks for the link.
Yes, but for the purpose of the argument I was making the simple version is fine I think.
I agree. I have spent too much time discussing induction elsewhere though to just let the statement that it's simple overall to have no challenge.
-
Jeremy,
No they’re not – just the unwarranted ones obtained from induction. Think black swans.
All statements about the real worlds are obtained from induction.
-
NS,
I agree. I have spent too much time discussing induction elsewhere though to just let the statement that it's simple overall to have no challenge.
Fair enough.
-
Jeremy,
All statements about the real worlds are obtained from induction.
How does that concern the argument that ascribing the status of fact to a statement that can only be known to be a fact with omniscience is logically false?
-
Jeremy,
How does that concern the argument that ascribing the status of fact to a statement that can only be known to be a fact with omniscience is logically false?
Because if we accept your reasoning, it means there are no facts because nothing can be known to be a fact without omniscience.
LR’s statement is considered a fact because there is no verifiable evidence of God. I suppose there is an outside chance that somebody will find the said evidence but do you honestly think that is likely? I don’t. If you want to be really anal, I guess you could say she should have prefixed the statement with “it’s almost certain that”. If you are going to insist on that, then I’m going to hold you to it for every statement you make about the real World. You won’t even be able to say it is round without qualifying it.
-
Jeremy,
Because if we accept your reasoning, it means there are no facts because nothing can be known to be a fact without omniscience.
It means no such thing. You’ve gone nuclear here: “OK, something logically impossible may not be a fact, but then again all facts rest on premises so any claim of fact is equivalent to any other”.
It fails because, well, do I really need to explain why? All facts are at some level probabilistic – the Sun being 93m miles from the earth is a fact because we have instruments that tell us that but for all I know I’m a piece of junk computer code or brain in a vat and everything “I” think is real isn’t real at all, or maybe there's a global conspiracy among telescope makers to produce incorrect readings. Nonetheless, as this is the world I appear to occupy and have to navigate, we treat such findings as functionally certain facts, verifiable as they are in various practical ways.
Then though we have claims of fact that are unverifiable and sometimes logically impossible too: there’s a teapot orbiting the sun just beyond the range of our instruments to detect it; there is no verifiable evidence for gods (or for leprechauns) etc. You can call these statements claims or assertions or opinions, but you cannot call them facts because they fail the basic requirements of statements that are facts – logical coherence and investigability.
You know this already though - calling anything at all a fact because no statements of fact can ultimately be known to be certain would be chaotic: the fact of taking the stairs being equivalent to the fact of stepping out of the window and floating to the ground would collapse immediately you tried it.
LR’s statement is considered a fact because there is no verifiable evidence of God.
Considered by whom, and how do you know it to be a fact rather than an opinion that there’s no verifiable evidence for god?
I suppose there is an outside chance that somebody will find the said evidence but do you honestly think that is likely? I don’t. If you want to be really anal, I guess you could say she should have prefixed the statement with “it’s almost certain that”. If you are going to insist on that, then I’m going to hold you to it for every statement you make about the real World. You won’t even be able to say it is round without qualifying it.
Doesn’t work. I don’t think it’s likely either (and I’m leaving aside for now the problems with relating evidence conceptually to a claim of the supernatural), but that’s not the point. Terms used for workaday, colloquial purposes are often used imprecisely (or plain wrongly), but in a conversation about epistemological accuracy you cannot just claim something to be a fact (or “FACT” as Floo put it) when necessarily it cannot be a fact for the reasons I’ve just explained.
-
It is a FACT that there is no VERIFIABLE evidence for god.
-
Floo,
It is a FACT that there is no VERIFIABLE evidence for god.
Maybe if you used 20pt font and a purple typeface for the word "FACT" that would help even more turn this non-fact into a fact?
-
Floo,
Maybe if you used 20pt font and a purple typeface for the word "FACT" that would help even more turn this non-fact into a fact?
YAWN
-
It is a FACT that there is no VERIFIABLE evidence for god.
How do you know that?
-
How do you know that?
Has anyone come up with any? If they have, I will be proved to be wrong, until then...……..!
-
Clearly the spirit of Mr Gradgrind lives on.
-
Floo,
Has anyone come up with any?
Relevance? That no-one had come up with a black swan before the first one was found didn't mean that it was a fact that they didn't exist.
If they have, I will be proved to be wrong, until then...……..!
No. You're already "proved wrong" because you cannot know the non-existence of something to be a fact (or even a FACT) unless you're also omniscient.
-
Floo,
Relevance? That no-one had come up with a black swan before the first one was found didn't mean that it was a fact that they didn't exist.
No. You're already "proved wrong" because you cannot know the non-existence of something to be a fact (or even a FACT) unless you're also omniscient.
Until someone comes up with verifiable evidence to prove beyond any doubt god exists, I will carry on believing I am right.
-
Floo,
Until someone comes up with verifiable evidence to prove beyond any doubt god exists, I will carry on believing I am right.
A belief that there’s no verifiable evidence for gods (or for leprechauns) is one to which you’re perfectly entitled. I share that belief. What you can’t do though is to demonstrate that belief also to be a fact – at least not unless you are omniscient.
-
How do you know that?
She doesn't. The needle's got stuck, as usual.
-
Floo,
But I am omniscient.
How do you know that?
-
Just by way of a coda, the same question would apply to a god. For those who like to claim an omniscient god, how would such a god know he was omniscient (even if he was)?
-
Jeremy,
It means no such thing. You’ve gone nuclear here: “OK, something logically impossible may not be a fact, but then again all facts rest on premises so any claim of fact is equivalent to any other”.
It fails because, well, do I really need to explain why? All facts are at some level probabilistic – the Sun being 93m miles from the earth is a fact because we have instruments that tell us that but for all I know I’m a piece of junk computer code or brain in a vat and everything “I” think is real isn’t real at all, or maybe there's a global conspiracy among telescope makers to produce incorrect readings. Nonetheless, as this is the world I appear to occupy and have to navigate, we treat such findings as functionally certain facts, verifiable as they are in various practical ways.
Then though we have claims of fact that are unverifiable and sometimes logically impossible too: there’s a teapot orbiting the sun just beyond the range of our instruments to detect it; there is no verifiable evidence for gods (or for leprechauns) etc. You can call these statements claims or assertions or opinions, but you cannot call them facts because they fail the basic requirements of statements that are facts – logical coherence and investigability.
You know this already though - calling anything at all a fact because no statements of fact can ultimately be known to be certain would be chaotic: the fact of taking the stairs being equivalent to the fact of stepping out of the window and floating to the ground would collapse immediately you tried it.
Considered by whom, and how do you know it to be a fact rather than an opinion that there’s no verifiable evidence for god?
Doesn’t work. I don’t think it’s likely either (and I’m leaving aside for now the problems with relating evidence conceptually to a claim of the supernatural), but that’s not the point. Terms used for workaday, colloquial purposes are often used imprecisely (or plain wrongly), but in a conversation about epistemological accuracy you cannot just claim something to be a fact (or “FACT” as Floo put it) when necessarily it cannot be a fact for the reasons I’ve just explained.
Tip-top post. A belter.
-
Hi Dicky,
Tip-top post. A belter.
Kind of you to say so good Sir. I promise that I just put your last Reply in the Searching for God thread on the Forum Best Bits page before I read this!
-
Jeremy,
It means no such thing. You’ve gone nuclear here: “OK, something logically impossible may not be a fact, but then again all facts rest on premises so any claim of fact is equivalent to any other”.
No, you are the one who has gone nuclear.
It fails because, well, do I really need to explain why? All facts are at some level probabilistic – the Sun being 93m miles from the earth is a fact because we have instruments that tell us that but for all I know I’m a piece of junk computer code or brain in a vat and everything “I” think is real isn’t real at all, or maybe there's a global conspiracy among telescope makers to produce incorrect readings. Nonetheless, as this is the world I appear to occupy and have to navigate, we treat such findings as functionally certain facts, verifiable as they are in various practical ways.
All facts are probabilistic. Agreed.
"There is no verifiable evidence for God" is a statement that the probability of such evidence existing is very low. I think this is uncontroversial because, nobody has ever presented any in spite of trying for hundreds of years.
Then though we have claims of fact that are unverifiable and sometimes logically impossible too: there’s a teapot orbiting the sun just beyond the range of our instruments to detect it; there is no verifiable evidence for gods (or for leprechauns) etc. You can call these statements claims or assertions or opinions, but you cannot call them facts because they fail the basic requirements of statements that are facts – logical coherence and investigability.
Except that the claim "there is no verifiable evidence for x" is investigable. You just have to survey human knowledge (which is finite). You can't guarantee that somebody won't make an observation that provides verifiable evidence in the future, but again, it seems improbable considering how hard people are looking and anyway, it would be in the future not now.
-
Tip-top post. A belter.
Except for it being wrong, I agree.
-
Jeremy,
No, you are the one who has gone nuclear.
As I actually did the opposite of that – ie, explained that your going nuclear (effectively “OK, something logically impossible may not be a fact, but then again all facts rest on premises so any claim of fact is equivalent to any other”) fails – you’re going to have to explain why you think that’s true.
All facts are probabilistic. Agreed.
"There is no verifiable evidence for God" is a statement that the probability of such evidence existing is very low. I think this is uncontroversial because, nobody has ever presented any in spite of trying for hundreds of years.
You may well think the probability to be very low (so do I), but that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that there is no evidence, not that there’s a low probability of it. This claim was described as a fact, which it necessarily cannot be for the reasons I explained (because it fails the basic constituents of facts – coherence and investigability).
Except that the claim "there is no verifiable evidence for x" is investigable. You just have to survey human knowledge (which is finite). You can't guarantee that somebody won't make an observation that provides verifiable evidence in the future, but again, it seems improbable considering how hard people are looking and anyway, it would be in the future not now.
Love that “just have to survey human knowledge”! Finite or not, unless you have the knowledge of every possible place that such evidence could be and the means to look in every one of them, you still have the same problem: the claim necessarily cannot be a fact (despite Floo’s possibly dubious assertion that she is in fact omniscient).
-
Jeremy,
Except for it being wrong, I agree.
If you think it's wrong then you need to demonstrate its wrongness by making an argument that isn't itself wrong - see above.
Coda: A good place to start by the way would be to stop eliding the low probability of something with the categorical claim of its non-existence.
-
Jeremy,
As I actually did the opposite of that
No you didn't. It is you that is claiming we can't know anything, not me.
You may well think the probability to be very low (so do I), but that wasn’t the claim. The claim was that there is no evidence, not that there’s a low probability of it.
The point is that the statement "there is no verifiable evidence for X" is shorthand for "it is highly improbable that there is verifiable evidence for X". We do it all the time because there is no certainty in the real World.
This claim was described as a fact, which it necessarily cannot be
But it is a fact. There is no verifiable evidence for God. If there was verifiable evidence for God, then all of us rational folks would believe in him. We don't.
Love that “just have to survey human knowledge”! Finite or not, unless you have the knowledge of every possible place that such evidence could be and the means to look in every one of them, you still have the same problem: the claim necessarily cannot be a fact (despite Floo’s assertion that she is in fact omniscient).
Stuff that hasn't been discovered yet is not verifiable evidence.
-
Jeremy,
If you think it's wrong then you need to demonstrate its wrongness by making an argument that isn't itself wrong - see above.
Which I have been doing on this thread.
Coda: A good place to start by the way would be to stop eliding the low probability of something with the categorical claim of its non-existence.
Would you be prepared to say "leprechauns do not exist"? I would, so would pretty much anybody who hasn't got his or her head up his or her own arse.
-
Jeremy,
No you didn't. It is you that is claiming we can't know anything, not me.
That’s disappointing There are others here who routinely misrepresent what’s said to them, but I didn’t think you were one of them. I said no such thing of course – what I actually said (and you agreed with) was that at some level all facts are probabilistic, but that doesn’t mean that claims of fact that are incoherent or non-investigable/investigated have the same epistemological status as claims of fact that are coherent and that nave been investigated.
The point is that the statement "there is no verifiable evidence for X" is shorthand for "it is highly improbable that there is verifiable evidence for X". We do it all the time because there is no certainty in the real World.
No it isn’t, and I’ve dealt with this already. Of course in the real world we use terms imprecisely or wrongly all the time, but in a conversation about epistemology “zero probability” and “low probability” mean very different things.
But it is a fact. There is no verifiable evidence for God. If there was verifiable evidence for God, then all of us rational folks would believe in him. We don't.
A thought experiment for you: let’s say, just for fun, that 500 years ago a Tibetan monk came up with a knock-down, categorically unanswerable argument for “god”, and then climbed Everest and hid it under a rock (maybe he was publicity shy or something) that, soon afterwards, was covered by a glacier that to this day no human being has seen since the first snow flakes covered it. Let's say too that, tragically, this monk was killed on the descent and so never shared the argument with anyone else.
Would you say that that’s a low probability event, or that it’s a fact (or “FACT”) that it's a zero probability event (ie, that no such evidence exists)?
Why?
Stuff that hasn't been discovered yet is not verifiable evidence.
Quite! Re the above, what verifiable evidence would you think there to be for the categoric claim of fact that there is no evidence?
-
Jeremy,
Which I have been doing on this thread.
Not so far you haven’t.
Would you be prepared to say "leprechauns do not exist"? I would, so would pretty much anybody who hasn't got his or her head up his or her own arse.
Charming. In a conversation down the Limping Whippet, quite possibly; in a conversation about epistemological truths, of course not – I’d have no way to demonstrate the claim.
-
Just by way of a coda, the same question would apply to a god. For those who like to claim an omniscient god, how would such a god know he was omniscient (even if he was)?
S/he'd know it because s/he was omniscient! Durrr...
-
No it isn’t, and I’ve dealt with this already. Of course in the real world we use terms imprecisely or wrongly all the time, but in a conversation about epistemology “zero probability” and “low probability” mean very different things.
LR wasn't having a conversation about epistemology. She was making a statement of fact.
A thought experiment for you: let’s say, just for fun, that 500 years ago a Tibetan monk came up with a knock-down, categorically unanswerable argument for “god”, and then climbed Everest and hid it under a rock (maybe he was publicity shy or something) that, soon afterwards, was covered by a glacier that to this day no human being has seen since the first snow flakes covered it. Let's say too that, tragically, this monk was killed on the descent and so never shared the argument with anyone else.
Would you say that that’s a low probability event, or that it’s a fact (or “FACT”) that it's a zero probability event (ie, that no such evidence exists)?
All statements of fact are provisional. All statements of fact are subject to the possibility of being overturned in the future. Yes it is possible that evidence will be discovered in the future that confirms the existence of God and it is possible that it has already been discovered but nobody alive knows about it but that doesn't change anything. We can't base our knowledge of the World on things we haven't discovered yet.
There's also the point that LR said there is no verifiable evidence of God. How would you verify something if you don't even know it exists?
-
Jeremy,
Not so far you haven’t.
The fact that you refuse to see the truth of my argument is, I guess, my failing, but it does not mean my argument is wrong or doesn't exist.
Charming. In a conversation down the Limping Whippet, quite possibly; in a conversation about epistemological truths, of course not – I’d have no way to demonstrate the claim.
This isn't a conversation about epistemological truths, it's a conversation about a specific claim made by Little Roses. It's a true claim because there is no verifiable evidence of God. If you think there is, where is it?
-
Jeremy,
LR wasn't having a conversation about epistemology. She was making a statement of fact.
Try reading that sentence again.
Epistemology concerns the distinction between justified belief and opinion. If someone asserts the non-existence of something to be a fact rather than just an opinion, testing that claim is epistemology.
All statements of fact are provisional. All statements of fact are subject to the possibility of being overturned in the future. Yes it is possible that evidence will be discovered in the future that confirms the existence of God and it is possible that it has already been discovered but nobody alive knows about it but that doesn't change anything. We can't base our knowledge of the World on things we haven't discovered yet.
You’re floundering now. If it’s possible that evidence for a god (or for leprechauns) could be found then that’s a non-zero possibility event. Calling an assertion that there is no such evidence a “fact” though means that it would have to be a zero possibility event.
There’s no escaping that, however much you dance around it.
There's also the point that LR said there is no verifiable evidence of God. How would you verify something if you don't even know it exists?
That’s nonsensical. The claim was that such evidence categorically does not exist (ie, it’s a fact that it doesn’t). How you’d verify it if ever it was found has nothing to do with that.
The fact that you refuse to see the truth of my argument is, I guess, my failing, but it does not mean my argument is wrong or doesn't exist.
First, you can’t just claim “the truth of my argument” when that argument has fallen apart like a cheap suit.
Second, what does mean that your argument is wrong or doesn’t exist is that it fails logically, not that someone can’t grasp it.
This isn't a conversation about epistemological truths, it's a conversation about a specific claim made by Little Roses.
Which is an epistemological claim – that a statement made was a fact rather than an opinion. Indeed she repeated (several times) the claim, and even put it in capitals too just in case I missed it.
It's a true claim because there is no verifiable evidence of God. If you think there is, where is it?
Non sequitur. Where it is or might be is nether here nor there – the assertion was that it doesn’t exist at all (“FACT”), which is something she cannot know to be true without knowing about and investigating every possible place that it could be, under a glacier on top of Everest included.
-
It is a FACT that there is no VERIFIABLE evidence for god.
What kind of evidence would convince you? Ah, I recall someone saying that if I prayed to know what 10 digit number he had written down, God could prove his existence by telling me the number. My reply was that if he posted the number, I would tell him it. I reckon that because I wouldn't have come up with that idea alone, it must have been put in my head by God. Or not.
Anyway, I did a short talk on evidence for the existence of God for GCSE English. I recall the main argument I used was the idea that an airplane cannot form unless someone builds it. Likewise, the universe could not create itself and must have a creator. That's all I remember, and you guys would probably say "evolution did it". Well I see a lot of evidence against macroevolution. You don't, so hey we disagree, never mind. Where is God now you ask... I say he is in another dimension whereby we can't see him but we see his handiwork, the universe. He's in your head, made up, you say... maybe he is in my head, but that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. If I say, "thank you God for this good food" it's the food that makes me believe he exists, as something made the vegetables. Life doesn't spontaneously arise. If it had done so in the past, why don't we see it doing so now? Happy Christmas, anyway.
-
What kind of evidence would convince you? Ah, I recall someone saying that if I prayed to know what 10 digit number he had written down, God could prove his existence by telling me the number. My reply was that if he posted the number, I would tell him it. I reckon that because I wouldn't have come up with that idea alone, it must have been put in my head by God. Or not.
Anyway, I did a short talk on evidence for the existence of God for GCSE English. I recall the main argument I used was the idea that an airplane cannot form unless someone builds it. Likewise, the universe could not create itself and must have a creator. That's all I remember, and you guys would probably say "evolution did it". Well I see a lot of evidence against macroevolution. You don't, so hey we disagree, never mind. Where is God now you ask... I say he is in another dimension whereby we can't see him but we see his handiwork, the universe. He's in your head, made up, you say... maybe he is in my head, but that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. If I say, "thank you God for this good food" it's the food that makes me believe he exists, as something made the vegetables. Life doesn't spontaneously arise. If it had done so in the past, why don't we see it doing so now? Happy Christmas, anyway.
Your reasoning is flawed.
When you likewise about universe, is the start of the flaw.
-
Anyway, I did a short talk on evidence for the existence of God for GCSE English. I recall the main argument I used was the idea that an airplane cannot form unless someone builds it. Likewise, the universe could not create itself and must have a creator.
Which is about as shallow and thoughtless as it gets. The existence of a god that creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained as a universe by itself.
That's all I remember, and you guys would probably say "evolution did it".
Your indoctrination is showing - what has evolution got to do with the existence of the universe?
Well I see a lot of evidence against macroevolution.
Why don't you ever post any?
I say he is in another dimension whereby we can't see him but we see his handiwork, the universe.
"In another dimension" doesn't actually mean anything.
He's in your head, made up, you say... maybe he is in my head, but that doesn't prove he doesn't exist.
We can't prove pixies, leprechauns, or teapots orbiting Mars don't exist either.
Life doesn't spontaneously arise.
How do you know?
If it had done so in the past, why don't we see it doing so now?
Probably because the very first replicators (what is needed to get evolution going) would not suvive or arise in a world already teeming with life. The earth is nothing like it was when life first arose.
If there is a god with an important message for us, why is it playing silly games of hide-and-seek? Why isn't it and its message obvious to everyone?
-
Which is about as shallow and thoughtless as it gets. The existence of a god that creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained as a universe by itself.
Your indoctrination is showing - what has evolution got to do with the existence of the universe?
Why don't you ever post any?
"In another dimension" doesn't actually mean anything.
We can't prove pixies, leprechauns, or teapots orbiting Mars don't exist either.
How do you know?
Probably because the very first replicators (what is needed to get evolution going) would not suvive or arise in a world already teeming with life. The earth is nothing like it was when life first arose.
If there is a god with an important message for us, why is it playing silly games of hide-and-seek? Why isn't it and its message obvious to everyone?
I suggest there is some confusion of biogenesis with evolution here.
Dawkins famous conjecture "If life were to arise abiogenically again it would immediately be eaten" has always been pretty thin stuff....not least since we should be able to detect it being eaten.
That massive fail on the part of Dawkins is I suppose offset a little by his best argument about the evolution of God although there is quite an amusing riposte to this which goes something like
"OK....God evolved".
In terms of God being less, same or more mysterious I wouldn't like to comment save to say that something popping into existence or being self creating and apparently only doing it once is pretty mysterious........perhaps new universes are eaten before they get going.
-
I suggest there is some confusion of biogenesis with evolution here.
Dawkins famous conjecture "If life were to arise abiogenically again it would immediately be eaten" has always been pretty thin stuff....not least since we should be able to detect it being eaten.
That massive fail on the part of Dawkins is I suppose offset a little by his best argument about the evolution of God although there is quite an amusing riposte to this which goes something like
"OK....God evolved".
In terms of God being less, same or more mysterious I wouldn't like to comment save to say that something popping into existence or being self creating and apparently only doing it once is pretty mysterious........perhaps new universes are eaten before they get going.
Hardly a massive fail: abiogenesis can't happen again, because it would be crowded out by existing life. You can see something like that in brewing or winemaking: you have to observe strict hygiene to make sure the wort (unfermented liquid) doesn't get infected by bacteria or other nasties until the desired yeast fermentation gets going, but once it's under way, the danger is past, because the yeast crowds out everything else, and prevents it getting started.
How life got started is as yet unknown, but it has nothing to do with evolution, which is about how life develops after it has got started, something creationist half-wits on the interweb seem completely unable to understand.
-
I suggest there is some confusion of biogenesis with evolution here.
Dawkins famous conjecture "If life were to arise abiogenically again it would immediately be eaten" has always been pretty thin stuff....not least since we should be able to detect it being eaten.
That massive fail on the part of Dawkins...
See Steve's answer.
In terms of God being less, same or more mysterious I wouldn't like to comment save to say that something popping into existence or being self creating and apparently only doing it once is pretty mysterious........perhaps new universes are eaten before they get going.
Where does this 'self-created' bollocks come from? How would you be able to tell if it's happened only once?
Anyway - the universe exits and nobody knows why. If there is a god (or some gods) it exists (or they exist) and nobody knows why. The difference is that we know the universe exists.
-
What kind of evidence would convince you? Ah, I recall someone saying that if I prayed to know what 10 digit number he had written down, God could prove his existence by telling me the number. My reply was that if he posted the number, I would tell him it. I reckon that because I wouldn't have come up with that idea alone, it must have been put in my head by God. Or not.
Anyway, I did a short talk on evidence for the existence of God for GCSE English. I recall the main argument I used was the idea that an airplane cannot form unless someone builds it. Likewise, the universe could not create itself and must have a creator. That's all I remember, and you guys would probably say "evolution did it". Well I see a lot of evidence against macroevolution. You don't, so hey we disagree, never mind. Where is God now you ask... I say he is in another dimension whereby we can't see him but we see his handiwork, the universe. He's in your head, made up, you say... maybe he is in my head, but that doesn't prove he doesn't exist. If I say, "thank you God for this good food" it's the food that makes me believe he exists, as something made the vegetables. Life doesn't spontaneously arise. If it had done so in the past, why don't we see it doing so now? Happy Christmas, anyway.
If god exists why does it play stupid games with humanity by making its presence a matter of faith? It certainly doesn't do it any credit, especially if there are penalties for disbelief. >:(
-
See Steve's answer.
Where does this 'self-created' bollocks come from? How would you be able to tell if it's happened only once?
Anyway - the universe exits and nobody knows why. If there is a god (or some gods) it exists (or they exist) and nobody knows why. The difference is that we know the universe exists.
Steve has actually said nothing that contradicts abiogenesis happening again and again.
To assert that the new life form would automatically be at the bottom or middle of the food chain is piss poor biology.
-
If god exists why does it play stupid games with humanity by making its presence a matter of faith? It certainly doesn't do it any credit, especially if there are penalties for disbelief. >:(
If we were to see God we'd be has-beens:
Exodus 33:20
And He added, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live."
-
Spud,
If we were to see God we'd be has-beens:
Exodus 33:20
And He added, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live."
Quite the charmer this sociopath you worship eh?
-
To assert that the new life form would automatically be at the bottom or middle of the food chain is piss poor biology.
I actually laughed out loud at this.
The first replicators may have been little more than strands of RNA. For example: NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN, it's called R3C and it basically makes copies of itself (A, C, G, and U are the RNA bases and N being "don't care").
Nobody is suggesting that anything resembling a modern "life form" just popped into existence, you need to get natural selection working on something much, much simpler first.
-
If we were to see God we'd be has-beens:
Exodus 33:20
And He added, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live."
So this god isn't omnipotent then? Even so, not being able to show its face doesn't explain why it can't effectively communicate and make itself and its message clear.
-
Spud,
Quite the charmer this sociopath you worship eh?
Read on and see :)
-
I actually laughed out loud at this.
The first replicators may have been little more than strands of RNA. For example: NNNNNNUGCUCGAUUGGUAACAGUUUGAAUGGGUUGAAGUAU–GAGACCGNNNNNN, it's called R3C and it basically makes copies of itself (A, C, G, and U are the RNA bases and N being "don't care").
Nobody is suggesting that anything resembling a modern "life form" just popped into existence, you need to get natural selection working on something much, much simpler first.
I don't know why your laughing.
I never suggested a modern lifeform but a new lifeform through abiogenesis.........exactly what process dooms it to lose out in any competition with other organisms? By what means do you suggest it is in no way subject to the normal rules of natural selection?
-
If we were to see God we'd be has-beens:
Exodus 33:20
And He added, "You cannot see My face, for no one can see Me and live."
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved (Genesis 32:30).
So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exodus 33:11).
-
By what means do you suggest it is in no way subject to the normal rules of natural selection?
Of course it would be subject to natural selection, that's why it wouldn't get off the ground. It's environment would be teeming with life that was already very well adapted to it. We don't know how life (more specifically replication with inheritance and variation) started but it was in a very different world to today, and one that wasn't filled with competition.
What are you actually proposing anyway? That god magicked life into existence and then waited 4 billion years for evolution to do the rest of the job? This seems like god of the gaps nonsense.
-
Jeremy,
Try reading that sentence again.
Epistemology concerns the distinction between justified belief and opinion. If someone asserts the non-existence of something to be a fact rather than just an opinion, testing that claim is epistemology.
And your point is?
You’re floundering now.
No, merely frustrated. LR made a statement: "there is no verifiable evidence of God". It's patently true as evidenced by the fact nobody seems to be able to bring it to the table. If there is evidence under a rock somewhere in the Himalayas that nobody alive knows about, it is not verifiable.
You can do all that bullshit about epistemology as much as you like but you are making fine points that nobody in the real World cares about.
-
Of course it would be subject to natural selection, that's why it wouldn't get off the ground. It's environment would be teeming with life that was already very well adapted to it. We don't know how life (more specifically replication with inheritance and variation) started but it was in a very different world to today, and one that wasn't filled with competition.
What are you actually proposing anyway? That god magicked life into existence and then waited 4 billion years for evolution to do the rest of the job? This seems like god of the gaps nonsense.
I'm afraid you still have to justify Dawkins assertion that we would never see abiogenesis because the products would be swiftly digested.
You then....if you are supporting that assertion need to justify why the process of its digestion could never be observed.
Next comes your explanation for why the new organisms are invariably unfit when that idea would exclude any new species from developing. This is the point where yours, Steves and Dawkins conjecture fails big time because what you are asserting is:
New species can emerge from the single tree of life.
New species can never emerge from a new tree of life
Suggesting a special reason for the success of the original tree of life.
What is this and how does it work?
-
What are you actually proposing anyway? That god magicked life into existence and then waited 4 billion years for evolution to do the rest of the job? This seems like god of the gaps nonsense.
No I'm saying that what Dawkins asserts is wrong and that error is born out of dogmatic commitment to the one tree of life theory and a fear of pivotal events only occurring once.
It actually points to abiogenesis being an extremely improbable event occurring under almost unique conditions......almost miraculously one might say.
-
I'm afraid you still have to justify Dawkins assertion that we would never see abiogenesis because the products would be swiftly digested.
No, I don't.
Next comes your explanation for why the new organisms are invariably unfit when that idea would exclude any new species from developing. This is the point where yours, Steves and Dawkins conjecture fails big time because what you are asserting is:
New species can emerge from the single tree of life.
New species can never emerge from a new tree of life
Suggesting a special reason for the success of the original tree of life.
What is this and how does it work?
Seriously?
In order to get a new tree of life going, you first need something or other that reproduces itself with variation. That could (according to one hypothesis) be something like a molecule of RNA (such as R3C). That's not a new species, it's just a molecule and it has had no chance at all to adapt. It would be far, far simpler than any living thing that it might encounter. Undisturbed, in an earth devoid of any complex life, it stands a chance (if its environment is relatively stable) of natural selection building up robustness and complexity, but in a world full of complex life how would it ever get off the ground?
The likelihood is that some variation made one sort of replicator far better at the job than others, which would explain why all life appears to have a single common ancestor. After that, new replicators would immediately be outperformed.
And I'll ask again, what are you actually suggesting? That god magicked life into existence and then waited 4 billion years for evolution to do the rest of the job?
-
No I'm saying that what Dawkins asserts is wrong and that error is born out of dogmatic commitment to the one tree of life theory and a fear of pivotal events only occurring once.
It actually points to abiogenesis being an extremely improbable event occurring under almost unique conditions......almost miraculously one might say.
Abiogenesis probably is extremely improbable, which is another reason why it's only occurred once. The conditions on earth were probably suitable for abiogenesis to take place for billions of years before it did.
I repeat: after life has established itself once, abiogenesis can't happen again for the reason I gave earlier: that it'd be crowded out by existing life (and probably eaten by it, as Dawkins says). Also - this is speculation on my part - existing life would modify conditions on earth to suit it, so that the conditions suitable for abiogenesis - the right atmospheric mix, etc - no longer obtained.
-
No I'm saying that what Dawkins asserts is wrong and that error is born out of dogmatic commitment to the one tree of life theory and a fear of pivotal events only occurring once.
There is very good evidence for one tree of life. Why would he, or anybody else, be afraid of "pivotal events only occurring once"?
It actually points to abiogenesis being an extremely improbable event occurring under almost unique conditions...
Except that life seems to have started on earth almost as soon as it possibly could, which points to the opposite. Life may be very, very improbably or it may be something that it happens pretty much every time the conditions are right - we don't know.
...almost miraculously one might say.
Even if it's so improbably it's only every happened once, it would have to be in the place living things are talking about it, wouldn't it?
-
Abiogenesis probably is extremely improbable, which is another reason why it's only occurred once. The conditions on earth were probably suitable for abiogenesis to take place for billions of years before it did.
I repeat: after life has established itself once, abiogenesis can't happen again for the reason I gave earlier: that it'd be crowded out by existing life (and probably eaten by it, as Dawkins says). Also - this is speculation on my part - existing life would modify conditions on earth to suit it, so that the conditions suitable for abiogenesis - the right atmospheric mix, etc - no longer obtained.
You mean abiogenesis can happen but the results are immediately consumed or crowded out.
Surely it has as likely a chance of that happening as any new species or individual. Why then does this not occur with all new individuals.......of any species?
My objections therefore still valid until you provide a process by which natural selection can make a special exception against abiogenetically derived new individuals.
I perfectly accept your suggestion that life changes global conditions so that abiogenesis cannot happen but this is different to abiogenesis happening but then being eaten or crowded out which would be an argument by special pleading.
-
There is very good evidence for one tree of life. Why would he, or anybody else, be afraid of "pivotal events only occurring once"?
I'm not saying there isn't evidence.
Dawkins fear of the single event is well known....his aversion to discussion of the origin of the universe, his long running advocacy of phyletic gradualism against Jay Gould and Eldridge's punctuated equilibrium.....it's all there.
-
You mean abiogenesis can happen but the results are immediately consumed or crowded out.
Surely it has as likely a chance of that happening as any new species or individual. Why then does this not occur with all new individuals.......of any species?
Because new species are already biologically complex and advanced, and able to fend for themselves at least as well as the species from which they sprang, and better if their modificstion provides an advantage, whereas completely new life has to start from scratch, as simple RNA molecules.[
I perfectly accept your suggestion that life changes global conditions so that abiogenesis cannot happen but this is different to abiogenesis happening but then being eaten or crowded out which would be an argument by special pleading.
Why is it special pleading?
-
Because new species are already biologically complex and advanced, and able to fend for themselves at least as well as the species from which they sprang, and better if their modificstion provides an advantage, whereas completely new life has to start from scratch, as simple RNA molecules.[Why is it special pleading?
Complexity is a biological word.........advanced isn't......
Complexity is not necessary for survival by natural selection but fitness is.
You have got therefore to outline a process where a new abiogenetically derived species automatically is unfit but many, many evolutionary derived but simple species are fit.
Until you do, you are specially pleading.
In fact complexity features in intelligent design which is a road down which you don't want to go.
-
Complexity is not necessary for survival by natural selection but fitness is.
You have got therefore to outline a process where a new abiogenetically derived species automatically is unfit but many, many evolutionary derived but simple species are fit.
FFS Vald, this isn't difficult! A single strand of RNA can reproduce itself but it really isn't all that good at it compared with even the simplest of modern life.
Fitness is relative to the environment and the earth is now full of extremely well adapted and complex (relative to a single molecule) lifeforms that will out perform anything simple enough to be the first replicator in a new tree of life.
-
FFS Vald, this isn't difficult! A single strand of RNA can reproduce itself but it really isn't all that good at it compared with even the simplest of modern life.
Fitness is relative to the environment and the earth is now full of extremely well adapted and complex (relative to a single molecule) lifeforms that will out perform anything simple enough to be the first replicator in a new tree of life.
Again you seem to be having an argument separate from the one I'm having.
Firstly I'm talking about life. I don't think strands of RNA count.
Secondly if that is what Dawkins is talking about then his argument that all single strands of RNA are eaten up or out competed are nonsense and my argument is vindicated.
Focus Laddy.
-
Vlad - give up. You are hopelessly confused.
-
Again you seem to be having an argument separate from the one I'm having.
Firstly I'm talking about life. I don't think strands of RNA count.
We're talking about abiogenesis and my whole point is that you can't get to anything resembling modern life forms all at once. You have to have something much simpler for natural selection to work on. That means something that reproduces itself with variation, which could have been just an RNA molecule.
Secondly if that is what Dawkins is talking...
I neither know nor care what Dawkins was talking about.
-
We're talking about abiogenesis and my whole point is that you can't get to anything resembling modern life forms all at once. You have to have something much simpler for natural selection to work on. That means something that reproduces itself with variation, which could have been just an RNA molecule.
I neither know nor care what Dawkins was talking about.
Well then we are having two different arguments.....I hope you continue to enjoy yours.
-
Well then we are having two different arguments.....I hope you continue to enjoy yours.
Look up!
-
And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved (Genesis 32:30).
So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend (Exodus 33:11).
In verse 20 (Exodus 33) Moses is speaking with God face to face in the tent of meeting. He asks to see God's glory. God replies that Moses must not see his face while he is in his glory.
-
In verse 20 (Exodus 33) Moses is speaking with God face to face in the tent of meeting. He asks to see God's glory. God replies that Moses must not see his face while he is in his glory.
How convenient.
-
In verse 20 (Exodus 33) Moses is speaking with God face to face in the tent of meeting. He asks to see God's glory. God replies that Moses must not see his face while he is in his glory.
What nonsense! ::)