The 'Truth'

[Gonnagle]

Dear Khatru,

Not wrong, just not scientific, not Darwinian enough.

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

No mention of the Big Bang, Gravity, singularity, matter, anti matter.

No we had to figure that out ourselves, and we are still trying to figure out how Godunnit, or not, strange but there are some who think there is no God

Gonnagle.

[Aruntraveller]

Still does not address the issue of infinite regress though Gonners.

So if GOdunnit - who dunnGod?

[Gonnagle]

Dear Trent,

His Mum and Dad, it's Mum and Dads all the way down.

Gonnagle.

[Aruntraveller]

Dear Trent,

His Mum and Dad, it's Mum and Dads all the way down.

Gonnagle.

So that'swhere he got the mortgage to build Earth - the bank of Mum and Dad. That had been worrying me.

[Stranger]

...strange but there are some who think there is no God

Why do you find that strange?

[Sassy]

According to the Bible, man was poofed into existence before the animals were created.


That's not only at odds with Darwin but also with the millions of pieces of evidence we have.

As you can see below it is according to YOU alone. And so why keep showing that you know nothing about
the bible and addressing issues you know nothing about...
Again your ignorance in your last two posts to myself from you show you know nothing of Darwin's theory or the bible.

I suppose you just believe what your religion teaches you. Should have read the books.

Example

Genesis 1.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

[Sassy]

OK, not poofed but magicked.

Also, Genesis 2 tells us that man was created before the plants.

Then came the animals because man was lonely.

Finally Eve comes along.

Genesis 2:1-22

8 And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Your understanding is naff...

[Khatru]

As you can see below it is according to YOU alone. And so why keep showing that you know nothing about
the bible and addressing issues you know nothing about...
Again your ignorance in your last two posts to myself from you show you know nothing of Darwin's theory or the bible.

I suppose you just believe what your religion teaches you. Should have read the books.

Example

Genesis 1.

19 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

29 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree, in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it shall be for meat.

30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was so.

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Actually, it's according to the Bible and you'll find it in Genesis 2.

The account there has man created first, then the plants, then the animals, then Eve.

I'm not surprised you don't mention it because it's at odds with your cut and paste job from Genesis 1.

Damn those biblical contradictions!  They always catch you out.

[john]

What do you think existed before anything existed? 

I DON'T KNOW..... BUT I DONT INVENT MAGICAL SKY FAIRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DO KNOW.... I AM HONEST, I DONT KNOW, PITY THEISTS ARE DISSHONEST.

[Bubbles]

http://www.collegehumor.com/video/6838655/gods-diary-is-embarrassing

 

[Hope]

No, Alan, it's not well explained, is it?

I know we feel very real. I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'. But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss.

I notice that you "have no problem with labelling the jumble ...".  Others do.  Furthermore, do you have any evidence that your thinking has any more or even less validity to that held by Shakes/Gordon/etc; or to that held by Sass/Alan/myself?

[Hope]

I DON'T KNOW..... BUT I DONT INVENT MAGICAL SKY FAIRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DO KNOW.... I AM HONEST, I DONT KNOW, PITY THEISTS ARE DISSHONEST.

You don't invent them, john?  If not why do you, and those who think like you, so regularly bring them into the discussion?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

I notice that you "have no problem with labelling the jumble ...".  Others do.  Furthermore, do you have any evidence that your thinking has any more or even less validity to that held by Shakes/Gordon/etc; or to that held by Sass/Alan/myself?

Yes: the former group make arguments that are logically coherent; the latter group do not. That means precisely that the thinking of one group has more "validity" than the thinking of the other. Witness for example your love of the negative proof fallacy and your evasions when you're corrected on it.

[Hope]

Hope,

Yes: the former group make arguments that are logically coherent; the latter group do not. That means precisely that the thinking of one group has more "validity" than the thinking of the other. Witness for example your love of the negative proof fallacy and you're evasions when you're corrected on it.

So, what logically coherent argument lies behind Rhi's understanding, blue?  Is a scientifically logical argument the sole form of logical argument?  If so, where is the evidence (and that evidence needs to be independent of the scientific logic that so many like to rely on)?  As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

So, what logically coherent argument lies behind Rhi's understanding, blue?

Rhi makes several arguments. You tell me specifically which one you think not to be logically coherent and I’ll tell you whether or not I agree – and why.

Is a scientifically logical argument the sole form of logical argument?

Science is a branch of logic. There are some types of logical argument that do not entail the practice of science - mathematics for example.

If so, where is the evidence (and that evidence needs to be independent of the scientific logic that so many like to rely on)?

The evidence that the logic that informs science is coherent is that it works: ‘planes fly, medicines cure, buildings stay upright etc. Pseudo-science that by definition is not logically sound on the other hand does not work. 

As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?

That's pretty incoherent, but essentially the “evidence” that the negative proof argument you deploy so often here is a fallacious one is that there is no logical path from not being able to falsify something and that thing actually being true. Worse still, if you insisted nonetheless that “you can’t disprove it” in some way means that the “it” must thereby be true, then you’d have no choice but to allow in every other unfalsifiable conjecture by the same back door of irrationality. Try googling "Russell's teapot" for further details. 

(Incidentally, I’ve not bothered for now with your deeper problem of being “not even wrong” because of the lack of a cogent definition for “god”, but it’s there in the background nonetheless.)

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

  As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?

It is not casting doubt. It showing that either your arguments are unsound (premises are not demonstrated) and/or illogical (conclusions do not follow from the premises).

The NPF is an example of the latter.

[Hope]

Rhi makes several arguments. You tell me specifically which one you think not to be logically coherent and I’ll tell you whether or not I agree – and why.

Well, we 'll start with this one: 

I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'.

and then move onto this one:

But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss

Science is a branch of logic. There are some types of logical argument that do not entail the practice of science - mathematics for example.

Your point?  How do you know that spiritual matters aren't equally a branch of logic.  It would certainly make sense to me that they are.

The evidence that the logic that informs science is coherent is that it works: ‘planes fly, medicines cure, buildings stay upright etc. Pseudo-science that by definition is not logically sound on the other hand does not work. 

You're the one introducing the idea of pseudo-science; any reason why?

That's pretty incoherent, but essentially the “evidence” that the negative proof argument you deploy so often here is a fallacious one is that there is no logical path from not being able to falsify something and that thing actually being true.

Yet life depends on this type of situation.  For instance, it is very hard to prove that X loves Y scientifically, but it seems to me to be a fairly essential element of social living.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Yet life depends on this type of situation.  For instance, it is very hard to prove that X loves Y scientifically, but it seems to me to be a fairly essential element of social living.

It doesn't matter (although it might well be susceptible to scientific investigation) since whether or not I love Marmite, Chopin, or my wife is not a true for everyone type claim.

Unlike the claim to an objectively true God.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hope,

Well, we'll start with this one:

"I've no problem with labelling the jumble of memories, preferences, beliefs and emotions that appear to be 'us' a 'soul'."

I’m not sure why you think critiqueing Rhi’s arguments has anything to say to the logically fallacious arguments you attempt but, for what it’s worth, she seems to be attaching a label (“soul”) to some phenomena without accepting the additional baggage that the religious attach to the same term.

It’s potentially confusing perhaps, but I see no obvious logical error in reasoning there.   

and then move onto this one:

"But the idea that this is a separate entity that continues after our bodies have died is mere wishful thinking, a comfort blanket against finality and loss"

You misunderstand the nature of the burden of proof. It’s for those who think there to be a “soul” that does these things to make the argument for it, not for others to disprove it. Rhi’s response should technically have been, “there is no coherent argument to suggest that there is a separate entity that….etc ...and therefore the likelihood is that there is not...” or some such, but she seems to me to have been speaking colloquially rather than in strict epistemological terms.
   

Your point?

My point was to answer your question – which I did.

How do you know that spiritual matters aren't equally a branch of logic.  It would certainly make sense to me that they are.

I know that to the extent that no-one that I’m aware of has ever managed to make arguments to support their contentions about “spiritual matters” that in any way satisfy the rules of logic. To the contrary – the only arguments I’ve seen (yours for example) flatly break those rules.   

You're the one introducing the idea of pseudo-science; any reason why?

Yes – to explain to you how we know that real science is logically sound whereas pseudoscience it not.

Yet life depends on this type of situation.  For instance, it is very hard to prove that X loves Y scientifically, but it seems to me to be a fairly essential element of social living.

No it doesn’t depend on “this type of situation” at all, and your analogy is a false one in any case. If we applied your negative proof fallacy here, rather it would read more like, “you can’t disprove that X loves Y, therefore X must love Y”.

[Shaker]

As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?

The NPF is beloved only by those who use it and keep on using it despite being told repeatedly that it's a fallacy. You, in other words. Nobody else loves it because rational people don't love sloppy thinking and the inability to take on board new information. We're heartily sick to the back teeth of it and wish you would stop using it every other post.

There's a love affair with bad reasoning here all right and it's all yours.

[Rhiannon]

'Soul' is just a label, a useful shorthand for the non-material us we perceive. It's as good a term as any, like 'spirit', but the idea that it is a 'thing' is unproven and, to me, illusory.

[wigginhall]

One of the interesting things about the negative proof fallacy, is that it seems to assume a binary state of affairs.  That is, statements are either true or false.   So if you can't prove that something is false, it is true, the fallacy runs.

But of course, this is not correct.   Many things can be said to be true, false or uncertain or unknown.    Thus if an atheist can't prove that there is no God, this does't mean that there is, but that it's uncertain, (although the atheist may argue that it's implausible or contradictory).

But this non-binary state also seems to apply to incredulity.   For example, someone says, 'I can't see how the brain can produce consciousness', and then goes on to say, therefore God does it.

But again, the middle term is missing, the cause of consciousness is uncertain or unknown.   This doesn't mean that the brain does not produce it!   That's why neuroscientists are working on it.

Another one that pops us - you can't say what happened before the Big Bang, therefore God.  Well, no, it's unknown.

So some theists seem to use black and white thinking a lot; hence, the (mis)statement, you can't prove there is no God, therefore there is.

[Stranger]

Is a scientifically logical argument the sole form of logical argument?

What does "scientifically logical" mean? Either an argument is logical or it isn't. Science uses logic, there isn't a particular variety of logic that is scientific.

As for the negative proof fallacy, so beloved by so many here, since the likes of Gordon, Shakes, yourself et al can do no more than cast doubt on supernatural ideas and beliefs, where is the necessity to regard what your arguments claim as having any greater validity than anyone else's?

I refer you to wigginhall's excellent post on the matter but you've had it explained so many times, I doubt it's going to sink in.

Look, if you think that being able to do "no more than cast doubt on" an idea is any sort of justification for the idea being taken seriously, you really do need to understand that logically, that opens the door to anything, no matter how far-fetched or patently silly, just so long as you construct it in a way that it can't be falsified. For example:

• Shy fairies that only manifest to those who truly believe.
• The universe was created by Kevin - a spotty teenager in a higher dimensional universe, who was given a new physics set for his birthday. We are but his playthings.
• Endless hordes of tiny, mischievous pixies that scurry round the cosmos pushing stuff around in exactly the right way to make us think there is gravity.

And so on, and so on. You can do no more that cast doubt on any of these...

[Sassy]

Actually, it's according to the Bible and you'll find it in Genesis 2.

The account there has man created first, then the plants, then the animals, then Eve.

I'm not surprised you don't mention it because it's at odds with your cut and paste job from Genesis 1.

Damn those biblical contradictions!  They always catch you out.

No bible contradictions...
Adam placed in a GARDEN God creates for him in Chapter 2. Why not read it instead of believing everything you are told...

And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

He had done everything in preparation.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.
8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

Bells ringing now? Eden a Garden which God has planted...

9 And out of the ground made the LORD God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
10 And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it was parted, and became into four heads.

So God created a garden for man to live in which was separate from the rest of what he had created.

Never mind! Your triumph non existent and short live...

[Sassy]

I DON'T KNOW..... BUT I DONT INVENT MAGICAL SKY FAIRIES TO MAKE IT LOOK LIKE I DO KNOW.... I AM HONEST, I DONT KNOW, PITY THEISTS ARE DISSHONEST.

Your pride is your worst enemy. If you were not dishonest you would be open minded enough to allow yourself to be wrong and others right. Truth is that there is no absolute way for you to accuse theist of invention when it comes to God.
Since the scattering at the tower of Babel the whole world no matter how remote and unknown a place has humans living there who know about a GOD.

If you were honest you would allow for yourself to be wrong. But you don't in the light of what you have not experienced.
If you believed others to be truthful. Then you also have to allow for the fact they might be experiencing that which you haven't.

You need to calm down. The belief that Jesus is the Son of God and Messiah started over 2,000 years ago.
It is only the people who do not know Christ who are handed over to their illusions...