AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Sassy]

Suggest you learn about fallacies first and then re-read your own posts: the ones I mentioned are quite obvious.

I suggest you research the evidence which are not fallacies of the things actually happening amongst Christians in the world today.
Then you would see how you use a word with evidence of what fallacies you relate to and without any real evidence to support them. Again I stand by my post, but your inability to provide proof shows you have nothing.

[Gordon]

I suggest you research the evidence which are not fallacies of the things actually happening amongst Christians in the world today.

I suggest you present the evidence yourself: the burden of proof is yours.

Then you would see how you use a word with evidence of what fallacies you relate to and without any real evidence to support them. Again I stand by my post, but your inability to provide proof shows you have nothing.

The evidence of fallacies is their use, and there are numerous textbook examples to be found in this Forum.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which bluehillside does not try hard enough to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.

In which Sword fails to grasp that the point being made was that the NPF is often used in answer to the question, “what evidence is there for your “God”?” so no guessing about why else people attempt it is required.

How about the constant implications that people are wrong to have a religious belief e.g. books like The God Delusion?

In which Sword fails to grasp that the point here and in that book is that the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate a “true for you too” god are bad arguments.

There are probably some who have concluded that if some atheists seem to be so sure that religious believers are wrong, then they should be able to back it up, rather than hiding behind excuses such as burden of proof.

In which Sword fails to grasp that a-theism is merely the finding that there are no good reasons for believing gods to be real, validated by the falsification of the arguments theists do attempt. Having set out his straw man, Sword continues to fail to grasp moreover that “God” is the positive assertion and that the burden of proof issue isn’t an “excuse” at all but rather is a basic tenet of logical discourse. 
 

That works both ways, something you are not prepared to accept because you do not appear to understand how truth works, or properties of truth.

In which Sword fails to grasp that it would work both ways only if his straw man version of a-theism wasn’t a straw man, and moreover that his interlocutor understands therefore much better than he does “how truth works”.

Apart from that though…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Sword fails to grasp that the point being made was that the NPF is often used in answer to the question, “what evidence is there for your “God”?” so no guessing about why else people attempt it is required.

In which Sword fails to grasp that the point here and in that book is that the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate a “true for you too” god are bad arguments.

In which Sword fails to grasp that a-theism is merely the finding that there are no good reasons for believing gods to be real, validated by the falsification of the arguments theists do attempt. Having set out his straw man, Sword continues to fail to grasp moreover that “God” is the positive assertion and that the burden of proof issue isn’t an “excuse” at all but rather is a basic tenet of logical discourse. 
 
In which Sword fails to grasp that it would work both ways only if his straw man version of a-theism wasn’t a straw man, and moreover that his interlocutor understands therefore much better than he does “how truth works”.

Apart from that though…

No Hillside it is believing there are no good reasons for believing God!s.
Stop trying to pass your own beliefs as "discoveries".

[Alan Burns]

Given a long enough span of time and a large enough amount of space, anything that can happen, will happen.

This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time.  Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty.  To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty.  You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.

[Owlswing]

This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time.  Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty.  To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty.  You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.

Even taking into account Hoyle's expertise in the matter your comment is blatant rubbish as no-one has yet been able to calculate the total size and compostion of the known universe, so your figures (and Hoyle's) are conjecture - but at least Hoyle had the grace and good manners to admit it! 

[Maeght]

This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time.  Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty.  To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty.  You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.

It tells us nothing if the conditions used for the calculation are incorrect.

[Gordon]

This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time.  Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty.  To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty.  You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.

Very nice, but Hoyle's approach isn't accepted by evolutionary biologists primarily since it assumes complexity in a single step (hence the tornado in a junkyard assembling a functioning aeroplane analogy) - since Hoyle is often cited by creationist clowns I'd have though this would indicate that he got this argument wrong.

According to Ian Musgrave in Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics, and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations:

These people, including Fred, have committed one or more of the following errors.

They calculate the probability of the formation of a "modern" protein, or even a complete bacterium with all "modern" proteins, by random events. This is not the abiogenesis theory at all.

They assume that there is a fixed number of proteins, with fixed sequences for each protein, that are required for life.

They calculate the probability of sequential trials, rather than simultaneous trials.

They misunderstand what is meant by a probability calculation.

They underestimate the number of functional enzymes/ribozymes present in a group of random sequences.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Junkyard_tornado

[bluehillside Retd.]

No Hillside it is believing there are no good reasons for believing God!s.
Stop trying to pass your own beliefs as "discoveries".

In which Vlad fails to grasp that "there are no good reasons for believing in gods" is merely the outcome when the arguments theists attempt to validate gods have been falsified.

[torridon]

Given a long enough span of time and a large enough amount of space, anything that can happen, will happen.

This statement is blatantly wrong if the universe has a finite size and has existed for a finite amount of time.  Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty.  To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty.  You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.

I find this thrice baffling.

On the simplest level my statement cannot be falsified because it is merely a truism; the clue is in the use of the word enough

Bafflement number two is why you cling to a view fifty years out of date. Hoyle might have been a brilliant mind, and a Yorkshireman to boot, but things have moved on since then and now scientists expect to find life wherever conditions allow for delicate biology.

Bafflement number three which I find the most puzzling, is why a theist like you would be arguing anyway that God, in order to bring about life and ultimately humanity, would engineer a universe so utterly inhospitable to life such that the possibilities for biology are effectively zero.  Surely that would be best way to bring about the ruination, rather than the realisation, of his own purpose.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad fails to grasp that "there are no good reasons for believing in gods" is merely the outcome when the arguments theists attempt to validate gods have been falsified.

In which Hillsides mistakes merely coming up with an alternative argument and/or merely asserting wrongness of argument or setting up a straw man argument, with falsifying argument.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Sword fails to grasp that the point being made was that the NPF is often used in answer to the question, “what evidence is there for your “God”?” so no guessing about why else people attempt it is required.

In which Sword fails to grasp that the point here and in that book is that the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate a “true for you too” god are bad arguments.

In which Sword fails to grasp that a-theism is merely the finding thdat there are no good reasons for believing gods to be real, validated by the falsification of the arguments theists do attempt. Having set out his straw man, Sword continues to fail to grasp moreover that “God” is the positive assertion and that the burden of proof issue isn’t an “excuse” at all but rather is a basic tenet of logical discourse. 
 
In which Sword fails to grasp that it would work both ways only if his straw man version of a-theism wasn’t a straw man, and moreover that his interlocutor understands therefore much better than he does “how truth works”.

Apart from that though…

In which Hillside continues not to back up his assertions made here.
Demonstrate that God is merely true for believers.......a meaningless phrase in any case since you are suggesting than an unconscious physical naturalism is true for everyone.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Bafflement number three which I find the most puzzling, is why a theist like you would be arguing anyway that God, in order to bring about life and ultimately humanity, would engineer a universe so utterly inhospitable to life such that the possibilities for biology are effectively zero.  Surely that would be best way to bring about the ruination, rather than the realisation, of his own purpose.

Sorry but I am baffled by your bafflement, "a Universe so utterly inhospitable"?? Maybe you should write to those SETI folk and tell them to give up

Gonnagle.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Dear Torridon,

Sorry but I am baffled by your bafflement, "a Universe so utterly inhospitable"?? Maybe you should write to those SETI folk and tell them to give up

Gonnagle.

Yes I'm wondering whether we'll either catch Torridon having argued or arguing in future that we don't know what conditions life can thrive in..........which as atheists well know is a standard rebuttal for fine tuning.
Torridon needs to clear up where he stands on this because one can't have it both ways.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#295

Hoyle once calculated the probability of random amino acids coming together to form a living cell as ten to the power of eighty.  To put this in perspective, the number of atomic particles in the known universe is in the order of ten to the power sixty.  You may not agree with conditions Hoyle used for this calculation, but it can be used to illustrate just how improbable some things can be.

Very nice, but Hoyle's approach isn't accepted by evolutionary biologists primarily since it assumes complexity in a single step (hence the tornado in a junkyard assembling a functioning aeroplane analogy) - since Hoyle is often cited by creationist clowns I'd have though this would indicate that he got this argument wrong.

Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.

If the success for a single step can be analogous to me throwing ten coins in the air and working out the probability that all of them come down on heads, then the probability is 1/2^10, or 1/1024.

If the success for smaller steps (ten for the analogy above) is still ten heads (this time, in a row), then guess what? The probability is still 1/2^10 or 1/1024!!

Furthermore, with the smaller steps approach, why should any one path be favoured more than the other, if it takes many steps to get there? The destination is not known in advance.

I suppose the irony of the following will not be seen by the likes of Dawkins, et al:

Dawkins reminds us that natural selection produces such creatures through a series of incremental steps that "smear out" their improbability over long periods of time. To reinforce this point, he tells us how he constructed a computer program that, with only a few rules for guidance, could "learn" to construct webs remarkably similar to those built by real spiders.

Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/1996/09/the_mystery_of_life.html

yet he won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!

[Gordon]

#295Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.

If the success for a single step can be analogous to me throwing ten coins in the air and working out the probability that all of them come down on heads, then the probability is 1/2^10, or 1/1024.

If the success for smaller steps (ten for the analogy above) is still ten heads (this time, in a row), then guess what? The probability is still 1/2^10 or 1/1024!!

Furthermore, with the smaller steps approach, why should any one path be favoured more than the other, if it takes many steps to get there? The destination is not known in advance.

I suppose the irony of the following will not be seen by the likes of Dawkins, et al:Source: http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/1996/09/the_mystery_of_life.html

yet he won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!

Before we recommend you for the 2017 Nobel Prize I take it you're sure about the assumptions on which you've based your probability calculations?

P.S Behe is one of the creationist clowns I referred to earlier.

[torridon]

Dear Torridon,

Sorry but I am baffled by your bafflement, "a Universe so utterly inhospitable"?? Maybe you should write to those SETI folk and tell them to give up

Gonnagle.

That is not my view, I was responding to Mr Burns who displays a penchant for quoting Hoyle to give the impression that life could not have arisen naturally in this universe.  My understanding is radically different to that, rather that life, although rare in strictly spatio-temporal terms, is an inevitable consequence of the laws of nature and thus will be widespread in the universe. Furthermore I would add that this is simply an expression of an underlying math that relates incidence to complexity; thus unicellular life would be comparatively widespread but civilisation building spacefaring life would be vanishingly rare.

[torridon]

...yet [Dawkins] won't see DNA, the blueprint for living organisms as an argument for a designer/creator!

quite likely because the whole concept of 'creator' is a logical fallacy, a false friend; it appears superficially attractive as an explanation but in fact it explains nothing and only leaves us saddled with the yet bigger problem of who created the creator.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

Fair enough, so we agree, this Universe is absolutely perfect to bring forth life, it's as if it had been tweaked but then that's silly thinking

Gonnagle.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Assuming complexity in smaller steps (Richard Dawkins Climbing Mount Improbable) rather than a single step makes the problem worse, in my opinion.

If the success for a single step can be analogous to me throwing ten coins in the air and working out the probability that all of them come down on heads, then the probability is 1/2^10, or 1/1024.

If the success for smaller steps (ten for the analogy above) is still ten heads (this time, in a row), then guess what? The probability is still 1/2^10 or 1/1024!!

Furthermore, with the smaller steps approach, why should any one path be favoured more than the other, if it takes many steps to get there? The destination is not known in advance.

I suppose the irony of the following will not be seen by the likes of Dawkins, et al:

In which Sword blunders spectacularly into the lottery winner’s fallacy: perfect logic throughout but only provided you have a good reason to suppose that Homo sapiens was the intended outcome all along. What are the chances eh?

Of course, those of a more thoughtful bent would point him towards the anthropic principle, Adams’ puddle, the perils of looking down the wrong end of the telescope etc in the vain hope that even Sword would grasp that there’s nothing special about him as a supposed end game. Tweak any of the variables and there may have been either no life at all or completely different kinds of life that had evolved by adapting to their different environments. 

Funny to think that, had different life types evolved somewhere, a not very bright member of a six-headed gargle monster community on Alpha Centauri (let's call him "Sward") would be posting somewhere, “but the chances of me existing by lots of little steps are fantastically rare, therefore…"etc.

Happy days eh?

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Hillsides mistakes merely coming up with an alternative argument and/or merely asserting wrongness of argument or setting up a straw man argument, with falsifying argument.

In which Vlad finally loses what little grasp of basic English he may ever have had.

In which Hillside continues not to back up his assertions made here.

Demonstrate that God is merely true for believers.......a meaningless phrase in any case since you are suggesting than an unconscious physical naturalism is true for everyone.

In which Vlad quite spectacularly demonstrates his continued failure to grasp the burden of proof principle by relying on one of his favourite straw men, apparently oblivious to the actual position that undoes him: namely that, while gods may be true for their believers, so far at least none of them have managed to make an argument cogent enough to bridge the gap from "true for me" to "true for you too".

Desperate stuff indeed. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In which Vlad finally loses what little grasp of basic English he may ever have had.

In which Vlad quite spectacularly demonstrates his continued failure to grasp the burden of proof principle by relying on one of his favourite straw men, apparently oblivious to the actual position that undoes him: namely that, while gods may be true for their believers, so far at least none of them have managed to make an argument cogent enough to bridge the gap from "true for me" to "true for you too".

Desperate stuff indeed.

In which Hillside tries to make us believe that being an atheist exonerates him from demonstrating any positive assertion...

Gods are either true for everyone or they they are true for no one.

[bluehillside Retd.]

In which Hillside tries to make us believe that being an atheist exonerates him from demonstrating any positive assertion...

In which Vlad fails again to grasp that on only "positive assertion" is that arguments attempted so far for a "true for you too god" have been falsified - many time in fact, however much he may choose to lie about the content of the falsifications.

Gods are either true for everyone or they they are true for no one.

In which, after years of attempts, Vlad finally manages to get something right. Sadly however, the vacuity of the efforts so far to demonstrate the former leave him only with the latter.

[Gordon]

In which Hillside tries to make us believe that being an atheist exonerates him from demonstrating any positive assertion...

Gods are either true for everyone or they they are true for no one.

All of those that people throughout history have expressed an allegiance to or just your preferred version?

[Alan Burns]

I believe in love and compassion.