About the Charismatic gifts and their exercise.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[jeremyp]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[SteveH]

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...

[jeremyp]

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?

[jeremyp]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Spud]

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.

[BeRational]

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.

[Stranger]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[SteveH]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Roses]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Spud]

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."

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Stranger]

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.

[Stranger]

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]

Spud,

Quite the charmer this sociopath you worship eh?

Read on and see 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[BeRational]

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).

[Stranger]

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.