I'm pretty doubtful that a single mutation could give rise to parthenogenesis. There are examples of environmental triggers of parthenogentic development in mice and rabbits, but those embryos od not reach full term. Certainly it would be problematic to explain giving birth to a male offspring as the result of any natural form of partheneogenesis.
I agree, especially as XYY and XXY chromosome irregularities still develop as males, so you could not have a "hidden" gene to use. But if a documented case of unequivocally virgin woman gives birth to boy child, what do you think (some) people will claim is more reasonable? (a) miracle or (b) natural causes with parthenogenesis caused perhaps by some environmental factor?
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
I am new here, so don't kill me on my first try...
As far as I have understood RAZDs position, the point is that a position of no consequence is not believed or unbelieved until evidence displays itself. Some say it is unscientific, others (string theorists f.eks.) feel the need to theoretizise the possibility even though there is no evidence one way or the other.
If we assume for mental exercise that there is a god, th first thing we have to ask ourselves is what are the consequences of this proposed god. If we assume that this construct performs miracles on a daly basis, everyone will agree that it is very very unlikly such a god exists.
If there is a god that can't change anything in "our Universe", there would be no possibility to find out if or if not this god exists (per definition of our Universe being the thing we interact with physicly), and we would have to be in a 50/50 believing position. That dosn't mean I believe that there is a 50% chance that such a God exists, but science is not going to give me a different answer than that.
Therfore the most logical position to assume to a god that has no influence on the physical world would be "I do not know, I do not care." Of course, such a god would never be included in any scientific theory, because it is of no concequence to any, but that doesn't mean that science assumes that the proposition is wrong, it just means that it isn't relevant.
ps: English being my second language, please feel free to ask for clarification where my language gets in the way of thinking. Being german in norway tends to confuse the english part of my brain...
Edited by tis---strange, : signature wasn't showing
"Hey, hvor hen du er i verden... Det er deilig slve i skyggen!"
But you just admitted your mistake (Message 190, for which I thanked you), that you were wrong on your "6=agnostic" nonsense, and this resolves your contradiction.
In message 190, I explained to you that "6" is agnostic doesn't mean "6" = agnostic. Charlie is white doesn't mean Charlie = white. Find out what = means, and find out what "equivalent" means, and you'll realise that the six position being agnostic and Charlie being white does not mean that the six position is the equivalent of agnostic or that Charlie is the equivalent of white.
Now:
Charlie is white and Charlie is tall.
The "6" position is agnostic and the "6" position is atheistic.
The adjectives "white" and "tall" are not mutually exclusive, and the adjectives "agnostic" and "atheistic" are not mutually exclusive.
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
"I cannot know" is the agnostic part, and the "god is very improbable" is the atheistic part.
It describes someone who doesn't know if there is a god, and thinks "god" is very improbable.
RAZD writes:
You were guilty of equivocating, ......
Your low level of English comprehension doesn't mean I was equivocating. Find out what adjectives are and what "equivalent" means, and perhaps you'll understand your mistake.
Try to answer direct questions. Do you still think the phrase "6 is agnostic" means "atheist = agnostic"? Yes or no?
claiming that a "6" did not need to support their position with evidence because they were agnostic, when the ones that get off from supporting their position are agnostic (2) or predominantly agnostic (3 & 5).
Wrong. All positions have the same requirement for support in relation to the evidence. 6 is easily supported by the fact that we have overwhelming evidence for the existence of the natural, and none for the supernatural. Natural processes are therefore always the "very probable" explanation for any phenomena (including the universe) based on this evidence. Gods, therefore, are very improbable in relation to the evidence.
Try to answer direct questions. Do you agree that we have evidence that natural causes are always much more likely than the supernatural as explanations of phenomena? Yes or no?
What evidence can you present that would move god up from a six to a five on the Dawkins scale?
Here's the scale again.
quote:
1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
You claimed (on the pseudo-skeptics thread) to be a "3" for the existence of your deity, and a "4" for omphalism. I've pointed out that you cannot be a "4" for omphalism if you are a "2" on the proposition that the earth is ~4.5 billion years old.
Do you now agree with me? It's a direct question. Yes or no?
RAZD writes:
You tried to blur the distinctions to avoid paying the piper (presenting evidence to support your position), and you've been forced to claim that 2 through 6 are equivalent in this regard:
Which gets pretty silly when you then have to claim that a 2 theist is an atheist, or that a 6 atheist is a theist. Without the distinctions between 2 and 3 and 4 and 5 and 6 the scale becomes meaningless.
Try to find out what an adjective is. Because Charlie is white and Mary is white doesn't mean that Charlie is Mary. 6 to 2 are all agnostic. None of them "know". This does not mean that they are equivalents. Find out what equivalent means. You brought the word up.
How long are you going to go on demonstrating your abysmal English comprehension?
How long are you going to go on avoiding my direct questions?
Here are the ones from this post.
1) Do you still think the phrase "6 is agnostic" means "atheist = agnostic"? Yes or no?
2) Do you agree that we have evidence that natural causes are always much more likely than the supernatural as explanations of phenomena? Yes or no?
3) What evidence can you present that would move god up from a six to a five on the Dawkins scale?
4) Do you now agree with me (that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism if you are a "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth proposition)?
Therfore the most logical position to assume to a god that has no influence on the physical world would be "I do not know, I do not care." Of course, such a god would never be included in any scientific theory, because it is of no concequence to any, but that doesn't mean that science assumes that the proposition is wrong, it just means that it isn't relevant.
Exactly. Additionally science is not capable of testing it to determine whether it is true or not, so the logical conclusion is that we don't know the answer.
Enjoy.
... as you are new here, some posting tips:
type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes:
quotes are easy
or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:
quote:quotes are easy
also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.
If you use the message reply buttons (there's one at the bottom right of each message):
... your message is linked to the one you are replying to (adds clarity). You can also look at the way a post is formatted with the "peek" button next to it.
Hi bluegenes, are you finally getting somewhere in your ramblings that approaches addressing the issue?
Charlie is white and Charlie is tall.
It's hysterical that your argument has devolved into depending on what the meaning of is is.
The problem is that for you to avoid the burden of supporting evidence for your "6" position, you have to be == agnostic.
... the "6" position is atheistic.
Correct, thus to hide behind ("6" is agnostic) to keep from presenting evidence of your ("6" is atheistic) position is playing word games to avoid the issue of presenting the evidence for your atheistic position.
Now that you have "come out" and admitted that "6" is atheist in a way that is not any part of the "4" agnostic position, you now bear the burden of providing substantiation for you "6" atheist position.
1) Do you still think the phrase "6 is agnostic" means "atheist = agnostic"? Yes or no?
No, because "6" is not an agnostic position, and never was. It is an atheist position with a small modicum of uncertainty. Uncertainty does not default to agnostic, especially when it is only a small portion of your position. Agnostic means you don't have enough information one way or the other to decide, and your atheist position is certainly a decision.
You have now admitted this with your latest posts. The fact that you never used "6" to categorize concepts as undecided, or to represent an agnostic position, shows that you never considered "6" to be agnostic in practice. This allowed me to show your statements were silly when I did use them that way.
You're an ("de facto") atheist, and until you provide evidence supporting your position, you are a pseudoskeptic playing word games to avoid the issue.
Are you a level II or a level III on your atheist position?
I think that leaves things too open for people to equivocate on their positions.
Seems to me to do the opposite. As you said Phat was a 2 on the seven point scale "I think God exists with a very high probability." which sounds to me like he has high confidence in the proposition that God exists. Then he later says he has low confidence.
I think the reason is the focus on the evidential requirements. Since people know they don't have the objective evidence they would feel foolish saying they had high confidence in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
If you just asked "How confident are you that Jesus was resurrected
a) Zero confidence b) Low confidence c) High confidence
You'd probably see different results. I mean really - do you honestly think that practising Christians who have not been primed with several months of philosophical debate about knowledge would be inclined to say that they had only a low confidence in the resurrection of Christ?
Low confidence. The claim has a modicum of independent evidence in its favour, but other claims which contradict it have more evidence in their favour.
In my opinion, if there is invalidating evidence then there should be NO confidence. I can also have no confidence in a claim that has no evidence.
I agree - but I didn't say there was invalidating evidence. If you notice at level ii I said that the claim couldn't be ruled out. The same applies for iii. The other theories aren't conclusively demonstrated just yet.
Most people it seems (to me anyway) make decisions based on their world views and how new concepts fit in to that picture of how the universe works.
I'd suggest that the evidence strongly points to this being an integral part of the human brain and so is almost certainly true for all people, not just most.
The difference in worldviews is the subject of this thread. In one worldview, skepticism is the way: a claim is made and it is given a low confidence (or zero confidence if it is of the ilk of 'p not p') until evidence is provided.
The faith worldview has certain claims which are accepted with a reasonably high confidence 'on faith'. Modern faith includes certain elements from skepticism except when it turns its eyes to the 'articles of faith'. Since skeptical positions here are inconsistent with their worldview they are rejected.
The question is - why is faith a worldview that is considered a good thing? What is the pro argument for faith?
You might argue that some of the atheists around here are not proper skeptics, but that's another thread.
Forget my own evidential requirements for moving up the seven point scale - it seems that you agree in principle that we should start at 'ii' (or maybe even 'i') and work our way up from there. Faith would have us take a position higher up the ladder of confidence than skepticism would. Is this a good idea?
RAZD to bluegenes writes:
It's hysterical that your argument has devolved into depending on what the meaning of is is.
RAZD - take a close look here - you're argument against bluegenes has relied on the meaning of the word 'is' since you began it. You are the one equivocating on this.
If it is your position that one cannot both be agnostic and atheistic at the same time - can you explain how there are a ton of people running around saying 'I don't believe, but I don't know'?
What does it mean to 'believe' something? Do you think that belief is the same as knowledge?
Maybe I misunderstood. Do you see god as a possible answer to the question, "what created the universe?"...?
If so, how is that not a gap filler?
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but why must god being a possible answer be a gap filler? If it must, then wouldn't another possible answer, such as "Branes colliding", also be a gap filler? Doesn't that mean that every answer fills a gap?
you wrote:
quote:it seems like you are trying to find gaps in knowledge to place him tentatively (to make sense of it for yourself) until someone uncovers the natural workings of that gap
I don't think a blatantly obvious gap, like the creation of the universe, is a good example of a gap that I would be trying to find to put god into.
I'm honestly not even looking for gaps at all.
So then we can agree that the concepts of god become more vague (removing the old specifics) as we as a society increase our knowledge about nature.
Not necessarily. Its not impossible for our knowledge of nature to add specifics to the concept of god.
But yeah, it does seem to be a trend.
And consider this, that all we're doing is using the objective evidence that we have aquired to remove the concepts that violate the things we've learned about nature that can't be violated.
Not really. An objective explantation of a phenomenon can't preclude a supernatural cause. Too, explaining all the "how's" doesn't explain any of the "why's".
This is what we atheists have done for MOST known god concepts too. But, we stop short of having objective evidence to remove ALL god concepts because of the ambiguity, vagueness and unknwon aspect of this last remaining god concepts - ie. the unknown, ambiguous force (that some still hold to the opinion that it might be supernatural). Which could end up being completely natural and a part of reality as well, so no need for "belief" or "faith" to be involved at that point.
You haven't actaully removed gods, you've just made them redundant and unnecessary.
We, just like you, have narrowed down the possibilities using, as you admitted to doing as well, the knowledge of nature that we have aquired.
I see it more as narrowing down the specifics in the descriptions, but not really the possibility of what's being described.
Take Apollo pulling the sun across the sky with his chariot. That we know this isn't the case doesn't remove the possibility of god controlling our position relative to the sun, but we have narrowed down the possibility on how that could be acheived. Now, this isn't trying to make that a gap in our knowledge so that god can be put into it (and I don't really believe that god is actively controlling the solar system), its just realizing that the gap hasn't really been closed and the possibility remains. Not really a big deal.
We, unlike you however, view the lack of objective evidence in support of ANY god concept as a reason to doubt the possibilty of them existing at all.
I don't see how a lack of objective evidence can add weight to the other end of the scale on the possibility of every god concept. I think it would bring us closer to just not knowing by reducing our confidence in the positive claim but not that it is actually supporting the negetive one, especially if we're just talking about possibilities.
For subjective reasons (that apparently we atheists lack) you have faith in one concept still being possible.
Not just one... I think many of the concepts are possibilities.
My belief in god has consequences in reality by affecting my behavior.
Wouldn't you say that YOU affect your behavior because you believe in god, and not the other way around?
What's the difference?
What I meant is, can god answer the questions of reality? Does the god concept answer the "How did the universe begin," question?
No, saying goddidit hasn't ever answered how he went about doing it.
Even if we establish that a god did it, we are no closer to understanding anything about our reality/world/universe. So believing god did it would have no consequence in our understanding of anything, and never has.
I think that god being a source of the love that I feel for others can help me understand some of the ways that it manifests with more satisfying answers than it being an evolved emotion without a god.
Well, if you agree that its internal (in your mind) and disconnected from the external world, that would mean that your belief is subjective, and your concept of god is also subjective - My point is, how could anyone believe or disbelieve your subjective beliefs and concepts? I cannot reject that which has no quality in reality.
Sure you can. Lets say that we interviewed 1000s of people of the affects that aging has had on their emotional state and found trends and patterns in their subjective descriptions of them. You could disbelieve that some of the patterns are accurate.
But I think you might be talking about something different in that it is totally internal and totally disconnected from the external world and so therefore it can't even be looked at, at all, but then you're really just getting tautological in that if you can't take a belief one way or the other then you can't take a belief one way or the other. What's the point?
My point is, how could anyone believe or disbelieve your subjective beliefs and concepts?
If there's contradicting evidence, for one. Or if it just doesn't make sense to you then you could disbelieve it.
Again, we don't disbelieve in god, we simply claim that there is no evidence to support any god concept - until, like I said above, we get to this *new* "ambiguous, unkown force" - At which point I feel no one even knows what they're describing.
But you said:
quote:We, unlike you however, view the lack of objective evidence in support of ANY god concept as a reason to doubt the possibilty of them existing at all.
How is doubting the possibility of them existing at all not disbelieving them? What's the difference, specifically?
How long are you going to go on demonstrating your abysmal English comprehension?
How long are you going to go on avoiding my direct questions?
Here are the ones from this post.
1) Do you still think the phrase "6 is agnostic" means "atheist = agnostic"? Yes or no?
2) Do you agree that we have evidence that natural causes are always much more likely than the supernatural as explanations of phenomena? Yes or no?
3) What evidence can you present that would move god up from a six to a five on the Dawkins scale?
4) Do you now agree with me (that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism if you are a "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth proposition)?
RAZD writes:
It's hysterical that your argument has devolved into depending on what the meaning of is is.
Again, how long are you going to go on demonstrating your abysmal English comprehension?
Why haven't you apologised for your false accusation that I was contradicting myself?
Why are you incapable of answering the direct questions in the post that you are replying to?
RAZD writes:
Are you a level II or a level II on your atheist position?
Presumably you meant level II or a level III. Sort out your definitions with Modulous before we can work on them properly. I'd suggest you put concepts/positions, because beliefs or positions aren't really concepts. You're asking me about my position on a concept (god/s).
That said, I'm a level III. The agnosticism is the normal scientific tentativity. "We cannot know". This is what I've been trying to explain to you.
Now, I've answered your question. Answer mine, meaning particularly the numbered ones in the quote box which comes from the post you replied to.
RAZD writes:
thus to hide behind ("6" is agnostic) to keep from presenting evidence of your ("6" is atheistic)
Rather than continually repeating this, you could address the evidence I mentioned in the post you're replying to. By answering questions 2 and 3, for example.
I'm not trying to be pedantic here, but why must god being a possible answer be a gap filler? If it must, then wouldn't another possible answer, such as "Branes colliding", also be a gap filler? Doesn't that mean that every answer fills a gap?
M-Theory, String Theory, Brane Theory - are just that, workable theories with applicable equations that represent a theoretical reality that physicist are trying to model - God however, is not.
God is equal to magic. Placing god at any point is no better than saying "and poof, the universe began to exist" or "poof, now there is biological life." The god hypothesis is not a model that represents reality, its simply a default position when a model doesn't exist, or doesn't accurately give an answer yet.
I'm honestly not even looking for gaps at all.
So you wouldn't say that god created the universe? - (Keeping in mind, that no theoretical models requires that the universe needs a creator)
Its not impossible for our knowledge of nature to add specifics to the concept of god.
Can you provide one example where it has?
An objective explantation of a phenomenon can't preclude a supernatural cause.
I can't agree with this, because for one, supernatural causes has NEVER explained a phenomenon, therefore it has already been ruled out (unless you apply faith). If one single phenomenon proved to be the work of supernatural causes, then you might have reason to doubt that natural explanations can't preclude the supernatural cause - but for now, its the same as saying explaining what rainbows are doesn't preclude that there isn't a pot of gold at the end of it ... IMO, it sure does.
Too, explaining all the "how's" doesn't explain any of the "why's".
This seems like a human notion, that there should be a "why" to anything in reality. I see no relevance in that notion of why, and I see no reason to think there should be a why.
You haven't actaully removed gods, you've just made them redundant and unnecessary.
I think you're looking at it differently from how I'm looking at it.
We're not trying to remove "god(s)" - we are eliminating the subjective god concepts that people have claimed to have existed - through the use of objective scientific evidence that shows how these concepts violate certain laws of nature.
For all intents and purposes, there is no "god," there are only possible god concepts, that may or may not exist.
I see it more as narrowing down the specifics in the descriptions, but not really the possibility of what's being described.
It is my contention that if you narrow down the specific descriptions, to a point where only a vague, ambiguous force is possible, you have lost sight of what is being described.
These god(s) exist due to the concepts about them, remove the concepts and what are we even talking about then? An ambgiuous force that is unknown?
I don't see how a lack of objective evidence can add weight to the other end of the scale on the possibility of every god concept. I think it would bring us closer to just not knowing by reducing our confidence in the positive claim but not that it is actually supporting the negetive one, especially if we're just talking about possibilities.
The thing is though, god has to have a purpose. I mean, why else would people think it exists?
If, through objective evidence, we explain (hypothetically) every sinlge question about reality, whats left for god to do? More so, where else would someone place god in regards to existence?
For what purpose then would anyone believe in god?
The possible concepts exist for a purpose, if we remove that purpose, we take with it the need for god concepts.
What's the difference?
Well, the way I understood you was, you believe in god, so that belief itslef affects your behavior. Where as IMO, you have a belief in god and because you do you, you yourself affect the way you behave - the belief is simply the motivating factor that makes you youself act in a different way.
In other words, god doesn't have consequences in reality, you affect your reality by believing in him.
I think that god being a source of the love that I feel for others can help me understand some of the ways that it manifests with more satisfying answers than it being an evolved emotion without a god.
Yea, I know religious people feel that way, but god is arbitrary in that sense. You could replace god with any other thing and feel equally the same.
If there's contradicting evidence, for one. Or if it just doesn't make sense to you then you could disbelieve it.
It would be like me trying to judge your subjective liking of red more than blue - how could I weigh in on the matter with an opinion of my own?
This is why I can only be an atheist to god concepts - and more so, to specific, descriptive concepts - because, I can find objective evidence against the concepts themselves.
How is doubting the possibility of them existing at all not disbelieving them? What's the difference, specifically?
Because, remember, we're doubting the specifics about the concepts that represent the god in question. Thats why we reamin open to the possiblity of there being a god, we just don't see any evidence for it.
equivocation exposed, Pseudoskeptic position remains.
Hi bluegenes,
Presumably you meant level II or a level III.
Thanks, I've made that correction.
Why haven't you apologised for your false accusation that I was contradicting myself?
I don't have to, you have been shown that your position was contradictory if you used the same definition in all places, you have since demonstrated that you do not make that mistake in practice, and thus you were guilty of equivocation on the definitions.
The same word is used with two different meanings.
Examples:
1. Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings. Example borrowed from Copi.) 2. The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there. 3. All child-murderers are inhuman, thus, no child-murderer is human. (From Barker, p. 164; this is called "illicit obversion") 4. A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane, hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool. (Example borrowed from Davis, p. 58)
Proof:
Identify the word which is used twice, then show that a definition which is appropriate for one use of the word would not be appropriate for the second use.
This is what I did in Message 150, and this resulted the silly versions of your comments:
Message 111: If you don't eliminate supernatural propositions with a "6" on the Dawkins scale, then there are no "2"s and "6"s in science for you.
Becomes "If you don't eliminate supernatural propositions with a {"6" is agnostic} on the Dawkins scale, then there are no "2"s and {"6" is agnostic}s in science for you." This is a silly contradictory comment when you use the same meaning in both places, ergo at least ONE usage is equivocation.
The astute observer will note that the agnostic position is not used to "eliminate" concepts from consideration, and this can only be accurate for a "7" position or a pseudoskeptic position.
Message 125: Your problem is that, if you are a "4" on omphalism, you are also a "4" (or greater) on the proposition that the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years. If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a "6", you cannot be a "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth.
First we correct your misrepresentation of my example of a negative claim (one that you keep getting wrong btw):
quote:(RAZD Message 174): Your problem of self contradiction (Message 150), is multiplied by your assertion that taking an agnostic position on Omphalism means I cannot take a strong position on the age of the earth.
The claim: the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old. The evidence in support of the claim:
quote:Pseudoskepticism and logicMessage 427: It is possible to have a negative hypothesis that is not a response to a particular positive claim. For example I can claim that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the age is anywhere close to this number, and what we have is X is NOT less than 400,000 years as the negative claim that now needs to stand alone on it's own merits.
To be a valid claim, I need to provide evidence or a logical proof to show why the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years, or this claim rates as a pseudoskeptic claim.
Now the question for you is: does this evidence or does it not support the claim that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old?
If the evidence does support the claim, then a strong position on the age of the earth is justified by the evidence.
Bold and color to emphasis your erroneous reference
Message 125CORRECTED becomes: Your problem is that, if you are a "4" on omphalism, you are also a "4" (or greater) on the proposition that the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old. If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a "6", you cannot be a "6" on the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old.
NOTE: You should be able to make this correction in your posts, and your failure to do so just shows an inability to recognize and admit when you are wrong, even on simple things dealing with proper reading of the opposing argument. Note that I don't have that problem: I've corrected the II vs II error I made.
Now we render your corrected argument with your {"6" is agnostic}:
Your problem is that, if you are a "4" on omphalism, you are also a "4" (or greater) on the proposition that the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old. If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a {"6" is agnostic}, you cannot be a {"6" is agnostic} on the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old.
This too is a silly contradictory comment when you use the same meaning in both places, ergo at least ONE usage is equivocation.
quote:Proof:
Identify the word which is used twice, then show that a definition which is appropriate for one use of the word would not be appropriate for the second use.
Done and done. Equivocation was indeed used by bluegenes. Q.E.D.
That said, I'm a level III.
Color me surprised. Now the fun part:
Where's your objective empirical evidence that supports this position. Without such supporting evidence you are a pseudoskeptic when you claim to be level III.
You cannot be a proper level III without objective empirical evidence.
Sort out your definitions with Modulous before we can work on them properly.
I don't need to sort them out, they work fine as the are. The levels of confidence are based on the kinds of evidence, and it is specifically set to sort out the difference between claims (beliefs\positions\etc) that are supported by objective empirical evidence and those that are not.
yes exactly. sheol and hades mean the state of being dead. So if we replaced every occurance of the word Hell in the bible with either of these words, the idea of a place of fiery torment is no more.
Works for me.
Do you have any examples in mind?
I don't know the bible well enough to say, I just hear others talking about them.
by that do you mean the bible itself?
For me the "collected works" includes all of creation. The evidence of reality that science uses are like footnotes, addendum, corrections for false interpretations, etc.
For instance: the age of the earth. The overwhelming evidence of old earth and the massive correlations between different systems for age, climate, and other things to me is like a footnote saying "the young earth is a false interpretation" wrote large.
But your argument is that subjective evidence is valid. Now you're demanding objective evidence?
My argument is that subjective evidence is sufficient to show possibilities, but nothing more. To reach a more definitive conclusion your need objective empirical evidence. This has been, and continues to be my position. If you doubt this then see the first threads I started here on this issue.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
The model is incomplete and only referring to what the model covers does not explain everything. Hence the model does NOT work because it is incomplete.
Consider a box, and I put everything that is well described within the box, and close and seal it: this is the model.
How does this describe anything that is not in the box?
Perhaps the reasons some concepts are left outside the box is because you need something else to describe them than what is included in the descriptions inside the box: why assume that "something else" does not exist because it is not inside your box?
There are many aspect of the universe that are not well described and there are concepts where scientific description is not even attempted.
You have provided no evidence that your model is complete, just asserted that "it works" without defining what it is. Now if you "model" is the accumulated scientific knowledge of how things work, then it only consists of those explanations of things that are complete, and excludes things where the explanation is incomplete or not even attempted.
Hence I find your "the model works" claim to be rather self-referential - it works for things included in the model, but ignores things not included.
It doesn't explain why gravity exists and does an incomplete job of even explaining how it works
The model is incomplete, and until it is incomplete I don't see any reason to assume that nothing else is needed to complete the model.
Excuse me? I don't recall ever mentioning my personal opinion regarding the existence of god. Is there a particular reason that you simply assumed that I was?
You argued that atheism was the default or null position, not that this meant that the atheist position does not need to be supported.
Note: I'm still waiting for that objective evidence you claimed existed.
Message 109: What makes you think the question isn't answerable? We have plenty of evidence indicating an answer. Why do you deny it?
Kind of hard to deny something that is conspicuous for its absence.
Put up your evidence and we'll see how it measures up:
™ Version 4.2
(1)