Peanut Gallery

But you didn't feel the need to insist that I qualify my statement about gravitational effects to say that "Every gravitational effect thus far investigated can be explained in terms of space-time curvature rather than immaterial and undetectable gravity gnomes linking masses together". Why did you feel the need to object to the statement regarding gods but not the one regarding gravity gnomes? It seems we have another theist who accepts inductive reasoning as valid in science until it conflicts with his own personal beliefs. How unsurprising. Can you tell me if you see a fundamental difference between this: and this:

Well this is simply untrue. Firstly it is an evidenced fact that humans can and do invent gods. For example here is a god invented by me: Wagwah is the god of PC blue screens and crashes. Where a PC blue screens or crashes and there is no technical reason forthcoming Wagwah is responsible. By correctly aligning your mouse and other peripherals on your desk you can appease Wagwah and avoid such incidents taking place.There you go. I have invented a god. Conclusive evidence that humans can and do invent gods.Secondly - All of these gods were also invented by humans: Solar deitiesWind godsFertility deitiesLunar deitiesThunder godsCreator godsFire godsAnd this is just a tiny fraction of the gods invented by humans.Thirdly - We have various human psychological traits. These have most eloquently been summarised by Mod in this thread: So there you have it - Evidence that humans can and do invent gods.Now where is the comparable evidence to suggest that the actual existence of gods is even a possibility worthy of rational consideration?

I thought i'd bring this to the peanut gallery (for now). It's something Pressie said on the "Why are there no human apes alive today?" thread in the "Human Origins and Evolution Forum".Here's the whole comment Message 896I wanted to focus on this from his message: What Pressie said seems contadictory. Maybe it's not, that's why im bringing it up. If, for a second and for arguments sake let me try to put Pressies comment to work in my own words. Im not saying it's factual in anyway or that It even makes sense, just trying to see if this fits with his statement:"I found a bunch of fossils in my backyard all balled up with eachother. It appears they fossilized quickly due to rapid burial and the right conditions. This is the evidence. My hypothesis is, that there was a local flood at one point in time that covered my backyard with water killing these animals causing the rapid burial. I've dug out every backyard within a mile and the fossils tapper off dramatically the farther out I go, strengthening my hypothesis that it was a local flood. The Theory says at one time it rained a lot here and we live in a fish bowl type neighborhood and the water could not escape like it could outside the fishbowl causing hazardous circumstances confined to this area only. Other animals outside the bowl survived fine as it was just any other day. For the fishbowl, it proved fatal. For now we call it the "theory of the local fishbowl flood".Is that a good theory? With good evidence? Now, what's the "proof" that his happened? According to Pressie there is none. It's just the best explanation I can come up with after analyzing everything and even talking about it amongst all my friends. We all agree it was a local flood that killed these animals. Although we can't prove it. We have no proof, but it's the best we got and think it pretty much resembles what happened here.Is this a good theory? a workable one?When Scientists say Evolution is a fact, it's the theory that is up for debate what exaclty do they mean?That Natural Selection happens, mutations, speciation, adaptation, finch beaks etc etc, is all fact but the theory would be what? That all this evidence shows that humans evolved as well as all speices from a common ancestor according the way we percieve the evidence but have no "proof" this is actually true?Im not at all being difficult or even calling Pressie out. Who said this isn't the point, im just wondering it it's true and a good description of Scientific theorys. It seems so loose to me. It means that however the theory goes, you can fit any evidence you want in to it as long as it conforms to the theory?So really, the theory is the umbrella that the evidence needs to fall under. Not the other way around? So the theory has to be very diverse I imagine. So wide open that it would be hard to refute it with such a broad horizon.Is this at all accurate? Or am I being a little to critical of the whole process which im admittedtly somewhat ignorant of.If there is a better thread for this can someone post the link. Thanks.Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

I'll italicise your parts... I found a bunch of fossils in my backyard all balled up with eachother.
This is an observation (or fact). I've dug out every backyard within a mile and the fossils tapper off dramatically the farther out I go
More observations. It appears they fossilized quickly due to rapid burial and the right conditions.
This is an assumption - not a fact.
(The clue is in your use of the word 'appears'.) My hypothesis is, that there was a local flood at one point in time that covered my backyard with water killing these animals causing the rapid burial.
This would be fine, if your assumption about the fossilisation is correct.(At this point, I would expect someone to point out that flooding is very common, but fossils are not.) Is this a good theory? a workable one?
It is a theory. But it will be rapidly proved wrong. When Scientists say Evolution is a fact, it's the theory that is up for debate what exaclty do they mean?
This is a common problem when speaking in layman terms.
This should explain it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_as_theory_and_fact

I suggest that you actually learn to read what I write.I never denied that there is evidence that humans create gods. In fact I have pointed that out to you before. But that is also irrelevant to what you claimed.You claimed that all gods are simply the product of the human mind.If you do not like my position, then fine. I present my position, you present your position.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

The riskier the theory, the better. A theory which says that all terrestrial life is related through common ancestry or that all life evolves as a result of mutations, horizontal gene transfer and natural selection effects are risky in that they can be easily falsified by showing a single life that is not related or heritable change not as a result of mutation etc.All x are y is a theory can be falsified by showing an x that is not y.All known xs are y is a statement of fact (that may or may not be true).To go from the fact to the theory, one needs to make a leap of induction (where the known cases are suitably representative of all cases).The line between facts and theories can be a little blurry at times. One test is to see if it makes predictions. If it makes predictions about cases that are presently unconfirmed then it is probably a theory. The predictions will tend to be along the lines of 'any xs that are identified will turn out to be y'. That all biological change can be explained in terms of mutations speciation, adaptation natural selection etc etc, even those cases we haven't yet had the opportunity to study. This is a theory since it can easily be shown incorrect by future information - assuming it is incorrect.

Neither of those examples are the quote I have been commenting on and so are irrelevant.I also do not object to inductive reasoning or ever implied such a thing.I have said that if you really meant to say that all gods you have examined have been simply the product of human imagination and so YOUR believe is that that can be extended to assert that all gods are the product of human imagination, then I can even agree that is a reasonable, rational nd logical position.Of course that says absolutely nothing about whether it is a correct position.As I pointed out to you in the past, I do not believe there can ever be subjective evidence for GOD or that it is likely that while we are still alive we can even find any OBJECTIVE evidence for GOD.Look again at your quotes.

quote:

---

I mean conclusions like the conclusion that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old rather than being omphamsitically created last Thursday.

​

I mean conclusions like the conclusion that gravitational effects are caused by space-time curvature rather than immaterial and undetectable gravity gnomes linking masses together.

​

I mean the conclusion that evolution actually took place rather than the notion that fossils and genetic evidence were simply planted by Satan to make us believe ungodly things about the creation of species.

​

I mean the conclusion that gods are products of the human mind rather than real entities.

---

We can find both subjective and objective evidence related to the age of the earth, gravitaional effects, evolution.The other things you mention, omphalism, gnomes, Satan, and god are simply outside any scientific testing.The first three examples you listed are things that can be tested.The second group of things are all impossible to test by any means I am aware of.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

But nobody is asserting that all gods are the product of human imagination. It is being theorised that all gods are the product of human imagination. That's why this line of reasoning continues to fail as a counterargument to BGs theory. Exactly. It makes one wonder that people spend so much time trying to discredit an unfalsified theory. Nobody is asserting that the theory is an incontrevertible truth. Indeed, it is often stressed that it might false.How any individual chooses to deal with a theory that makes predictions, is not falsified, and has some supporting evidence is entirely up to them. It seems that one response is to critically misunderstand the basic fundamentals of the theory and rail against it.

I too have no idea why anyone wastes time trying to either prove GOD exists or to refute that GOD exists. It is a futile effort and IMHO really silly.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

So for each of the examples you have quoted which explanation or conclusion is most likely to be correct?The highly evidenced one or the the evidentially baseless yet conceivable alternative.

We have enough evidence to reach a conclusion on the first three.There is no way that I can see to reach any conclusion about GOD. That is and will remain simply a matter of belief.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Are highly evidenced conclusions more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims? Or not?

So there is no evidence to suggest that humans invent gods for reasons that have nothing to do with the actual existence of gods?Really?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

You really can't read can you?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

A product of human imagination is not a GOD.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!