Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 427 of 536 (617003)
05-25-2011 3:13 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by tesla
05-25-2011 3:03 PM


Re: Inductive Atheism
tesla writes:
Evidence only proves that people have an imagination.
Really?
So when I claim to own a dog and people ask me for evidence to back up my claim: if I present them a dog they will just say "That only proves that you have an imagination!" and I am forced to accept that I don't own a dog.
Or when a woman is accused of robbery and the prosecution presents evidence of her guilt (e.g. fingerprints, closed-circuit TV footage, etc.) she can say "That only proves that you have an imagination!" and they acquit her.
So, evidence only proves that people have an imagination?
Really?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by tesla, posted 05-25-2011 3:03 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 460 of 536 (617719)
05-30-2011 10:42 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by tesla
05-30-2011 9:46 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
I think there is a linguistic barrier preventing you from successfully making your point.
(This is not meant as an insult - I am sure that your English is better than my own 2nd language.)
But your posts appear contradictory and confused.
Take your last post for example:
tesla writes:
Nothing true in this universe is supernatural.
This is counter to your later comment:
tesla writes:
do supernatural things exist beyond imagination? And the answer is YES.
So, first you claim that there are no supernatural phenomena and then you claim that supernatural phenomena exists.
Do you see the contradiction?
Are you actually just saying that some people incorrectly identify natural events as supernatural?
If so, then human minds are the only source of supernatural phenomena - i.e. They only 'think' something is supernatural when it is not.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by tesla, posted 05-30-2011 9:46 PM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 12:56 AM Panda has replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 462 of 536 (617753)
05-31-2011 6:13 AM
Reply to: Message 461 by tesla
05-31-2011 12:56 AM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
tesla writes:
Sorry about English: the language can suck. And it’s my first language.
Oh.
I think your English skills are going to lead to an endless struggle where you use inappropriate words to explain your points and I will then have to spend half of my time guessing what you actually mean.
Thank you for your response, but I bow out of this conversation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 461 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 12:56 AM tesla has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 465 by tesla, posted 05-31-2011 11:02 AM Panda has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 482 of 536 (618000)
05-31-2011 9:04 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Modulous
05-31-2011 8:59 PM


Re: natural explanations are not supernatural
Although I hold your explanatory abilities in high esteem, I feel that you are not getting far with this conversation.
As a suggested experiment, try replying to tesla without using the words 'supernatural' or 'imagination', as I feel that tesla's definitions of those words are causing an endless cycle of confusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Modulous, posted 05-31-2011 8:59 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 494 of 536 (625315)
07-22-2011 8:40 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Chuck77
07-22-2011 5:14 AM


Re: Concepts and Atheism
Chuck77 writes:
It says that all known Atheists are a product of the human imagination
I am not sure what your parents taught you about human reproduction, but imagination is not required.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Chuck77, posted 07-22-2011 5:14 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 495 by Straggler, posted 07-23-2011 12:19 AM Panda has seen this message but not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(2)
Message 508 of 536 (628178)
08-07-2011 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 507 by Chuck77
08-07-2011 7:47 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
Chuck77 writes:
Can you tell me the amount of followers the wibbidoos have? What is their main doctrine? What is it based on? Where can I find out more about this group...can you provide a link? A church/building? Testimony from thousands of different individuals claiming the same thing?
Since I can provide all of those things for the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it would appear that you accept that the FSM exists.
Welcome to the fold, fellow Pastafarian.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by Chuck77, posted 08-07-2011 7:47 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by Chuck77, posted 08-09-2011 5:21 AM Panda has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 523 of 536 (630457)
08-25-2011 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 522 by Chuck77
08-25-2011 7:35 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
I am thinking that Phat is just gently nudging you in the right direction.
But it seems that you would rather Phat logged on as AdminPhat and directly told you to stop being off-topic.
Strange - but each to their own.

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 522 by Chuck77, posted 08-25-2011 7:35 AM Chuck77 has not replied

Panda
Member (Idle past 3703 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 535 of 536 (633135)
09-12-2011 5:57 PM


Asked and answered.
I will quote ZenMonkey's reply to slevesque in Message 12, as I think he successfully summed it up first:
ZenMonkey writes:
Hypothesis A predicts B.
If B is NOT observed, then A is NOT true. (Or at least A is much less likely to be true than you thought, depending on how necessary B is.)
If B is observed, then A is still at least possible, if not more likely than it was before.
No logical fallacy there. You are correct in saying that you can't PROVE hypothesis A is true. But that's not a problem for science, and no-one should ever say that you can prove something in science. All science does - and this is quite a lot, actually - is to demonstrate that hypothesis A is the best hypothesis at the moment.
The explanatory power and likelihood of hypothesis A being true increases every time it allows you to predict not only B, but C and D as well. This is another way of saying that hypothesis A has to keep passing the parsimony test - is it the hypothesis that explains the most evidence and is contradicted by the least evidence? Eventually you get to a point where A has held up so well under testing that to withhold consent to it being true is just intellectually perverse. At that point, you have a theory. But it remains a principle of science that any hypothesis or theory is always tentative, and something can always come around to force it to be reconsidered.
(Emphasis mine)
I agree with ZenMonkey: "That's how it works".

Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024