Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 196 of 562 (526461)
09-27-2009 9:43 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by onifre
09-27-2009 2:04 AM


Re: I'm missing something...I think
Hi Onifre, Message 182 included.
No. All I need to show is that the word "god" is a meaningless word (especially when used by a deist) that lacks any description or characteristic.
Deist: god in unknowable, being outside our universe of perception/s or having gone off to do other things.
Onifre: so how do you define god?
Deist: how do you define 42?
Enjoy.
ps - try this for better information on deism today.
Edited by RAZD, : ps.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 09-27-2009 2:04 AM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by onifre, posted 09-27-2009 10:36 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 197 of 562 (526462)
09-27-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by bluegenes
09-27-2009 3:21 AM


Re: How many 50%s in 100%?
Hi bluegenes,
Here's the 1 to 7 on the Dawkins.org survey that you posted earlier.
Which I've thrown out, as you and others can't get past the probability numbers that are NOT part of my argument OR part of the OP. Try this:
  • strong atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
  • agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
  • agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
  • agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
  • strong theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)
The 50% for omphalism means that you've only 50"% points left for all other propositions relating to the origin of the universe.
No, being agnostic on omphalism - which is the point - means that it doesn't matter one way or the other to me. I treat this in the same manner that I treat Phage0070's miracle chasm.
If it's true then it's true,
If it's false then it's false.
Either way it doesn't matter to how I would behave.
I claim that they are mutually exclusive. Make 1001 mutually exclusive god propositions, and at least 99.9% must be false. Is there something about "mutually exclusive" that you don't understand? Biblical omphalism and last Thursdayism are mutually exclusive.
If you're 50/50 on both of them, you've left room for nothing else. Many different mutually exclusive "One true gods" in human cultures demonstrates our tendency to make them up, and most (or all) must be false. Believing in false gods is, therefore, a statistically provable human norm.
The "six" position is "very improbable", not "not true". This is always easy to support. As I've explained above, the statistical probability of any specific proposition about the ultimate origins of the universe is always very low from our perspective because, as true agnostics, we admit that we have no knowledge in the area.
You cannot, RAZD, be 50/50 on more than two mutually exclusive propositions, and if you're 50/50 on two origins propositions, you're a 7 on all the rest.
But I can remain completely agnostic - not caring pro or con - to your claim that they are mutually exclusive. You, however, have now made a positive assertion that you need to provide evidence for.
Good luck with that.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : strong added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by bluegenes, posted 09-27-2009 3:21 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by bluegenes, posted 09-28-2009 3:56 AM RAZD has replied

Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


(1)
Message 198 of 562 (526464)
09-27-2009 10:05 PM
Reply to: Message 184 by onifre
09-27-2009 2:04 AM


Not sure who's missing something
I'm not bothering to read most of these posts--they're too long!
If you want them read shorten them up to a few pithy points. On these threads, extreme length in a post does not add to the discussion no matter how good the material might be.
All I need to show is that the word "god" is a meaningless word (especially when used by a deist) that lacks any description or characteristic.
Rather, there are too many descriptions and characteristics; virtually all are contradictory, and none are supported by empirical evidence.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by onifre, posted 09-27-2009 2:04 AM onifre has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 199 of 562 (526466)
09-27-2009 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by PaulK
09-27-2009 3:38 AM


Re: Topic Please?
Hi PaulK,
So now, NOT changing the subject is ""an excuse". I think that any rational person would think that a change of subject - especially such an aggressive one as you have attempted here is a fairly obvious diversionary tactic.
Curiously THE TOPIC is providing evidence for any negative hypothesis is just as much of a burden as providing evidence for a positive hypothesis.
  • strong atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7), has a negative hypothesis based on evidence. Bears burden to show evidence.
  • agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5), has a neutral hypothesis with a belief that a negative hypothesis MAY be true based on subjective opinion.
  • agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4), has a neutral hypothesis, that more evidence is needed before a rational decision can be made.
  • agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3), has a neutral hypothesiswith a belief that a positive hypothesis MAY be true based on subjective opinion.
  • strong theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2), has a positive hypothesis based on evidence. Bears burden to show evidence.
Negative claim = burden to show evidence or proof of the claim.
Positive claim = burden to show evidence or proof of the claim.
Neutral claim = no burden, and no assertion that pro or con is necessarily truer than the other.
RAZD, it's pretty obvious that this issue is too emotional for you to deal with it rationally. A shame then that you keep brining it up.
ooo now we get projection? Curiously this doesn't explain why I have sooo much fun with this.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : strong added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by PaulK, posted 09-27-2009 3:38 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 207 by PaulK, posted 09-28-2009 1:40 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 200 of 562 (526469)
09-27-2009 10:30 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by Minnemooseus
09-27-2009 3:47 AM


Re: For me, any considerations of God concerns the one who interfaced with the Earth
Hi Minnemooseus, thanks for the clairification.
For me, any considerations of God concerns the one who interfaced with the Earth.
...
Now, we have done a pretty rigorous exploration of the past and present things Earth, without finding compelling evidence in support of gods existence.
...
Thus my statement in the above quoted.
...
Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be illegitimate. The phrase mutates into "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence".
You are free to have your own subjective opinion of course, however I note that you also have this opinion:
Almost all the concepts of god that we deal with involves a god that has and/or has had some direct influence on the state of things Earth. The exception seems to be your deistic god who, as I understand it, hasn't done a thing since that little matter of starting the up universe some 13.5 billion years ago. For me, a god 13.5 billion years removed transcends theistic/atheistic considerations. I'm flat out "apathistic".
I've always liked "apathistic" better than agnostic (which has a confused history) as it really captures the essence of not caring if it is pro of con until you have some kind of evidence.
Curiously, being apatheistic on the universe, and atheistic on the earth, would (quick mental calculation of average values integrated of vast concepts) mean you are better than 99.9% apatheistic overall.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2009 3:47 AM Minnemooseus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by Minnemooseus, posted 09-27-2009 11:00 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 201 of 562 (526470)
09-27-2009 10:36 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by RAZD
09-27-2009 9:43 PM


finally, a description
Hi RAZD,
Deist: god in unknowable, being outside our universe of perception/s or having gone off to do other things.
This is all I was asking for, a description (no matter how vague).
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
First, you are concluding the premise (god) is true only because it hasn't been proven wrong, then, you attach the (possible) characteristics to it; isn't that a logical fallacy?
But anyway...
Now I can say with confidence that I am a #7. For the same reason that everyone has been saying: you are making that concept of god up.
Can you demonstate how this concept is not made up? Can you show how you came to this conclusion observing the natural world?
According to the definition of Deism:
quote:
Deism is a religious and philosophical belief that a supreme being created the universe, and that this (and religious truth in general) can be determined using reason and observation of the natural world alone, without a need for either faith or organized religion.
From everything we know about the natural world, nothing points to a supreme being; let alone one that is outside our universe, our perception, or off doing other things. And unless you can provide evidence for those claims, it stands that you are making all that up with no evidence to support it. The same that has been done throughout history for all other concepts of god, yours is no different.
Yours is definitely much more of an ambiguous description, but clearly all in your head. You have no evidence to support it (I mean really, off doing other things?) so how can anyone take you serious?
You might as well say he's the god of thunder too because they all have the same supporting evidence... none.
If you don't have evidence, you are making it up. It's that simple. And that's what I use as evidence to support my position.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 9:43 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by RAZD, posted 09-28-2009 7:21 PM onifre has replied

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 202 of 562 (526472)
09-27-2009 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by RAZD
09-27-2009 9:32 PM


Re: wonderful - now let's revisit the topic
RAZD writes:
Such an instance would absolutely demonstrate that the what-was-known rules of behavior of objects was now falsified.
So would a god. If you think my pit throws the rules in the air, a deity blows them out of this world.
RAZD writes:
Correct: they are asserting that X does not exist.
Which YEC's are you talking about now? I thought they were claiming something did exist.
RAZD writes:
Atheism is an assertion that X does not exist, just like the YEC's above.
Not according to the scale you quoted!
quote:
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.'
The default state of claims is assumed non-existence. A claim that has no evidence to support it has nothing to increase its probability of existing. That would qualify as "very low" to me. (In essence you can think of it as one list, "Things that exist". Something requires evidence to be placed on that list. There is not a "Things that don't exist" list that requires evidence, it is simply that things not on the "Existing" list are not on the list.)
I also live my life as though it does not exist; why would I behave any other way?
RAZD writes:
That is being agnostic, not atheistic.
Not by your scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 195 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 9:32 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 9:51 PM Phage0070 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 203 of 562 (526477)
09-27-2009 10:57 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Rrhain
09-27-2009 5:00 AM


Rrhaining ...
Hi Rrhain, you're repeating yourself, so this applies to Message 190, Message 191 and Message 192, as well, so you can have all your thoughts brought together.
Since you agreed that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven, are you saying that it is also irrational to think that god exists?
So you are going to start making up falsehoods about my position/s instead of dealing with the issue. How familiar.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something more?
You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?
Again, we know that life exists in the universe. We also know that space is traversible. Therefore, there is positive evidence that there may have been life that has traversed space.
Which is not a reason to NOT to be open minded about god/s. Thanks.
Yes. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
What model? That vanilla is the best flavor? Doesn't that claim require supporting evidence?
Asked and answered: The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
Fascinatingly repetition of the same assertion 50 times does not make it true.
Now that I've answered yours, it would be nice if you answered mine:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything.
Asked and answered. The model works.
You do realize that you just proved your own point to be a load of crap, yes? You're making a positive claim. Therefore, you must provide justification for it.
Ah, but your rules don't apply to you, I guess.
I refer you to the original post again:
quote:
Pseudoskepticism - Wikipedia
quote:
Pseudoskepticism
The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]
While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987
The term pseudoskepticism has found occasional use in fringe fields where opposition from those within the scientific mainstream or from scientific skeptics is strong. In 1994, Susan Blackmore, a parapsychologist who became more skeptical and eventually became a CSICOP fellow in 1991, described what she termed the "worst kind of pseudoskepticism":
"There are some members of the skeptics’ groups who clearly believe they know the right answer prior to inquiry. They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims, or trying out psychic experiences or altered states for themselves (heaven forbid!), but only in promoting their own particular belief structure and cohesion . . . I have to say itmost of these people are men. Indeed, I have not met a single woman of this type."[10]
Commenting on the labels "dogmatic" and "pathological" that the "Association for Skeptical Investigation"[11] puts on critics of paranormal investigations, Robert Todd Carroll of the Skeptic's Dictionary[12] argues that that association "is a group of pseudo-skeptical paranormal investigators and supporters who do not appreciate criticism of paranormal studies by truly genuine skeptics and critical thinkers. The only skepticism this group promotes is skepticism of critics and [their] criticisms of paranormal studies."[13]
The issue of providing evidence for a positive assertion is well known, and what I would like to discuss is the issue of providing evidence for a negative assertion.
If we ASSUME that "the model works" is Rrhainian obfustication for "strong atheism works" then you have made a claim that is not neutral to the issue of god/s but asserts a negative claim.
This claim, like any negative claim, bears a burden to provide evidence or logical proof.
If we ASSUME that "the model works" means something else and is used as a red herring or straw man, then it is meaningless gibberish, and you are still left with needing to justify your strong atheist position.
Perhaps you need to add a few sprinkles of clarification to your post.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Rrhain, posted 09-27-2009 5:00 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2009 4:55 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 210 by Rrhain, posted 09-28-2009 6:20 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 204 of 562 (526478)
09-27-2009 11:00 PM
Reply to: Message 200 by RAZD
09-27-2009 10:30 PM


Re: For me, any considerations of God concerns the one who interfaced with the Earth
Curiously, being apatheistic on the universe, and atheistic on the earth, would (quick mental calculation of average values integrated of vast concepts) mean you are better than 99.9% apatheistic overall.
You have a problem with that? Why should I find that other 99.9+% of space-time to have any relevance to my theistic considerations? How does it effect my existence? A God with an activity record only in some distant location or time of the universe has no Earthly significance.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 10:30 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 205 of 562 (526479)
09-27-2009 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 193 by Otto Tellick
09-27-2009 6:27 AM


tomorrow
Hi Otto Tellick, my apologies, but I spent too much time today answering Archangel, Message 302, and I'll have to get back to you tomorrow.
Enjoy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-27-2009 6:27 AM Otto Tellick has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 206 of 562 (526481)
09-27-2009 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 194 by Modulous
09-27-2009 4:19 PM


small edit on previous reply
Hi Modulus, I'll have to get back to you tomorrow, but I just wanted you to know that I added a small edit to my previous reply on the modified list.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Modulous, posted 09-27-2009 4:19 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


(1)
Message 207 of 562 (526486)
09-28-2009 1:40 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by RAZD
09-27-2009 10:14 PM


Re: Topic Please?
quote:
Curiously THE TOPIC is providing evidence for any negative hypothesis is just as much of a burden as providing evidence for a positive hypothesis.
And - as you know perfectly well - that is not what we were discussing.
quote:
ooo now we get projection?
No, there's been plenty of projection in your posts. That is one of the reasons why I gave my advice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 10:14 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 208 of 562 (526492)
09-28-2009 3:56 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
09-27-2009 9:58 PM


Re: How many 50%s in 100%?
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Here's the 1 to 7 on the Dawkins.org survey that you posted earlier.
Which I've thrown out, as you and others can't get past the probability numbers that are NOT part of my argument OR part of the OP.
Which you've thrown out because you've finally realised that you cannot be "4" (50/50) for more than two mutually exclusive god propositions. Well done!
But instead of saying: "Thankyou, bluegenes, for pointing out my obvious irrationality", it is, of course, the fault of bluegenes and others who "can't get past the probability numbers that are NOT part of my argument OR part of the OP."
The probabilities have been an essential part of your argument. Your misunderstanding of the term agnostic means that you've been insisting that people must be 3s 4s or 5s on the Dawkins scale on the question "does god exist" in order to be agnostic.
And I see, from further down this post, that we're getting a new (and false) definition of agnostic which is built round the verb "to care" rather than the verb "to know".
Agnosticism is about things being unknown. As in: "I cannot know if 500 metre long sea snakes exist, but I think it very unlikely", or " I cannot know whether there are still undiscovered mammals, but I think it very likely."
Neither of those statements have anything to do with "pseudo-skepticism".
Here are examples of what could be described as pseudo-skepticism:
If someone brought up in a culture that believes in reincarnation expresses skepticism of the criticisms of the idea, this would fit pseudo-skepticism when the views are not really skeptical, but due to cultural bias.
If someone from a traditionally monotheistic culture gives much higher credence to the possibility of the existence of a god than the evidence would warrant, and is skeptical about atheism, this would fit pseudo-skepticism, again due to cultural bias.
RAZD writes:
Try this:
atheists - predominantly atheist, with little or no doubt (formerly 6&7)
agnostic atheists - predominantly agnostic leaning to atheist (formerly 5)
agnostics - pure agnostic, no need to lean either way (formerly 4)
agnostic theist - predominantly agnostic, leaning to theist (formerly 3)
theist - predominantly theist, with no or little doubt (formerly 1&2)
Ah! You've decided to be a lumper rather than a splitter. I wonder why.
In the complete absence of evidence for this thing called "god", 5 through 1 would require degrees of faith.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
The 50% for omphalism means that you've only 50"% points left for all other propositions relating to the origin of the universe.
No, being agnostic on omphalism - which is the point - means that it doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
No. Being agnostic about omphalism is merely saying that you cannot conclusively know it to be true or false. It has nothing to do with whether you care or not. It was you who opted for a 50/50 position on omphalism, when I had suggested a reasonable atheist/agnostic 6.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
I claim that they are mutually exclusive. Make 1001 mutually exclusive god propositions, and at least 99.9% must be false. Is there something about "mutually exclusive" that you don't understand? Biblical omphalism and last Thursdayism are mutually exclusive.
If you're 50/50 on both of them, you've left room for nothing else. Many different mutually exclusive "One true gods" in human cultures demonstrates our tendency to make them up, and most (or all) must be false. Believing in false gods is, therefore, a statistically provable human norm.
The "six" position is "very improbable", not "not true". This is always easy to support. As I've explained above, the statistical probability of any specific proposition about the ultimate origins of the universe is always very low from our perspective because, as true agnostics, we admit that we have no knowledge in the area.
You cannot, RAZD, be 50/50 on more than two mutually exclusive propositions, and if you're 50/50 on two origins propositions, you're a 7 on all the rest.
But I can remain completely agnostic - not caring pro or con - to your claim that they are mutually exclusive.
Being agnostic, as I've pointed out, has nothing to do with what you care about, but with what you can and cannot know.
You do know that biblical omphalism and last thursdayism are mutually exclusive (by definition), and you do know that the proposition that the universe was created by 5 gods is incompatible with the proposition of a universe created by one god, by definition.
You, however, have now made a positive assertion that you need to provide evidence for.
Good luck with that.
Evidence? Of something that is true by definition? Is anyone else laughing?
Enjoy.
I did.
Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 9:58 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 328 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 9:56 PM bluegenes has not replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 209 of 562 (526496)
09-28-2009 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
09-27-2009 10:57 PM


RAZD responds to me:
quote:
quote:
Since you agreed that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven, are you saying that it is also irrational to think that god exists?
So you are going to start making up falsehoods about my position/s instead of dealing with the issue. How familiar.
Is there a point in there? That was your entire response. Clearly, you think I have said something wrong. But it would be helpful if you could be specific and point out what it was.
Are you saying you disagree that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven?
quote:
quote:
You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?
Again, we know that life exists in the universe. We also know that space is traversible. Therefore, there is positive evidence that there may have been life that has traversed space.
Which is not a reason to NOT to be open minded about god/s. Thanks.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
Better yet, answer the question. Let's try again, shall we?
You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?
The reason we can/should be open-minded regarding visitors from other planets is because such an event requires life and the ability to traverse space. We know that life exists at least somewhere in the universe (here) and we know that space can be traversed (because we've done it). Therefore, it is conceivable that some life somewhere not from here managed to traverse space and come here.
Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of life existing in the universe? Where is your evidence of a god-like object that is akin to our evidence of space being traversible?
Are there common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?
quote:
quote:
Yes. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
What model?
The one that you're claiming requires chocolate sprinkles.
If you're not going to be forthright regarding what you're talking about, why should you expect anybody else to be?
quote:
That vanilla is the best flavor?
Who said anything about "best"? The word I used was "works." The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
quote:
Doesn't that claim require supporting evidence?
You mean the model doesn't work? How? That would be a reason to require chocolate sprinkles. What is this evidence you have that there is need for something extra?
quote:
Fascinatingly repetition of the same assertion 50 times does not make it true.
All you have to do is answer the question and it will stop being repeated. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
quote:
quote:
Now that I've answered yours, it would be nice if you answered mine:
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything.
Asked and answered. The model works.
Non sequitur. Please rephrase.
Indeed, the model works, but is it working because god is forcing it or is it working because at least one thing is happening on its own?
quote:
If we ASSUME that "the model works"
Hold it right there. We don't assume anything. On the contrary, we CONCLUDE that the model works because we perform the experiments that provide the positive evidence that it does.
If you're going to demand that there are chocolate sprinkles, you need to show why there is a need for them. Otherwise, there is no rational justification to deny the model which does not include them.
quote:
then you have made a claim that is not neutral to the issue of god/s but asserts a negative claim.
Incorrect. Instead, I have put forward the null hypothesis which is always considered true until you provide evidence that it isn't.
quote:
This claim, like any negative claim, bears a burden to provide evidence or logical proof.
Incorrect. The null hypothesis is always true until evidence shows otherwise.
quote:
If we ASSUME that "the model works"
Again, hold it right there. We don't assume anything. On the contrary, we CONCLUDE that the model works because we perform the experiments that provide the positive evidence that it does.
If you're going to demand that there are chocolate sprinkles, you need to show why there is a need for them. Otherwise, there is no rational justification to deny the model which does not include them.
Where is your evidence that something else is required?
quote:
Perhaps you need to add a few sprinkles of clarification to your post.
Indeed, I do.
They're your answers to my questions. Until you answer them, I will keep asking them:
You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept?
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?
The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 329 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 10:00 PM Rrhain has replied

Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 210 of 562 (526502)
09-28-2009 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 203 by RAZD
09-27-2009 10:57 PM


Duplicate post...sorry.
Edited by Rrhain, : Duplicate post...sorry.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 203 by RAZD, posted 09-27-2009 10:57 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024