Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8942 total)
31 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), vimesey (2 members, 29 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: John Sullivan
Upcoming Birthdays: Anish
Post Volume: Total: 863,366 Year: 18,402/19,786 Month: 822/1,705 Week: 74/518 Day: 0/74 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Barrier
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7085
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 31 of 67 (848674)
02-13-2019 4:20 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by GDR
02-12-2019 6:16 PM


GDR writes:

There is the problem though of what constitutes evidence, or sufficient evidence.

There's no problem with what constitutes evidence. What constitutes sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person about a conclusive result is a little more problematic but science has some rules about such things. And of course nothing religious has even approached the level of confidence necessary to pass such a test. That is why you have a belief not knowledge.

Again, I think this applies to both of us and our views of evidence.

As I've said, it does apply to all of us. Humans struggle to be rational, that's why the scientific method was invented - it's a process to remove bias.

But, again, this thread isn't about us, it's about prior and obvious bias. This statement is the pefect example of it and I think that it explains why creationists can not ever accept evidence.

quote:
Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.” G.R. Bozhart

This is a very similar statement

I think also that when you claim that I have to rationalize my views there is some truth to that in having to accept the belief that God is good and loving with the fact of suffering in the world.

That subjective view prevents you accepting contrary evidence - in particular it prevents you accepting 'evidence' from the bible itself. You reject the 'hard' passages. Fair enough, but interesting never-the-less.

So is this equivalent?

I think also that when you claim that I have to rationalize my views there is some truth to that in having to accept the belief that God is good and loving with the fact of suffering in the world.

I think not because we know beyond all objective doubt that people do not rise again from the dead. (That is properly dead, dead.). We have not one single confirmed miracle and the biblical accounts of them in your book do not even begin to approach the level of even poor evidence. That's why it's called a belief and it can't be changed by evidence.

We also have obvious and apparent everyday evidence of suffering and eventually death in every single piece of 'god's creation' for ever. A human that set up such an experiment would be condemned as the worst kind of evil imaginable. But you shrug that off without effort. That's prior bias very hard at work.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by GDR, posted 02-12-2019 6:16 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 12:43 PM Tangle has responded
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 02-13-2019 8:08 PM Tangle has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 32 of 67 (848678)
02-13-2019 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tangle
02-13-2019 4:20 AM


Tangle writes:

What constitutes sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person about a conclusive result is a little more problematic but science has some rules about such things. And of course nothing religious has even approached the level of confidence necessary to pass such a test

So, since you have some objective test in mind, what is it?

Tangle writes:

We have not one single confirmed miracle and the biblical accounts of them in your book do not even begin to approach the level of even poor evidence. That's why it's called a belief and it can't be changed by evidence.

This probably relates back to my question above, but what evidence is sufficient? If it isn't a subjective standard, then what specifically is it?

Edited by WookieeB, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2019 4:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2019 2:44 PM WookieeB has responded

    
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 33 of 67 (848679)
02-13-2019 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Tangle
02-09-2019 6:07 AM


The Barrier of already having the answer is a big one, for sure. And affects us all.

I do it at work sometimes.
-In troubleshooting an issue I'll get an idea on how to fix it
-I'll follow this idea as I move forward
-Can sometimes get stuck on "using this idea to fix the problem" instead of identifying new information and using that to identify that I should be using an entirely different idea to fix the problem - not forcing the original idea that doesn't really incorporate all the new information.

It's very similar to the problem of being able to accept - hey, I might be wrong about this.

Science has it's foundation built on "hey, I might be wrong about this."
So much so that if you are unable to identify a way other's could prove you wrong - your idea is labelled "unfalsifiable" and therefore - not science.

Religion only seems to incorporate the idea of - hey, I might be wrong about this - on a minimal level.
Items they deem as "unimportant" or "non-core" can be treated in such a way - "What did God mean when He said this?" or "The old testament is only meant for them, for us - it's replaced with the new testament.."
But other items cannot be questioned at all.
Items deemed as "core-tenets" or "fundamental theology" are not allowed to be put in the - hey, I might be wrong about this - box. If they are, well, that's how additional sects/religions are created.

That's the difference:

Science identifies that the only way to make meaningful progress is to address The Barrier and ensure that ALL aspects are open to the - hey, I might be wrong about this - idea. If you cannot apply the idea - then it's unfalsifiable - it's not science. No matter how big or small the theory/hypothesis/idea is.

Religion identifies that they don't want to make progress. They have the answers. And they reinforce The Barrier by mandating that no questions are allowed.
Accept this or get out.

When searching for truth - questioning should always be encouraged.
If it's actually true - the questioning only results in strengthening the idea.
If it's actually false - the questioning will lead to figuring that out, and figuring out what actually is true.

Whenever anyone, or any group, blocks questioning - it's because they are not holding "searching for truth" as their highest priority.
What is their highest priority, then? Anybody's guess - but it's definitely not "the truth."


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Tangle, posted 02-09-2019 6:07 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7085
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 34 of 67 (848681)
02-13-2019 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by WookieeB
02-13-2019 12:43 PM


WookieB writes:

So, since you have some objective test in mind, what is it?

That would depend on the particular thing that you're looking to test. What do you have in mind?

This probably relates back to my question above, but what evidence is sufficient? If it isn't a subjective standard, then what specifically is it?

Again, there are multiple methods, what did you have in mind? If we're talking about testing modern day miracles, that's very easy you have a set up like Randi's.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/...on_Dollar_Paranormal_Challenge


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 12:43 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 4:48 PM Tangle has responded

  
WookieeB
Member
Posts: 82
Joined: 01-18-2019


Message 35 of 67 (848682)
02-13-2019 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Tangle
02-13-2019 2:44 PM


Tangle writes:

That would depend on the particular thing that you're looking to test. What do you have in mind?

Again, there are multiple methods, what did you have in mind? If we're talking about testing modern day miracles, that's very easy you have a set up like Randi's.


Well, if there was an objective test, it doesn't matter what the particular thing is. Having a differing test dependent on a particular thing would be subjective then. But maybe you didn't mean any objective tests.

I wasn't thinking of any "modern day miracles", or perhaps I don't know what that would constitute. But what about historical reports, like the resurrection of Christ? Or perhaps fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2019 2:44 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by Theodoric, posted 02-13-2019 5:16 PM WookieeB has responded
 Message 37 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2019 5:47 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6653
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(3)
Message 36 of 67 (848683)
02-13-2019 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by WookieeB
02-13-2019 4:48 PM


But what about historical reports, like the resurrection of Christ?

There are no historical reports of this.
Or perhaps fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible?

There are no historical reports of this.

The only reports on these, not historical reports, are from the your bible. You cannot use the bible as evidence for itself. There is no independent, historical evidence for any of these events.


Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 4:48 PM WookieeB has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by WookieeB, posted 02-14-2019 6:17 PM Theodoric has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7085
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


(3)
Message 37 of 67 (848685)
02-13-2019 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by WookieeB
02-13-2019 4:48 PM


WookieB writes:

Well, if there was an objective test, it doesn't matter what the particular thing is. Having a differing test dependent on a particular thing would be subjective then. But maybe you didn't mean any objective tests.

It should be obvious there are thousands of different ways of scientifically testing stuff - the test for blood is different from the test for semen which is different to the test for age, which is different from microscopy, etc etc etc. All repeatable, all objective.

I wasn't thinking of any "modern day miracles", or perhaps I don't know what that would constitute.

There are stacks of claimed modern day miracles all baloney of course. For example, Catholics believe in transubstantiation - the literal changing of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. The daily miracle. Provably wrong.

But what about historical reports, like the resurrection of Christ? Or perhaps fulfillment of prophecy in the Bible?

Science requires evidence; there is no evidence for the resurrection. What you have is a collection of 2,000 year old, often contradictory stories. You don't even know who wrote them, it appears none of the anonymous authers were eye witnesses and there's virtually no evidence that the main charcter in them even existed let alone raised himself from the dead. It doesn't just fail objective testing, there's nothing there to test.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by WookieeB, posted 02-13-2019 4:48 PM WookieeB has not yet responded

  
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 38 of 67 (848692)
02-13-2019 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by Tangle
02-13-2019 4:20 AM


Tangle writes:

There's no problem with what constitutes evidence. What constitutes sufficient evidence to convince a reasonable person about a conclusive result is a little more problematic but science has some rules about such things. And of course nothing religious has even approached the level of confidence necessary to pass such a test. That is why you have a belief not knowledge.

Essentially I agree but it seems to me that a great many scientific theories are as much a belief as is religious belief. Of course with most scientific theory there is ultimately the hope that it can be proven. Case in point would the the Higg's Bosun.

Tangle writes:

I think not because we know beyond all objective doubt that people do not rise again from the dead. (That is properly dead, dead.). We have not one single confirmed miracle and the biblical accounts of them in your book do not even begin to approach the level of even poor evidence. That's why it's called a belief and it can't be changed by evidence.

Well I contend that the evidence is stronger than you believe it is, but this isn't the thread for that. Also, nobody is suggesting that the resurrection isn't contrary to our understanding of scientific laws. The question really is to ask if scientific laws are absolute, or is it is possible that the laws exist because of an intelligence that brought the laws into existence in the first place, and is capable of suspending them.

Tangle writes:

We also have obvious and apparent everyday evidence of suffering and eventually death in every single piece of 'god's creation' for ever. A human that set up such an experiment would be condemned as the worst kind of evil imaginable. But you shrug that off without effort. That's prior bias very hard at work.

Yes, evil exists, but at the same time there is goodness, beauty, love and joy. Actually it is just as difficult to rationalize that fact that the goodness in the world exists for an atheist, as it is for a theist to rationalize evil.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Tangle, posted 02-13-2019 4:20 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2019 2:57 AM GDR has responded
 Message 40 by Stile, posted 02-14-2019 10:55 AM GDR has not yet responded
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2019 12:05 PM GDR has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 7085
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 3.8


Message 39 of 67 (848700)
02-14-2019 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
02-13-2019 8:08 PM


GDR writes:

Essentially I agree but it seems to me that a great many scientific theories are as much a belief as is religious belief.

We have to be careful with words here. 'Theory' is banded about a lot both within science and without and usually it doesn't mean what we mean here. The sort of theories you're probably thinking of such as multiverses and branes and so on that are usually termed theories are really well constructed hypotheses. They have mathematical validity but await empirical confirmation.
They're certainly not beliefs though because they have scientific, evidential support

Well I contend that the evidence is stronger than you believe it is,

And yet there is none! None. Not even poor evidence. If there was evidence we could discuss it, but all you've got are some anonimous stories.

The question really is to ask if scientific laws are absolute, or is it is possible that the laws exist because of an intelligence that brought the laws into existence in the first place, and is capable of suspending them.

All you're asking is 'does god exist'? You have no evidence for that belief either.

Yes, evil exists

So you have uncontroversial evidence that your god is not omnibenevolent and is, in fact, evil. You can't even deny it, all you can does is make excuses for it.

but at the same time there is goodness, beauty, love and joy. Actually it is just as difficult to rationalize that fact that the goodness in the world exists for an atheist, as it is for a theist to rationalize evil.

But it isn't hard at all! And it's got nothing to do with atheism. But we've done this and it's not for here. Here is about how belief prevents objective thinking.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 02-13-2019 8:08 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 02-14-2019 3:07 PM Tangle has responded

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 3847
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 40 of 67 (848706)
02-14-2019 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
02-13-2019 8:08 PM


GDR writes:

Yes, evil exists, but at the same time there is goodness, beauty, love and joy. Actually it is just as difficult to rationalize that fact that the goodness in the world exists for an atheist, as it is for a theist to rationalize evil.

How to rationalize goodness existing in the world as an atheist:

Goodness exists in the world because some people want it to (including myself.)

There. That didn't seem so hard.

But, like Tangle said, it's off-topic here.
If you'd like to press it, you can take it here:

Why It Is Right To Do Good To Others


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 02-13-2019 8:08 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6653
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(2)
Message 41 of 67 (848721)
02-14-2019 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by GDR
02-13-2019 8:08 PM


Actually it is just as difficult to rationalize that fact that the goodness in the world exists for an atheist, as it is for a theist to rationalize evil.

Nope

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by GDR, posted 02-13-2019 8:08 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 02-14-2019 2:54 PM Theodoric has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


(1)
Message 42 of 67 (848739)
02-14-2019 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by Theodoric
02-14-2019 12:05 PM


Theodoric writes:

Nope

Wrong

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2019 12:05 PM Theodoric has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2019 3:21 PM GDR has responded

    
GDR
Member
Posts: 4983
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 43 of 67 (848740)
02-14-2019 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Tangle
02-14-2019 2:57 AM


Tangle writes:

And yet there is none! None. Not even poor evidence. If there was evidence we could discuss it, but all you've got are some anonimous stories.

As we have for virtually every historical record from 2000 years ago. The accounts were complied to be believed. Paul in his letter to the Corinthians tells how he was writing this while there were still eye witnesses alive. He obviously had contact with the eye witnesses.

Tangle writes:

All you're asking is 'does god exist'? You have no evidence for that belief either.

Intelligent life exists. Why. You can detail how we evolved but so what. You have no evidence that God doesn't exist. We both have our beliefs that aren't answerable by the scientific method.

Tangle writes:

So you have uncontroversial evidence that your god is not omnibenevolent and is, in fact, evil. You can't even deny it, all you can does is make excuses for it.

If you were God and had the choice between bringing about life as we know it or shelving the whole project what would you do? We at least have a world where God's created creatures have the capacity to mitigate some of the suffering. Also the Christian message is that ultimately this world will be renewed and suffering won't be a part of it, which makes all of this a work in progress.

He has told you, O man, what is good ; And what does the LORD require of you But to do justice, to love kindness, And to walk humbly with your God.

Micah 6:8


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2019 2:57 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Theodoric, posted 02-14-2019 3:31 PM GDR has responded
 Message 47 by Tangle, posted 02-14-2019 4:59 PM GDR has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6653
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


(1)
Message 44 of 67 (848742)
02-14-2019 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by GDR
02-14-2019 2:54 PM


Stile has already defeated that crap. I can easily say why goodness exists. I do not have to rationalize. My life is immensely joyful because goodness exists. I and a lot of people like me try to bring goodness and happiness into this world, every day.
See how easy that was.
How about you move this to the thread that is not off topic? I think we will have fun with this.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by GDR, posted 02-14-2019 2:54 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by GDR, posted 02-14-2019 3:33 PM Theodoric has not yet responded

    
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 6653
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 45 of 67 (848744)
02-14-2019 3:31 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by GDR
02-14-2019 3:07 PM


Paul in his letter to the Corinthians tells how he was writing this while there were still eye witnesses alive. He obviously had contact with the eye witnesses.

Please provide the passage. I don't think it says what you think it says. Also, just because someone makes a claim does not make it true. Without corroboration any statement is meaningless.
Also the Christian message is that ultimately this world will be renewed and suffering won't be a part of it, which makes all of this a work in progress.

Sounds insidiously evil to me.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts

"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

If your viewpoint has merits and facts to back it up why would you have to lie?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by GDR, posted 02-14-2019 3:07 PM GDR has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by GDR, posted 02-15-2019 2:23 AM Theodoric has responded

    
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019