Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,596 Year: 4,853/9,624 Month: 201/427 Week: 11/103 Day: 11/0 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1083 of 1725 (607557)
03-04-2011 2:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1082 by Straggler
03-04-2011 2:23 PM


So things like the god of Young Earth Creationist biblical literalism then?
From Message 359
quote:
RAZD has proposed a topic that appears to address the question of the existence of gods. His position seems to be that neither the existence nor nonexistence can be supported by evidence, so the only logical position is that of agnosticism. Petrophysics1 has apparently indicated an interest in participating to defend the position that at least one god exists. I would be interested in participating to challenge both positions and in support of the proposition that gods do not exist.
Sounds general to me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1082 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:23 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1084 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1086 of 1725 (607564)
03-04-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1084 by Straggler
03-04-2011 2:37 PM


Re: Ignostic Deism
What does?
The way he's using the word "gods".
Can you provide a definition of this "general" god that Subbie is supposed to have volunteered to refute?
I just tried, but was unable to read his mind, sorry.
Because RAZ couldn't. Which is why that thread stopped and why RAZ's own deistic position is so hilariously incoherent.
Subbie said he would support he position that gods don't exist. He did not do it.
Are those who proclaim themselves to be deists with regard to something which cannot be defined exhibiting "incoherent and thus non-cognitive" beliefs? I would say they are.
What do you think?
Don't know, don't care.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1084 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1087 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1088 of 1725 (607567)
03-04-2011 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 1087 by Straggler
03-04-2011 2:59 PM


Re: Ignostic Deism
CS writes:
The way he's using the word "gods".
Which was how exactly?
You can find the direct quote with a link to the context in Message 1083.
CS writes:
Subbie said he would support he position that gods don't exist. He did not do it.
If you want Subbie to define the term "god" and then refute his own definition then I have little doubt he is able to do this. But this will have as little objective validity as RAZ...
He didn't support the position that gods don't exist like he said he would. That is all.

Moose said to put that capitalism thread straight into the Coffee House.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1087 by Straggler, posted 03-04-2011 2:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1091 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2011 2:48 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1109 of 1725 (607810)
03-07-2011 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 1107 by purpledawn
03-07-2011 7:57 AM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
We can actually investigate wether or not rats can talk, say by finding that they lack the necessary vocal chords, but we don't have anything to investigate for supernatural beings.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1107 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2011 7:57 AM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1110 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 10:31 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1115 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2011 5:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1111 of 1725 (607812)
03-07-2011 10:31 AM
Reply to: Message 1091 by Straggler
03-05-2011 2:48 AM


Re: Ignostic Deism
Ultimately Subbie was being challeneged to refute a concept that doesn't conceptually exist.
He wasn't challenged, he volunteered.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1091 by Straggler, posted 03-05-2011 2:48 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1112 by Straggler, posted 03-07-2011 10:35 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1118 of 1725 (607998)
03-08-2011 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 1115 by purpledawn
03-07-2011 5:16 PM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
We don't have anything to investigate for talking rodents either because the only source for talking rodents is the human imagination.
We have actual rodents that we can investigate to see if any of them can talk. We can't even go that far for supernatural beings.
Yes we can check the vocal chords of various rodents and determine that living breathing rodents don't talk. But can it tell us that talking rodents don't live?
Yes.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1115 by purpledawn, posted 03-07-2011 5:16 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1119 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2011 11:19 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1120 of 1725 (608043)
03-08-2011 12:07 PM
Reply to: Message 1085 by purpledawn
03-04-2011 2:46 PM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Since there are no actual supernatural beings to investigate, then no supernatural being has been named and described by objective empirical evidence.
Then he doesn't have any data to base a scientific theory about those beings on. In fact, his theory is about the concepts of those beings, which like all concepts, must come from the human imagination. It simply a tautological definition, not a scientific theory.
From Message 1085:
quote:
What did Bluegenes measure and where is his data? What, exactly, would he publish?
According to message 11 the foundation for his initial hypothesis was based on fantasy fiction and mutually exclusive myths.
Do you really see someone publishing sci-fi and old myths as data for a scientific theory on supernatural beings?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1085 by purpledawn, posted 03-04-2011 2:46 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1121 by Straggler, posted 03-08-2011 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1122 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2011 4:42 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1123 of 1725 (608091)
03-08-2011 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 1122 by purpledawn
03-08-2011 4:42 PM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
Which "he" are you talking about?
Bluegenes.
quote:
Do you really see someone publishing sci-fi and old myths as data for a scientific theory on supernatural beings?
That's all I have for talking rodents.
I wouldn't expect to see a scientific theory on talking rodents either
Bluegenes has observed that supernatural beings can only be found in the human imagination or products of human imagination. That's the same observation for the talking rodents.
I'm not seeing the difference.
We can actually study a rat and determine if it can talk.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1122 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2011 4:42 PM purpledawn has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1124 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2011 5:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1125 of 1725 (608100)
03-08-2011 5:27 PM
Reply to: Message 1124 by purpledawn
03-08-2011 5:20 PM


Re: Does Bluegenes Have A Theory?
quote:
We can actually study a rat and determine if it can talk.
That tells us that living rodents are not the source of talking rodents.
The human imagination is the only known source of talking rodents.
So how do we test Remy (Ratatouille) to know whether he is a product of human imagination or not?
Presumably, the story/movie Ratatouille was claimed to be written by somebody and that would tell us that it is the product of human imagination.
Still though, I wouldn't call the no-talking-rats "theory" a scientific theory any more than I would Bluegenes.
Are you sayin' otherwise?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1124 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2011 5:20 PM purpledawn has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1127 by purpledawn, posted 03-08-2011 6:01 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1322 of 1725 (624686)
07-19-2011 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 1292 by Modulous
07-17-2011 7:24 PM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
No. A theory which predicts there are no supernaturals. No disproof claimed. The claim is that the only known source is the imagination. If that claim is true, it does not therefore mean there are no supernaturals. So no, there is no claim that would disprove supernaturals being made. If you think that claim is being made, it explains your position, maybe you've merely misunderstood us. That's possible, right? We might have failed to communicate the notion correctly to you or something.
I think part of the misunderstanding has to do with the theory being proposed as leading to the position that there is no god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1292 by Modulous, posted 07-17-2011 7:24 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1323 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 12:29 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1325 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 12:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1324 of 1725 (624689)
07-19-2011 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 1323 by Straggler
07-19-2011 12:29 PM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
Actually it leads to the position that gods are more likely to {be} figments of human imagination than real entities.
I don't think it does.
Relative likelihood and all that.....
You don't have any actual probilities of gods existing with which to be relative to. And inductive probabilites are not physical probabilities. You're gonna have to make an assumption of a probability in there, most likely the one that you're trying to conclude.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1323 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 12:29 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1329 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 1:17 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1326 of 1725 (624694)
07-19-2011 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1325 by Modulous
07-19-2011 12:43 PM


Re: not making a claim of disproof
Can you name anyone that has proposed this? Please link to the post, I've completely missed that.
It might not be that explicit, but Bluegenes proposed the theory to answer the question "Why not agnostic?" in Message 167.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1325 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 12:43 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1327 by Modulous, posted 07-19-2011 1:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 1328 by Straggler, posted 07-19-2011 1:10 PM New Cat's Eye has 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