Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9071 total)
67 online now:
AZPaul3, CosmicChimp, dwise1, jar, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Upcoming Birthdays: Percy
Post Volume: Total: 893,079 Year: 4,191/6,534 Month: 405/900 Week: 111/150 Day: 4/38 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Peanut Gallery
Straggler
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1681 of 1725 (633061)
09-12-2011 9:39 AM
Reply to: Message 1677 by RAZD
09-12-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
RAZD writes:

The evidence could be an illusion and the statement is still true, that "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."

Is science a method of investigating the world and coming to accurate and reliable conclusions?

Or is it merely an exercise in internal logical consistency?

Because as you describe it science is just the latter.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1677 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:00 AM RAZD has seen this message

Panda
Member (Idle past 2942 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


(1)
Message 1682 of 1725 (633072)
09-12-2011 10:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1677 by RAZD
09-12-2011 8:00 AM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence: Empirical Confidence
RAZD writes:

The evidence could be an illusion and the statement is still true, that "we know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have show the earth to be over 4 billion years old."


I think I can agree with that.
That is the same level of certainty that we have about gravity, evolution, etc.

We know with certainty that the evidence, test methods and information we currently have shows that the only source of supernatural beings is the human imagination.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.

Edited by Panda, : No reason given.


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 1677 by RAZD, posted 09-12-2011 8:00 AM RAZD has seen this message

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2207
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1683 of 1725 (633125)
09-12-2011 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 1181 by Modulous
07-10-2011 4:24 AM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Modulous writes:
It's like science saying 'I have a theory that x is the way y works. It is supported by a set of evidence z. You can prove me wrong by providing q'

The problem here is that it has been more accurate to say:

It's like science saying 'I have a theory that x is the way that every instance of y, that I have seen detected by my own, limited and undescribed in scientific detail, missing engineering drawings, but presumed to be sufficiently calibrated & accepted scientific equipment, works. It is supported by a set of evidence z. You can prove me wrong by providing q'

If all you have is a short net to scoop up the white belly-up fish on the surface of your dynamited pond, then you don't have enough tools to conclude, in an inductive way, that all the fish in the pond are dead. Surely bluegenes has a longer net to scoop up data. Can he please tell us what it is? Other than the inexact nature of psychological analysis - which you (along with Straggler) gave to him after he came out with his "theory" to help out the cause. He has clearly inadmissible evidence on the form of hearsay to the nth power in handed down stories. He has Bobby Henderson & the FSM (which even I gave to him after he posited his theory). He has JKRowling and Harry Potter from Straggler. He has CSLewis and the Lords of the Rings. He has his own and Straggler's myriad of made-up-on-the spot SNs. He has comic books. He initially thought he had the Xongsmith Analemma on his side, but that is a major road block to falsification.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1181 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2011 4:24 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1684 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2011 5:18 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 1685 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 7:26 PM xongsmith has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1684 of 1725 (633127)
09-12-2011 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 1683 by xongsmith
09-12-2011 4:53 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
He has every fictional supernatural concept ever created. He has a myriad of mutually exclusive specific supernatural concepts. He has every supernatural entity defined as being the direct cause of every phenomenon for which we now have a scientifically verified natural cause (Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

And he has the giant turtle holding up the earth.......

X writes:

He initially thought he had the Xongsmith Analemma on his side, but that is a major road block to falsification.

Only in your own head does the demonstrable existence of an entity which exactly matches an established supernatural concept fail to falsify bluegenes theory.

This is simply a failing of your own comprehension and an indication of your own "atheism by definition" approach.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1683 by xongsmith, posted 09-12-2011 4:53 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1693 by xongsmith, posted 09-14-2011 1:11 PM Straggler has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 1685 of 1725 (633149)
09-12-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 1683 by xongsmith
09-12-2011 4:53 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
If all you have is a short net to scoop up the white belly-up fish on the surface of your dynamited pond, then you don't have enough tools to conclude, in an inductive way, that all the fish in the pond are dead.

Strange that you'd pick such an old post to repeat your belief that bluegenes is dipping the shallows and is ignoring possible deeper truths. But if it helped inspire this particular analogy I think we can both walk away pleased.

Take Jesus. Is he a supernatural being? Or are his supernatural properties figments of human imagination? Take the Islamic Allah. Is he a real supernatural being? Or is he a figment of human imagination?

If Allah (as described in the Koran) is real, then Jesus was not a supernatural being. If Jesus is supernatural, Allah is built from the human imagination.

I have provided a set of two big names. One of them came about as the result of human imagination. We could do the same for a few others.

The only way to save both is to add ad hoc rationalisations that render them both unfalsifiable (see: RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis for an example)

For what should be obvious reasons, it is difficult to specifically point to the origin source of ancient religions. Their ancient tenacity does not give them special place though. They aren't to be presumed to be the 'deeper fish' in our pond. There is no reason to propose a selection bias just because there are ancient ideas in play. And as bluegenes has already pointed out, they're fair game for the mutual exclusivity ploy.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1683 by xongsmith, posted 09-12-2011 4:53 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1694 by xongsmith, posted 09-14-2011 1:23 PM Modulous has replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1686 of 1725 (633214)
09-13-2011 5:32 AM
Reply to: Message 1664 by xongsmith
09-11-2011 5:00 PM


Re: Knowledge - vs - Confidence
X on probability writes:

I really don't think RAZD, here, would disagree....

Except that RAZ persistently insists that any talk of probability is impossible unless ALL the possibilities (including the untestable ones) have been tested. Message 1661

RAZ says: "How do you determine "very improbable" without some basis where you have actually tested the possibilities rather than just assume your opinion/s are correct?"

Do you really think Bertrand Russel would agree that scientific conclusions expressed as more or less probable are dependent on testing the untestable in the way that RAZ perennially insists upon? Do we really have to falsify Last Thursdayism before we conclude that evolution by natural selection very probably actually occurred?

X writes:

Show me where he claimed ALL evidence based knowledge is not tentative!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Most recently and most explicitly in Message 1661

But before that in all of his dimwitted scales, in all of his flawed but colourful charts and in all of his logic by numbers deductions. RAZ doesn't do uncertainty Xong. Because RAZ seems to believe that the whole of science can be reduced down to deductive logical arguments.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1664 by xongsmith, posted 09-11-2011 5:00 PM xongsmith has taken no action

Straggler
Member (Idle past 198 days)
Posts: 10332
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 1687 of 1725 (633215)
09-13-2011 5:36 AM
Reply to: Message 1639 by Chuck77
09-10-2011 1:21 AM


Re: The Straggler Challenge
Chuck writes:

It's amusing to see Straggler call Xongsmith a militant atheist in almost every comment he makes now when he himself demonstrates it here everyday.

Faced with the second coming of Christ as a demonstrable fact I would readily concede that bluegenes theory had been falsified. Xongsmith however has stated that he would not. Xongsmith is playing a game of atheism by definitions.

X writes:

I do think the odds of your preposterous Armageddon Event to be on the same level as the molecules all getting together against Thermodynamic odds and presenting the same thing.

According to Xongsmith something such as the second coming of Christ combined with biblical Armageddon would NOT constitute evidence of the supernatural. He would pass off the whole thing as a thermodynamic anomoly rather than admit he was actually wrong.

Christians are exhalted into raptuous heavenly paradise, the dead come bodily back to life, giant scorpions drag people into a great fiery abyss, Angels start decreeing various plagues on the unfaithful and the fornicators all around you - But as long as a team of white coated experts are there to observe and document Xongsmith will sit there saying "Nothing to challenge any atheistic attitudes to the supernatural to mention here". Until these white coated experts decree something as "supernatural" there is not and cannot be anything actually supernatural.

Even as the white coated experts in question hastily publish their results in a peer reviewed journal, even as our white coated experts are cast into the abyss to be tormented for all eternity by demons they can (according to Xongsmith) congratulate themselves on their rational rejection of the supernatural..........

Xongsmith's position is as ridiculous an exercise in definitional dynamics as one could conceive of and his Anal Emma is as stupid as she sounds.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1639 by Chuck77, posted 09-10-2011 1:21 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1699 by xongsmith, posted 09-15-2011 4:20 AM Straggler has replied

Chuck77
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1688 of 1725 (633448)
09-14-2011 5:23 AM


Support
Before this forum goes bye bye I'd like to get this in.

I think more theists/deists/creationists on here need to support eachother.

Some support goes a long way.

It would make the experience here much more rewarding if people would support one another. The atheists here as well as the evolutionists all support eachother religiously(sorry). Im sure it's a great experience for them all.

I've been guilty of disagreeing with other theists here almost as much as I do with the atheists and evolutionists.

That's going to change on my part. It's difficult debating 8 different people at a time. A lot of theists/deists here do it. None of us are RAZD for gods sake. It's hard to do. It happens on every single thread. Sometimes it's nice when another member can take some heat off of you.

I hope more theists/deists can start supporting eachother like the rest of the members here do. Im going too. Atleast we can try to find some common ground with one another.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.

Edited by Chuck77, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1689 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-14-2011 6:18 AM Chuck77 has taken no action
 Message 1690 by fearandloathing, posted 09-14-2011 6:58 AM Chuck77 has taken no action
 Message 1691 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 8:29 AM Chuck77 has replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 281 days)
Posts: 16112
Joined: 07-20-2006


(1)
Message 1689 of 1725 (633455)
09-14-2011 6:18 AM
Reply to: Message 1688 by Chuck77
09-14-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Support
Well, it's like the Emperor's New Clothes. The people who admit that he's naked can all agree even down to small details like how many pimples he's got on his butt. But the people who pretend that they can see his clothes will one of them be saying that they're made of blue velvet and another saying that they're made of orange satin.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1688 by Chuck77, posted 09-14-2011 5:23 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 1690 of 1725 (633462)
09-14-2011 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 1688 by Chuck77
09-14-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Support
I've been guilty of disagreeing with other theists here almost as much as I do with the atheists and evolutionists.

Nothing wrong with that, I consider it to be the sign that your mind is working.

That's going to change on my part. It's difficult debating 8 different people at a time.

So you are going to support other theist even if you DON'T agree with them? Brilliant!

I hope more theists/deists can start supporting eachother like the rest of the members here do. Im going too. Atleast we can try to find some common ground with one another.

I don't think you are going to find much common ground amongst all the different religions. Look at all the conflict and wars it has caused throughout history.

I would also like to see the theists support each other, though I doubt it will happen.

Edited by fearandloathing, : No reason given.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1688 by Chuck77, posted 09-14-2011 5:23 AM Chuck77 has taken no action

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 7309
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 1691 of 1725 (633466)
09-14-2011 8:29 AM
Reply to: Message 1688 by Chuck77
09-14-2011 5:23 AM


Re: Support
Before this forum goes bye bye I'd like to get this in.

Percy must be absolutely thrilled with making you an Admin after seeing this statement. I don't know how old you are but this site and its predecessor have probably been around longer than you have been an adult and is going to be around a lot longer after you whimper away with your tail between your legs.

The atheists here as well as the evolutionists all support eachother religiously(sorry).

Umm cause they rely on scientific evidence. It really is funny that you religious people consistently use the term religious as a pejorative. I wonder why that is.

I hope more theists/deists can start supporting eachother like the rest of the members here do.

You might as well as try to get all the Christian sects to agree. When what you "know" is based upon faith everyone is going to "know" something different.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1688 by Chuck77, posted 09-14-2011 5:23 AM Chuck77 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1692 by fearandloathing, posted 09-14-2011 10:13 AM Theodoric has taken no action
 Message 1698 by Chuck77, posted 09-15-2011 12:16 AM Theodoric has taken no action
 Message 1703 by Chuck77, posted 09-15-2011 6:27 AM Theodoric has taken no action

fearandloathing
Member (Idle past 3374 days)
Posts: 990
From: Burlington, NC, USA
Joined: 02-24-2011


Message 1692 of 1725 (633480)
09-14-2011 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 1691 by Theodoric
09-14-2011 8:29 AM


Re: Support
Theodoric writes:

Percy must be absolutely thrilled with making you an Admin after seeing this statement.

Just in case you missed this. Message 134.

C77 writes:

Only three days for calling a mod/member and more importantly a woman the C-Word? Three days?

Im thinking the dude should be banned from the site permanently. After being here so long and knowing the rules to actually take the time to think it out, type it an submit it and proceed to call a woman that on here looks bad for the site wheather he is an evolutionist or creationist.

Maybe Percy or Moose can adjust this accordingly.

{Content hidden - The "Public Record" forum and the "Suspensions and Bannings" topic are not places for discussion, even by admins (non-admins can't post in the "PR" topics). This discussion should go to the "Whine List" topic (public) or to a topic in the "Private Administration Forum" (which non-admins can't even see). And this is not a matter of if I agree or disagree with the hidden content. - Adminnemooseus

Some things are just better handled with a PM or two, Seeing a moderator being moderated for off-topic post probably makes a few of us wonder as to C77s ability to make a competent mod.

I hope he learns from this and goes on to do a fine job, but I have doubts.

C77 writes:

Only three days for calling a mod/member and more importantly a woman the C-Word? Three days?

I see no difference in whether the person getting cussed is a woman or a moderator or an elderly preacher, we are all equal. If anyone should be outraged, and put it out publicly, it should be PD.


"No sympathy for the devil; keep that in mind. Buy the ticket, take the ride...and if it occasionally gets a little heavier than what you had in mind, well...maybe chalk it off to forced conscious expansion: Tune in, freak out, get beaten."
— Hunter S. Thompson

Ad astra per aspera

Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1691 by Theodoric, posted 09-14-2011 8:29 AM Theodoric has taken no action

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2207
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1693 of 1725 (633497)
09-14-2011 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 1684 by Straggler
09-12-2011 5:18 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Straggler pushes on with:
He has every fictional supernatural concept ever created. He has a myriad of mutually exclusive specific supernatural concepts. He has every supernatural entity defined as being the direct cause of every phenomenon for which we now have a scientifically verified natural cause (Solar deities, Wind gods, Fertility deities, Lunar deities, Thunder gods, Creator gods, Fire gods Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)

And he has the giant turtle holding up the earth.......

YES - he has every single fiction supernatural story handed down through the centuries, over many a campfire, with descent & modification & even speciation (the mutual exclusivity bit), as in Allah & Jesus, subject to each story teller's own agenda & worldview - it is hearsay, it has to be REJECTED as INADMISSIBLE evidence. It is worth NOTHING to the prosecution. The defense has long ago conceded that humans make things up. Long ago.

Then Straggler continues with:

Only in your own head does the demonstrable existence of an entity which exactly matches an established supernatural concept fail to falsify bluegenes theory.

My own head has NOTHING to do with it. It up to the experts in the field. They have determined to do this. The number of times they have had a chance to say something was supernatural - but did not say so - dwarfs out the number of supernatural stories and, furthermore, the rate of opportunities to say so continues to exponentially rise, increasing it's dwarfing power over even new intentionally fictional stories so much faster, that by L'Hopital's Rule, just like the way that the computer proved 4 colors is enough by proving it will prove it eventually, bluegenes theory will never be falsified beyond a reasonable doubt.

However, if there ever could possibly be anything that would be able to falsify bluegenes theory, it would probably be absolutely nothing like any of those hand-me-down stories. Nothing at all like that. As Spock described the mindset of the Vulcan spaceship destroyed, "It was pure astonishment!".

This is simply a failing of your own comprehension and an indication of your own "confirmation bias" approach.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1684 by Straggler, posted 09-12-2011 5:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1696 by Straggler, posted 09-14-2011 2:56 PM xongsmith has seen this message

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2207
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 1694 of 1725 (633504)
09-14-2011 1:23 PM
Reply to: Message 1685 by Modulous
09-12-2011 7:26 PM


Re: some supporting evidence, no falsifying evidence
Modulous writes:
Take Jesus. Is he a supernatural being? Or are his supernatural properties figments of human imagination? Take the Islamic Allah. Is he a real supernatural being? Or is he a figment of human imagination?

If Allah (as described in the Koran) is real, then Jesus was not a supernatural being. If Jesus is supernatural, Allah is built from the human imagination.

I have provided a set of two big names. One of them came about as the result of human imagination. We could do the same for a few others.

The only way to save both is to add ad hoc rationalisations that render them both unfalsifiable (see: RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis for an example)

No. These are handed-down stories with descent and modification and speciation. They are all error-prone hearsay accounts by people who lived in a time when the objectivity of science was a very weak force. They are INADMISSIBLE testimonies. They most likely contain a major element of human embellishment via their imaginations.

I.E.: The Koran & the Bible are INADMISSABLE.


- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1685 by Modulous, posted 09-12-2011 7:26 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1695 by Modulous, posted 09-14-2011 1:28 PM xongsmith has replied

Modulous
Member (Idle past 1333 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(2)
Message 1695 of 1725 (633506)
09-14-2011 1:28 PM
Reply to: Message 1694 by xongsmith
09-14-2011 1:23 PM


admissable evidence
These are handed-down stories with descent and modification and speciation.

That's right.

They are all error-prone hearsay accounts by people who lived in a time when the objectivity of science was a very weak force.

Correct.

They are INADMISSIBLE testimonies.

They are admissible as examples of supernatural entities, which is all they are being used as.

They are inadmissible evidence that said supernatural entities actually exist, but that's not how they are being used here.

If you want to suggest that these sources are all products of the human imagination then you are just restating the theory. If you want to propose another source of supernatural beings which is admissable, then you just have to say so.

abe: I should point out that saying that Allah might be real, but has been embellished by humans, so his attributes and characteristics are unknown is essentially using RAZD's unfalsifiable Hindu Hypothesis objection - which I already mentioned in my post and which you neglected to address.

quote:
The only way to save both is to add ad hoc rationalisations that render them both unfalsifiable (see: RAZD's Hindu Hypothesis for an example)

They most likely contain a major element of human embellishment via their imaginations.

That's what bluegenes theory predicts, yes. See - you are actually on board after all.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Edited by Modulous, : changed subtitle


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1694 by xongsmith, posted 09-14-2011 1:23 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1700 by xongsmith, posted 09-15-2011 5:00 AM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022