|
Author
|
Topic: Peanut Gallery
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
Message 1366 of 1725 (625056)
07-21-2011 9:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1359 by jar
07-21-2011 8:59 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
I too have no idea why anyone wastes time trying to either prove GOD exists or to refute that GOD exists. I'm confused as to why people think that a theory which predicts that all gods are products of the human imagination is anything to do with trying to prove God exists or proving that it doesn't. It seems that people see the theory 'All supernatural beings are products of human imagination' and see it as if it were a assertion, as you implied earlier. It is not an assertion, it is a thoery.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1359 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 8:59 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1367 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 9:26 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1367 of 1725 (625059)
07-21-2011 9:26 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1366 by Modulous
07-21-2011 9:14 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
I agree, and if presented as a theory I would applaud it, but it was presented as a conclusion.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1366 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2011 9:14 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 1368 of 1725 (625061)
07-21-2011 9:35 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1367 by jar
07-21-2011 9:26 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
jar writes: I agree, and if presented as a theory I would applaud it, but it was presented as a conclusion.
All 4 examples were presented as conclusions. All 4 examples are conclusions based on theories.
quote:
I mean conclusions like the conclusion that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old rather than being omphamsitically created last Thursday. I mean conclusions like the conclusion that gravitational effects are caused by space-time curvature rather than immaterial and undetectable gravity gnomes linking masses together. I mean the conclusion that evolution actually took place rather than the notion that fossils and genetic evidence were simply planted by Satan to make us believe ungodly things about the creation of species. I mean the conclusion that gods are products of the human mind rather than real entities.
Your objection is biased, caused by your own fears. Edited by Panda, : typo Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1367 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 9:26 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1369 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 9:37 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1369 of 1725 (625062)
07-21-2011 9:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1368 by Panda
07-21-2011 9:35 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
panda writes: Your objection is biased, caused by your own fears. TOO funny. But thanks for sharing your beliefs.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1368 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 9:35 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1372 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 10:12 AM | | jar has replied |
|
Straggler
Member (Idle past 93 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: 09-30-2006
|
|
|
Message 1370 of 1725 (625068)
07-21-2011 10:01 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1365 by jar
07-21-2011 9:06 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
Are highly evidenced conclusions more likely to be correct than unevidenced claims? Or not? This is a simple question that has nothing explicitly to do with gods. Why can you not answer it?
jar writes: A product of human imagination is not a GOD. This concept you call GOD.... Is it's existence evidenced in any way shape or form? If not then where but human imagination are you suggesting this concept is sourced from?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1365 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 9:06 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1371 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:05 AM | | Straggler has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
We have been over this before. I have said that I have a belief that GOD exists, but that I cannot imagine any way that belief could be tested while I am still alive. That says nothing of course about whether or not GOD actually exists.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 1372 of 1725 (625072)
07-21-2011 10:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1369 by jar
07-21-2011 9:37 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
jar writes: TOO funny. But thanks for sharing your beliefs.
Your continued willingness to post, but your continued failure to refute anything I have said, shows that you have no rebuttal. Your are simply too immature to accept your mistakes.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1369 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 9:37 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1375 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:14 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: 01-24-2007
|
|
|
Message 1373 of 1725 (625073)
07-21-2011 10:13 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1358 by Modulous
07-21-2011 8:48 AM
|
|
Sudden mysterious misunderstandings of induction.
Modulous writes: It seems that one response is to critically misunderstand the basic fundamentals of the theory and rail against it. One could easily speculate that there just might be a few emotions involved, couldn't one? That a few toes of desire are being trodden on. I think I might get similar reactions to my "all books are authored entirely by human beings" theory in certain quarters. But no-one seems too bothered about the rabbits coming from their only known source. 
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1358 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2011 8:48 AM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 1374 of 1725 (625074)
07-21-2011 10:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1367 by jar
07-21-2011 9:26 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
I agree, and if presented as a theory I would applaud it, but it was presented as a conclusion. Yes, a conclusion, not an absolute fact. Drawing a conclusion and stating a truism are different processes. Conclusions can be drawn from the fact that a theory exists that is not falsified and is supported by the evidence. Are you saying there is a problem in drawing conclusions from theories? The conclusions might be wrong.They are not 'proofs'.
But as it stands it is no more valid than an assertion that "All swans are white." It's a perfectly valid assertion to make. It just so transpires that evidence exists that shows it is false. This latter property is missing in the conclusion that gods are not real.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1367 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 9:26 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1376 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:17 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1375 of 1725 (625075)
07-21-2011 10:14 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1372 by Panda
07-21-2011 10:12 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
Thanks for the revision. So now it is not a matter of my fear but rather of my immaturity. I appreciate your sharing and learn more every day. Again, thank you.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1372 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 10:12 AM | | Panda has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1380 by Panda, posted 07-21-2011 10:33 AM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1376 of 1725 (625076)
07-21-2011 10:17 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1374 by Modulous
07-21-2011 10:14 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
The difference, as I have said repeatedly, is that I cannot imagine any way that the supernatural, specifically the existence or non existence of a GOD or GODS could ever be tested while I am still alive. I find the whole bit of discussing whether or not there is a GOD humorous at best.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1374 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2011 10:14 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 1377 of 1725 (625079)
07-21-2011 10:24 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1376 by jar
07-21-2011 10:17 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
The difference, as I have said repeatedly, is that I cannot imagine any way that the supernatural, specifically the existence or non existence of a GOD or GODS could ever be tested while I am still alive. I fail to see how that difference is relevant here.
I find the whole bit of discussing whether or not there is a GOD humorous at best We aren't debating whether or not there is a god. We are discussing whether or not our concepts of gods are products of human imagination or are derived from a consideration of the evidence. It seems that your position is that our god-concepts cannot be derived from a consideration of the evidence, which it transpires, is in agreement with Straggler.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1376 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:17 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1378 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:29 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 1378 of 1725 (625081)
07-21-2011 10:29 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1377 by Modulous
07-21-2011 10:24 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
Which is again a point I have made here repeatedly. All known God(s) or god(s) that we discuss are products of human imagination however that is simply irrelevant when talking about whether or not GOD exists. But it is fun to discuss isn't it?
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1377 by Modulous, posted 07-21-2011 10:24 AM | | Modulous has replied |
|
Modulous
Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: 05-01-2005
|
|
|
Message 1379 of 1725 (625083)
07-21-2011 10:32 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1378 by jar
07-21-2011 10:29 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
Which is again a point I have made here repeatedly. All known God(s) or god(s) that we discuss are products of human imagination however that is simply irrelevant when talking about whether or not GOD exists. Then it seems you and Straggler agree, and your point is merely one of semantics. You seem to be arguing that a certain interpretation of Straggler's words is problematic, but I don't think that that interpretation is the one Straggler actually meant.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1378 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:29 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1382 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:39 AM | | Modulous has seen this message but not replied |
|
Panda
Member (Idle past 3740 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: 10-04-2010
|
|
|
Message 1380 of 1725 (625084)
07-21-2011 10:33 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1375 by jar
07-21-2011 10:14 AM
|
|
Re: Inductive Reasoning (Again)
jar writes: Thanks for the revision. So now it is not a matter of my fear but rather of my immaturity.
Immaturity and fear are not mutually exclusive. Anyway...back on topic - any rebuttals? No - seems not.
jar writes: I appreciate your sharing and learn more every day. Again, thank you.
Fascinating. Anyway...back on topic - any rebuttals? No - seems not. So - you still post, but refuse to address the points I raised. Perhaps you should remember that this is a discussion forum and not a chat room. "Put up or shut up."
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1375 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:14 AM | | jar has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 1383 by jar, posted 07-21-2011 10:40 AM | | Panda has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2