Theistic Scientists

[Moontanman]

Yeah, I said that. You can quote it. Sure.

How about explaining the difference to me?

[John Cuthber]

 

Yeah, you're going to compare me to a small child. In a bit you're going to compare me to woman, and after that it'll be every other nasty thing you can think of. You said "there is no difference". You just in the last day said that. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to show that corn dog shitting dragons are equivalent to God.

 

It sounds fun. There are all kinds of principles of logic that could be applied to your faith. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to do it. It's fascinating to watch. And, of course you compare me to a kid in the mean time. Of course you do.

 

I'm sorry, "there is no difference"? Can you repeat that?

There's nothing nasty about being a child or a woman.

Your tacit assertion that there is, not only detracts from your credibility, but breaks the forum rules.

"

• Slurs or prejudice against any group of people (or person) are prohibited."

Wouldn't it just be easier to either show what the difference is, or admit that there isn't one?

In any event, you owe half the population an apology.

Edited September 22, 2013 by John Cuthber

[iNow]

You can't assert that there is no difference while two things are distinctly different.

We're speaking of assertions of existence. In your opinion, how specifically are these assertions of existence of god(s) "distinctly different" than assertions of existence of corndog pooping dragons?

 

 

It's just an equivocation fallacy. That's all you're doing.

Except, no. It's not.

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Equivocation

 

Equivocation is a logical fallacy that relies on the different meanings a word can have in different contexts.

<...>

Examples:

 

"Because it's called the 'theory of evolution,' evolution is an unproven assumption!" This is fallacious because it equivocates two different meanings of the word "theory".

 

"You have faith in science, and I have faith in God." This exploits the fact that "faith" is often used to mean "confidence", that is having a solid reason to be confident of something due to its past performance--this argument is an effort to equate science with religion, when in reality science does not require faith (meaning belief without evidence).

 

"Because the word 'Nazi' is short for 'National Socialism,' socialists are Nazis." The Nazi platform was never socialist in any way; they just called themselves that. For a modern equivalent, look at the Liberal Party of Australia, who are not in any way liberals.

 

"The Theory of Relativity is immoral because it promotes Moral Relativism." This equivocates two different meanings of the word "relative".

 

"Since Evolutionism is based on the work of Darwin, Evolutionists are in favor of Social Darwinism." Social Darwinism, while named after Darwin, was not supported by him, nor is it supported by modern evolutionary theory.

You keep saying claims of existence of god(s) are different than claims of existence of dragons with interesting poo. We're asking how, because they seem equivalent to us. That's not an equivocation fallacy.

[doG]

It's called an equivocation fallacy. You can't assert that there is no difference while two things are distinctly different.

Are you missing the point on purpose? The point is not that corn dog pooping dragons are god(s) or vice versa, but that the evidence in support of the existence of either is the same, zero, zip, nada, none. It is no different than the evidence in support of the existence of unicorns or leprechuans for there is none. There is exactly the same amount of evidence that supports the existence of any of these imaginary things, none. Yes, someone could also claim that god is a corn dog pooping dragon but no one here has done that, they have merely said the lack of supporting evidence for either is the same. Can you really not see the difference?

[WWLabRat]

I don't think I've ever had anyone work that hard to make my point... Animals do all sorts of things that do not contribute to their survival, they play, yes even as adults, all those things you claim are unique to humans are just more complex analogs of the human behaviors you cite.

 

Lets break it down dude...

 

...(edited to save space)...

 

WWLabRat, I think we have skidded way off topic, I suggest you start another thread if you want to continue down this road...

 

 

Well, unlike many in this thread, I know when to admit defeat. Being that I'm not a biologist, my "expertise" is limited in this argument. So, I'll throw in the towel. And I agree, we have gotten severely off topic on that one. Now if others could follow this example and drop it as well.

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

Nobody seems to have made an answer to my contribution, that there appears plenty of artifacts and supportive evidence over a large part of history , which at the very least gives some kind of evidence in support of some form of higher intelligence.

 

All this at a time when we neither existed at all or were butchering each other is some ghastly uncivilized manner or other. we sometimes forget that our "civilization " [ evidence by nations in front of our very eyes] becoming civil with each other , comes out of Jewish and Christian culture which has its roots in some form of Godlike intervention , that is , unless we care to trash much of the evidence lodged in many a museum worldwide . As well of course the natural world itself.

 

to requote : post

 

#370 Mike Smith Cosmos

 

 

There does appear to be a whole history of evidence of nations of people who have existed and based their lives on a God.

* The Jews from Abraham to the modern day have a history of interaction and physical evidence of contact with a GOD.

* The early Christians had supernatural, well documented experiential evidence of many such contacts.

Since then whole nations have built their existence , constitution and a mode of operation based on the principles coming from those Experiences of contact with the SUPERNATURAL

Such Nations As USA, UK EUROPE.etc

If ALL these are to be dismissed as NOT SCIENTIFIC enough , surely we are trying to dismiss or discount much of our history as NOT VALID EVIDENCE ( this could be a trgjic mistake ).

What if we are wrong ? In the face of so much of our history ? Are we to deny so much of our history, the very history which gave birth to Science itself.

That is surely a bit of a dangerous sweeping step. Dangerous to dismiss so much evidence on a very recently proposed THEORY that " There is NO SUPERNATURAL EXISTENCE and contact ".

.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Some men of science have embraced the thoughts of Karl Popper that a theory , not only needs to be VERIFIED but also FALSIFIABLE. .

If that is the case. Then it is beholden on those who have a modern Theory

" There are no gods, There is No GOD " attempt to falsify, in order to make the theory a valid theory..

This would surely only be possible if the Proponents of this theory were to prove they have searched EVERYWHERE , rattled a stick around in EVERY corner and say " There ! " "There is no one there ! I have demonstrated I have been EVERYWHERE , checked for ALL manner of existence. Nothing there." Search has been made for life elsewhere, so far, no signs of life. However the surface of ALL places has barely been touched among normal matter , let alone Super Natural domains .

Clearly, we are no where near looking at, detecting, going everywhere everything, every time. So at the moment this Theory that " There are no gods, There is No GOD " is currently not barely touched as being falsifiable .

So by Karl Poppers' standards the Theory" There are no gods, There is No GOD " is NOT VALID at this time .

On the other hand the two civilizations mentioned earlier have produced some Evidence , by way of Contacts, Words, demonstrations of a whole series of superhuman, supernatural, acts, to the contrary. History is not "empty" of such evidence.

The evidence 'though old' stacks up far more on this side of the theories of ", gods or GOD " than the fairly recent counter theory which is pretty well "Empty of falsifiable evidence" on the " No gods, GOD " side, apart from the simple local searching on nearby planets etc .

Is this not so ?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Edited September 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[doG]

There does appear to be a whole history of evidence of nations of people who have existed and based their lives on a God.

 

* The Jews from Abraham to the modern day have a history of interaction and physical evidence of contact with a GOD.

* The early Christians had supernatural, well documented experiential evidence of many such contacts. .

 

Hand-me-down hearsay claims are not evidence...

[pears]

It's testimonial evidence.

[Phi for All]

And a big problem with this "evidence" is that it's more easily explained by our need, our evolutionary need, to imagine things that might exist but we can't see. In the distant past, those who could imagine a lion in the shadows may have been wrong a lot, but they were right enough to keep themselves (and those of the tribe who listened to the warnings) alive to pass along those imaginative traits.

 

We see evidence of this kind of development everywhere. Isn't this a much more natural explanation for this same evidence? Why make the leap to omnipotent but worship-hungry gods who conveniently don't want to be observed?

I've been mulling this over and I don't see how faith can ever be "pure" in theism. Theist religions always involve some form of interaction with the divine, be it revelation, incarnation, healing, answered prayer, historical tradition, personal experience of the divine. Whatever. Surely, in that belief system, part of the purpose of such intervention is to give the theist a "leg-up" so to speak. i.e. to be "evidence" on which to base faith. (Not scientific or empirical evidence, but informal or personal or testimonial type evidence - sorry I can't think of a better word than evidence, otherwise I'd use it.)

Only the purest faith could be achieved in deism - where there is no interaction. But in that case (assuming deism => indifferent deity) then the faith would be redundant anyway I suppose.

So while 'faith' might be a goal in theism, perhaps purity of faith isn't? It's just that 'some' faith is required and so it's the presence of faith that must be maintained, rather than any particular quality, or level of it? I dunno, just my ponderings.

I agree, but I also think it's one of those unattainable goals that people still strive for, like the Japanese gardens where you're always tweaking, looking for the absolute best combination of sensory beauty. Islam also tells stories about how one should strive for perfection knowing that only Allah really is. I read once where rug weavers in the Middle East will actually place a small flaw in an otherwise perfectly crafted rug to show their humility and acknowledge Allah's perfection.

It's the same with the devout Christians I know. "What would Jesus do?" assumes that this would be the perfect solution in every instance, while at the same time acknowledging that our own judgement is flawed to begin with.

But what they're really doing is expressing is very strong opinion. Is this again another issue with semantics? People in every day circumstances use 'know' when they mean 'convinced'. (I know I left my pen in here, but I can't see it anywhere.) Should such a person be forced to learn in detail about epistemology and ontology perhaps they would qualify their statement of fact as a statement of very strong belief.

 

I think you're right but I don't think many of them would agree. Doubt may be part of everyday life for theists, but since it's something that they want to eradicate as much as possible (even knowing they can't attain that kind of "perfect" faith), aren't they still obliged to declare their belief in as strong a way as possible? Aren't they encouraged NOT to doubt by believing ever more strongly?

 

"Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours."

-- Mark 11:24

 

If you ask a devout Christian (OK, non-Catholic, and a tip of the hat to the current Pontiff) if you can get into heaven by just sort of believing in Jesus, aren't they going to tell you this isn't a semantics issue, that you truly have to believe it with all your heart?

[Mike Smith Cosmos]

 

Hand-me-down hearsay claims are not evidence...

 

 

And a big problem with this "evidence" is that it's more easily explained by our need,...........edit that you truly have to believe it with all your heart?

 

 

It's testimonial evidence.

 

Yes but we have many" hand me down" stories of Shakespear and Einstein etc etc. We believe they existed and spoke wisely. Why not the words heard and written in the Jewish happenings and early Christian happenings ? Not many have seen the Cosmic background radiation, the maths results from the Large Hadron Collider, the H5N1 virus etc , yet we believe it

 

Is it so different to what has been discussed ? Or is it the implications that frightens people? The implication of being observed answerable, accountable ?

 

The implication , that some organised intelligence, a lot brighter than us , may be both observing and thinking about our performance as a world and as individuals.

 

It's a bit more comfortable if you/we think we are on our own.

 

If ( we on the other hand ) we are being observed quite closely like a teacher examines students by examinations and written work . And as the current world/individuals were/are accountable to a reasonably high standard, as a teacher would expect reasonable results. Then, for all of the current happenings,

 

Global warming, starvation, pollution, sharing resources, killings , criminal activity, cruelty, Governments, organisations, companies, Industries History Banks, individuals

 

" How do you think we would fare ? Does that not persuade one to think " There is no such thing ! " " Hog wash " .

 

Things might start feeling a little more uncomfortable. May be ,we have a vested interest in " there is no higher power ! "

 

.

.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Mike Smith Cosmos

[iNow]

There does appear to be a whole history of evidence of nations of people who have existed and based their lives on a God.

 

* The Jews from Abraham to the modern day have a history of interaction and physical evidence of contact with a GOD.

* The early Christians had supernatural, well documented experiential evidence of many such contacts.

Hand-me-down hearsay claims are not evidence...

It's testimonial evidence.

In much the same way, I could say that I saw a dragon shit corndogs in my garage. It's "testimonial evidence," and it's (no pun intended) crap.

 

Likewise, there are well documented experiential evidences that aliens like to come down and put probes up peoples butts. That doesn't mean there are aliens, let alone that they like to probe human assholes. That's sort of the point that people keep (intentionally?) missing.

[Moontanman]

Yes but we have many" hand me down" stories of Shakespear and Einstein etc etc. We believe they existed and spoke wisely. Why not the words heard and written in the Jewish happenings and early Christian happenings ? Not many have seen the Cosmic background radiation, the maths results from the Large Hadron Collider, the H5N1 virus etc , yet we believe it

 

Is it so different to what has been discussed ? Or is it the implications that frightens people? The implication of being observed answerable, accountable ?

 

The implication , that some organised intelligence, a lot brighter than us , may be both observing and thinking about our performance as a world and as individuals.

 

It's a bit more comfortable if you/we think we are on our own.

 

If ( we on the other hand ) we are being observed quite closely like a teacher examines students by examinations and written work . And as the current world/individuals were/are accountable to a reasonably high standard, as a teacher would expect reasonable results. Then, for all of the current happenings,

 

Global warming, starvation, pollution, sharing resources, killings , criminal activity, cruelty, Governments, organisations, companies, Industries History Banks, individuals

 

" How do you think we would fare ? Does that not persuade one to think " There is no such thing ! " " Hog wash " .

 

Things might start feeling a little more uncomfortable. May be ,we have a vested interest in " there is no higher power ! "

 

.Everything 6.jpg

.

The most obvious flaw in your reasoning is the idea that hearsay is evidence, no part of the bible is first hand and no mention of Jesus anyplace but christian writings and those decades after his death. The New Testament is not eye witness, Paul never met Jesus and there are no independent records of anything in the New Testament other than the new testament... But the New testament does describe events that if they had happened would no doubt have been mentioned in non biblical writings of the day, Earth quake, eclipse of the sun, the dead walking around the city, no mention of any miracle worker anyplace but the bible.

 

Shakespeare on the other hand is a historical figure, other people knew his works and wrote about them while he was alive but more importantly Shakespeare didn't make any outrageous supernatural claims he insisted that everyone believe with no evidence...

 

And if you accept the god idea then good ol' god provided us with all sorts of goodies like small pox, river blindness, birth defects, the list of gods love is long and depressing...

[pears]

In much the same way, I could say that I saw a dragon shit corndogs in my garage. It's "testimonial evidence,"

 

Likewise, there are well documented experiential evidences that aliens like to come down and put probes up peoples butts. That doesn't mean there are aliens, let alone that they like to probe human assholes. That's sort of the point that people keep (intentionally?) missing.

 

Agreed. I'm not asserting such evidence is reliable. But I still think it can be called evidence in a sense. It may not be corroborated and it may not be strong evidence. It's a matter of opinion as to whether one accepts it or not.

Edited September 23, 2013 by pears

[Phi for All]

The implication , that some organised intelligence, a lot brighter than us , may be both observing and thinking about our performance as a world and as individuals.

 

It's a bit more comfortable if you/we think we are on our own.

 

I disagree. I think it's more comforting to think you'll never die if you conform to the wishes of your deity. But many of us don't think ignorance is bliss. It's uncomfortable to think we're on our own, but that's offset by the knowledge that you're doing your level best not to fool yourself.

 

 

 

 

 

With regard to the iNow/Iggy issue of equivalence, please take a deep breath and take this test:

 

"There is no difference between God and dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

 

"There is no difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

 

 

Because this discussion really has been flipping back and forth arguing both these definitions simultaneously, and it's unproductive to continue this way.

[iNow]

Agreed. I'm not asserting such evidence is reliable. But I still think it can be called evidence in a sense. It may not be corroborated and it may not be strong evidence. It's a matter of opinion as to whether one accepts it or not.

It's not evidence, though. It's hearsay. Words have meanings that are important to productive discussion. If we simply make up our own meanings whenever we want, then productive discussion tends to cease.

[pears]

I didn't make up that meaning. Testimonial evidence is accepted in court. And it's called evidence there.

[iNow]

No, that's called eye-witness testimony, and is recognized as being notoriously flawed and rather frequently inaccurate, but I won't belabor the point. You seem to be unwilling to concede the point.

 

On another note, I have evidence that fairies exist. My daughter saw some in a dream. Thank goodness the judge would allow that in court and let me walk free when I'm arrested for robbing a bank and claiming that I did it because the fairies told me to.

Edited September 23, 2013 by iNow

[pears]

On another note, I have evidence that fairies exist. My daughter saw some in a dream. Thank goodness the judge would allow that in court and let me walk free when I'm arrested for robbing a bank and claiming that I did it because the fairies told me to.

 

Yea - cos that's exactly the same thing.

[imatfaal]

I didn't make up that meaning. Testimonial evidence is accepted in court. And it's called evidence there.

 

 

Hearsay is inadmissible in most courts. You are only allowed to provide evidence 1st hand - eg you cannot give evidence against me by testifying that Phi for All said that he had seen me adjusting the reputation points. Phi could testify against me (if the broken windows were not enough of a message) - but you could only give evidence when I sue Phi for slander.

 

That point regarding much of the historical evidence aside; eyewitness testimony is notoriously dreadful - just watch the video

So much of the evidence by modern folks who claim something happened to them - whilst it is evidence of a kind - is not something a court would be fond of (eyewitness, uncollaborated and partisan)

[pears]

The video is rather contrived. It's just misdirection.

 

it is evidence of a kind

 

Thank you.

[Iggy]

With regard to the iNow/Iggy issue of equivalence, please take a deep breath and take this test:

 

"There is no difference between God and dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

 

"There is no difference between the scientific quality of evidence used to support the existence of God and to support the existence of dragons (of any digestional persuasion)." True or False?

iNow didn't say the latter. He actually said "they're equivalent... I'm happy to show they're equivalent". As far as me saying they're different. Popularity is a difference. If A is more popular than B then A is not equal to B, because consensus makes a definition not the other way 'round. If 85% of the population find one thing more likely than another then they aren't the same. If a dictionary defines them equally then it is the dictionary that is wrong.

 

And, let's all remember whose argument this is. Do you really think iNow is saying that God is equivalent to dragon poop because hordes of people are coming to the site saying "believe in God because he's different from dragon poop"? That would make no sense. This is iNow's argument. This is his show. You think somebody else said that first? He's the one comparing them. Let him prove it.

 

Otherwise... it is equivocation just like Tar does when he says "let's believe in god because god is equivalent to child's laughter" (or some version of that). It is equivocation either way. It's beneath atheism.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Iggy

[Phi for All]

iNow didn't say the latter. He actually said "they're equivalent... I'm happy to show they're equivalent". As far as me saying they're different. Popularity is a difference. If A is more popular than B then A is not equal to B, because consensus makes a definition not the other way 'round. If 85% of the population find one thing more likely than another then they aren't the same. If a dictionary defines them equally then it is the dictionary that is wrong.

 

And, let's all remember whose argument this is. Do you really think iNow is saying that God is equivalent to dragon poop because hordes of people are coming to the site saying "believe in God because he's different from dragon poop"? That would make no sense. This is iNow's argument. This is his show. You think somebody else said that first? He's the one comparing them. Let him prove it.

 

Otherwise... it is equivocation just like Tar does when he says "let's believe in god because god is equivalent to child's laughter" (or some version of that). It is equivocation either way. It's beneath atheism.

 

Thanks, and your answers for the test? TT, TF, FT or FF?

[John Cuthber]

Hi Iggy, still not bothered about you slur against more than half the world?

Whatever.

You keep asking for evidence about the similarity of God and the dragon.

Well, here's one bit of evidence that they are similar in a rather important respect.

 

I looked for evidence for God, and I couldn't find any.

I looked for evidence of dragons, and I couldn't find any.

 

They are both equivalent in that they are unevinced.

Anyone who wants to talk about "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" will be asked how they sleep with a tiger in their bedroom. I know there's no evidence for the tiger but absence...

(Incidentally, part of my job is finding data so my not finding it may be a little more significant than the man in the street not doing so, but that's beside the point. The two concepts remain similar in that they both lack readily available evidence to support them.)

[Phi for All]

They are both equivalent in that they are unevinced.

 

True.

 

 

 

They are both different in that they have different meanings to people.

 

They are both different in that they are worshiped differently.

 

They are both different in that they are said to have different bowel movements.

 

All three, also true.

[Iggy]

Hi Iggy, still not bothered about you slur against more than half the world?

 

I just made a slur? I just made a slur against half the world? Dear God. Please quote exactly where I did that, and please prove I did.

 

Thanks.

 

Whatever.

You keep asking for evidence about the similarity of God and the dragon.

 

 

No, iNow said they are equivalent. He did it first. I'm sure you're about to press him just as hard to show his ridiculous claim.

 

It would be the easiest thing in the world for me to open a dictionary and show that God is different from Dragon poop, but I don't have to do it. Go ahead and drag that guy through the mud for doing such a stupid thing as saying they're equivalent. He said they are equivalent first, before I pointed out his equivocation fallacy. And, I've gone so far as to prove that consensus makes them different. This is not on me. Why are you asking me? This is a science site. This is embarrassing.

Edited September 23, 2013 by Iggy