Theistic Scientists

[Iggy]

Neither faith alone nor the popularity or commonality of that faith serve as acceptable evidence to the validity of a claim, especially one so extraordinary and outrageous as the claim that god(s) exist(s).

God, I like the way you talk.

 

If faith, nor popularity, can serve as evidence of a claim then I can only ask what does. What serves as evidence of a claim?

 

Tell me about it's falsifiability. Please, tell me about it's verifiability. Please, tell me what you're talking about.

[iNow]

I already have, as have others. Here's an overview again:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

If faith, nor popularity, can serve as evidence of a claim then I can only ask what does. What serves as evidence of a claim?

Let me ask, can you name ANY OTHER SINGLE THING in your entire life (except for god) where faith and popularity alone would be good enough to accept the truth of such an extraordinary claim? Why should we allow these double standards? Why the hypocrisy? Why the special pleading?

[pears]

While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, I would like to know more about the logic and reason you applied to arrive at it. So, the question to you regarding the above is... Why?

 

In what way(s) do you believe that asserting that there exists some all powerful entity responsible for the universe and morality is functionally different than a largely equal claim that dragons who shit corndogs exist?

 

Thank you. I don't know really what logic and reason I applied to arrive at it. The two things just seem obviously different to me. If you think they are the same then that is your opinion and that's fine. It's my opinion that one is more coherent than the other. I don't know let's see, one is completely arbitrary, one seems less so. I think a person could arrive at one by philosophical pondering that I have already given reasons for (I have a sense of morality through my conscience, perhaps it points to an objective morality, the universe is coherent and logical perhaps there is a logical mind behind it) Now whether you agree with those arguments or not, to me they give a sense of coherence to the one idea over the other. One has coherence, one appears to be intentionally absurd. I don't know what else to say about it. I think the ideas are different.

 

 

Nobody says that there are "invisible dragons that poop cotton candy and edible corn dogs".

 

It wasn't even worth replying to. Now you're honestly asking Pears why something that billions of people believe is more credible than what you made up that nobody believes.

 

Why is something that billions of people believe more likely than something nobody believes?

 

I mean... you're honestly asking that... and sticking to it like it's a good point.

 

I can't even figure the point out...

 

What billions of people believe isn't credible because nobody believes this thing I made up that isn't believable... seems to be your point.

 

 

Iggy, the number of people who believe something is irrelevant to it's veracity...

 

It's perfectly true that "lots of people believe X" => "X is true" is a completely invalid argument. However I would hazard that its certainly possible that "lots of people believe X" could be evidence that X is at least a coherent idea.

 

Not

 

X is true because large numbers of people believe X

 

but

 

large numbers of people believe X because X has some coherence.

[John Cuthber]

 

Are you even following the thread?

 

There is only one person comparing the two, and it is iNow. You don't get to ask why either is less absurd. Only he gets to answer why the two are exactly equivalent... because only he is comparing them.

 

You're like the third person to ask that stupid question. "can't you prove that corn dog pooping dragons are different from God?".

 

If you'd care to compare the two then I'll put you in the same boat as him, in the mean time, please butt out.

How many people need to ask you before you realise it's a valid question?

Anyway, imagine we were having this conversation a couple of thousand years ago (I think- history isn't my forte) in Scandinavia.

The usual viewpoint there would be "everyone knows that Odin created the world".

Similarly, a bit earlier in Egypt "everyone" knew that the world was created by Ra, the Sun God.

 

Did the origin of the world change or was it just that people's best guess changed?

 

Clearly, it has changed again and now most people believe there's just one "God".

But that may change again.

So what most people believe isn't valid evidence.

Now, can you please show why your God is any different from the fleets of Gods that the Romans or Norsemen had?

 

Once you realise that you can't, you might understand why you are equally unable to distinguish your God from iNow's Dragon.

And maybe then you will realise that there's no real evidence for any of them.

iNow's point is that , in order to convince us of the validity of your God, you need to provide evidence which is as good as that required to convince you of the pet dragon.

The system is symmetrical and the "number of supporters" doesn't change that.

Edited September 10, 2013 by John Cuthber

[overtone]

 

 

Again, claims of the existence of god(s) are in no way functionally different than claims that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns, and are in no way different than claims that corndog shitting dragons exist.

As I posted a couple of examples to illustrate (the spirit of little sisterhood was one) that is not necessarily so.

 

That's true only for certain categories of deity, and does not account for the sophistication and subtlety available to a theistic scientist. The fact that the great majority of the world's theistic people do subscribe to the invisible dragon category of deity does not settle the matter for the rest - and one might expect members of the more intellectual classes of theistic people to more often subscribe to one of these other categories of deity.

 

Of course as has been well argued above, the number of believers in a particular conception of deity is irrelevant to its validity - so the existence of merely potential deities effectively and beneficially conjoinable with all manner of scientific belief and research, which nobody in fact holds as their god at the moment, is enough to answer the general question.

[ydoaPs]

God, I like the way you talk.

 

If faith, nor popularity, can serve as evidence of a claim then I can only ask what does. What serves as evidence of a claim?

 

Tell me about it's falsifiability. Please, tell me about it's verifiability. Please, tell me what you're talking about.

Observation o counts as evidence for h iff P(h|k&o)>P(h|k) where k is our background knowledge. It's really that simple. Faith is precisely the rejection of that and popularity doesn't meet the requirement.

[iNow]

While not necessarily intending to touch on the ideas being discussed in this thread, Chad over at Uncertain Principles just put out a 1-minute video that has some relevance here:

[Iggy]

I already have, as have others. Here's an overview again:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_evidence

http://www.livescience.com/21456-empirical-evidence-a-definition.html

Let me ask, can you name ANY OTHER SINGLE THING in your entire life (except for god) where faith and popularity alone would be good enough to accept the truth of such an extraordinary claim? Why should we allow these double standards? Why the hypocrisy? Why the special pleading?

 

I'm afraid that doesn't help. To you, God is different from any claim you've ever accepted. If you can't say in words why it is substantively different then I just don't know what you're talking about. It's all bluster.

Observation o counts as evidence for h iff P(h|k&o)>P(h|k) where k is our background knowledge. It's really that simple. Faith is precisely the rejection of that and popularity doesn't meet the requirement.

 

No, that doesn't work.

 

A lot of people grow up with background knowledge of God, and they end up thinking they see Jesus (or his surrogate) at some point in their life. So, of course they're going to believe. To them it isn't faith. It is a very real and solid thing.

How many people need to ask you before you realise it's a valid question?

 

So the number of people who ask has some bearing on its validity?

 

Interesting.

Edited September 10, 2013 by Iggy

[iNow]

I'm afraid that doesn't help. To you, God is different from any claim you've ever accepted. If you can't say in words why it is substantively different then I just don't know what you're talking about.

I think it's clear you don't know what I'm talking about, regardless of the clarity with which I've expressed my thoughts and despite the number of times I've patiently done so.

 

My point is that the god conjecture is NOT "substantively different" from those other things like corndog shitting dragons. The only difference thus far cited is the popularity of belief, which as has been amply demonstrated has zero bearing on the veracity of the assertion.

 

I will ask again. Beyond mere popularity, what other difference is there between the assertion that god(s) exist(s) and the assertion that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns?

[Iggy]

My point is that the god conjecture is NOT "substantively different" from those other things like corndog shitting dragons. The only difference thus far cited is the popularity of belief, which as has been amply demonstrated has zero bearing on the veracity of the assertion.

 

I will ask again. Beyond mere popularity, what other difference is there between the assertion that god(s) exist(s) and the assertion that the farts of pink unicorns cause erections in leprechauns?

 

No, iNow. You don't get to ask. You are the one saying that the two are equivalent. You have to prove their equivalence.

 

You understand... you make a claim: you prove it. That's pretty basic.

 

You don't get to ask, and it's something I've never seen you answer.

[iNow]

I've laid out my argument repeatedly. I am unclear how you can reasonably claim that you've not seen me offer an answer. I will ask instead, what criticisms of the position I've put forth do you have? What counter argument would you like to share?

 

Both claims lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever. Both claims appear to be complete fabrications of human imagination. What more proof are you seeking? Your request is unreasonable and little more than an evasion of the core point.

 

Besides mere popularity and social acceptance, can you cite a single way in which the two assertions are functionally different (in context of demonstrating their validity and truth)?

Edited September 11, 2013 by iNow

[Moontanman]

I've laid out my argument repeatedly. I am unclear how you can reasonably claim that you've not seen me offer an answer. I will ask instead, what criticisms of the position I've put forth do you have? What counter argument would you like to share?

 

Both claims lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever. Both claims appear to be complete fabrications of human imagination. What more proof are you seeking? Your request is unreasonable and little more than an evasion of the core point.

 

Besides mere popularity and social acceptance, can you cite a single way in which the two assertions are functionally different (in context of demonstrating their validity and truth)?

 

 

Your invisible dragon is obviously not real, the true invisible dragon shits hamburgers and french fries... pisses cherry coke too...

[Iggy]

I've laid out my argument repeatedly. I am unclear how you can reasonably claim that you've not seen me offer an answer. I will ask instead, what criticisms of the position I've put forth do you have? What counter argument would you like to share?

I'm sorry, iNow. I must have missed the post where you proved that corn dog shitting dragons were equivalent to God. If you'd care to point me to it then I'll be happy to read it.

 

Both claims lack any supporting empirical evidence whatsoever.

Yeah, but you've believed things in your life that lack supporting empirical evidence, so that isn't it.

 

 

Both claims appear to be complete fabrications of human imagination. What more proof are you seeking?

I'm seeking more proof than the way things "appear" to you, because they don't appear that way to most people.

 

Every other post you're comparing God to erections and dragon poop, and the cheer leading squad loves it every time you do it. You get all those +1's every time you do it. But, it's all empty and hollow.

 

Scientifically you can't explain it in the least. It is exactly what I said: it's all bluster.

 

Your request is unreasonable

Yeah, how many times have you asked people on this site to prove their claims? What if the only answer they could give you is "your request is unreasonable".

 

My mere request has proven how empty your claims are.

[iNow]

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent. In fact, I've done so repeatedly. Ignoring my response doesn't magically mean I've offered none.

 

If you want more, then I must ask you first to please define god.

Edited September 11, 2013 by iNow

[Iggy]

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent. In fact, I've done so repeatedly. Ignoring my response doesn't magically mean I've offered none.

Again... "I must have missed the post where you proved that corn dog shitting dragons were equivalent to God. If you'd care to point me to it then I'll be happy to read it."

 

waiting...

 

If you want more, then I must ask you first to please define god.

no

[doG]

If you put "if" in front of a false statement then it becomes a question.

 

Honestly! This type of thing isn't worthy of discussion. Where is iNow?

Discussion? With someone that can't tell the difference between a question and a statement? Perhaps one of your friends has a better command of english that could help you understand.

 

Yes, by the way. There is as much evidence for corn dog shitting dragons as there is for any god(s).

[WWLabRat]

 

Your invisible dragon is obviously not real, the true invisible dragon shits hamburgers and french fries... pisses cherry coke too...

 

I was wondering what caused Cherry Coke to have that slight aftertaste... It's good to finally know. Thanks Moontanman for the insight.

 

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent. In fact, I've done so repeatedly. Ignoring my response doesn't magically mean I've offered none.

 

If you want more, then I must ask you first to please define god.

Again... "I must have missed the post where you proved that corn dog shitting dragons were equivalent to God. If you'd care to point me to it then I'll be happy to read it."

 

waiting...

 

no

 

Iggy, if you're going to approach this in any bit of a scientific manner (as is the custom on a science forum, regardless of thread), then it is needed for there to be an adequate definition of the idea/object/etc under scrutiny. Without everyone knowing exactly what it is that's being discussed, nothing can be expected except confusion. More so, simply saying "no" when requested to define such a thing just makes it difficult for both sides of an argument to be able to see/understand the opposition. So please, define it so that this discussion can move forward.

[Iggy]

Iggy, if you're going to approach this in any bit of a scientific manner (as is the custom on a science forum, regardless of thread), then it is needed for there to be an adequate definition of the idea/object/etc under scrutiny. Without everyone knowing exactly what it is that's being discussed...

 

Agreed. iNow claimed that God was equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. I'll be happy to let him define it.

[WWLabRat]

While you are, of course, welcome to your opinion, I would like to know more about the logic and reason you applied to arrive at it. So, the question to you regarding the above is... Why?

 

In what way(s) do you believe that asserting that there exists some all powerful entity responsible for the universe and morality is functionally different than a largely equal claim that dragons who shit corndogs exist?

 

Agreed. iNow claimed that God was equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. I'll be happy to let him define it.

 

Um, no... You were asked to define. He was simply asking in what ways would the belief in an all powerful entity be any different than the belief that there are/were dragons who would defecate quantities of a battered and dipped hotdog on a stick. The only equivalence between this dragon and a deity is they are both equally unable to be proven to exist by scientific means. Or rather unable to be proven with our current scientific processes and muddled definition of "god". This is why we need a clear cut definition. If one says that god is everywhere at once and is unable to be seen, one could easily construe that god is one of many things including (but not limited to) microscopic organisms, air, viruses, any subatomic particle, or radiation. If one says that god created everything, one could just as easily assume that god is matter.

 

So please, define "god" for all of us so that we know what your standing is and from there form our arguments for or against.

[Iggy]

Um, no... You were asked to define.

yeah, but I could ask you any number of stupid things It doesn't mean you have to answer. inow made the claim... he has to answer.

 

He was simply asking in what ways would the belief in an all powerful entity be any different than the belief that there are/were dragons who would defecate quantities of a battered and dipped hotdog on a stick.

No, that isn't right. He wasn't asking how corn pooping dragons were differing from God... he was saying that they were different. Either he can prove that they are, ore you you can. I welcome you to do it. I really do.

 

But, I realize you're all bluster as well. You can't prove anything you've said. It's all well accepted bluster.

 

Good for you. You've found your niche.

Edited September 11, 2013 by Iggy

[WWLabRat]

Read, carefully, what he had written. It's there plain as day that he was saying that there's no difference between them as far as potential existence.

[Iggy]

he was saying that there's no difference between them...

He can't prove it. You can't.

 

It's all so much bluster.

 

I'm an atheist, like you, but at least I can spot bullshit when I see it.

[WWLabRat]

Who said I'm an atheist? I may have given a very brief description about my spirituality, but I never said whether I was theistic or atheist.

 

And he was trying to say that because it can't be proven you can't show a difference between the two. He can't prove a difference between them because their existence can't be proven. Anything that is unable to be observed, measured, and repeated falls outside the purview of science. At the core, both arguments are in agreement with each other. So there's no reason for the argument so why continue it?

[Iggy]

Who said I'm an atheist?

An Australian guy. He was really engaging.

 

Good guy. Offered me a smoke.

 

I may have given a very brief description about my spirituality, but I never said whether I was theistic or atheist.

Sure enough, I'm not sure what you have against Australian people... I guess that's your thing...

 

 

And he was trying to say that because it can't be proven you can't show a difference between the two.

No, if you can't show a difference between two things then you best not compare them. Eh?

 

You're hardly trying.

 

too funny

Edited September 11, 2013 by Iggy

[WWLabRat]

Debating 101: Comment on the topic, not the person. To do otherwise shows an ignorance of the topic.