|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
3rd December 2012, 11:37 AM | #601 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
3rd December 2012, 11:48 AM | #602 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
|
3rd December 2012, 11:50 AM | #603 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
3rd December 2012, 11:57 AM | #604 |
121.92-meter mutant fire-breathing lizard-thingy
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Northern St. Louis County, Missouri.
Posts: 42,180
|
Avalon concedes, by failing to provide evidence, that there is no evidence for any god or gods. No higher authority. So the question is moot. EOF
|
__________________
Guns that are instantly available for use are instantly available for misuse. World War II Diplomatic and Political Resources Hyperwar, WWII Military History Buying conspiracy books is a voluntary tax on stupid. |
|
3rd December 2012, 12:04 PM | #605 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
No. Pointing out that your alleged support is comprised of fallacies and lacking objectivity is a perfectly valid method for showing that you have not supported your position.
Quote:
Yes. In this instance your mention of it is a red herring.
Quote:
That's another argument from ignorance.
Quote:
I'm using plain English. You seem to be misunderstanding what I've written. Is there a better language to use to help you understand?
Quote:
No, you didn't. You provided an argument from ignorance. Can we help you learn a bit about those logical fallacies, what they are, how you're misusing them, and how to avoid using them again? That is, after all, part of why we're here.
Quote:
That's sort of a hybrid combination of a non sequitur and arguments from incredulity and ignorance.
Quote:
Again, your misuse of the word "facts" is noted. Something you've made up in your head is not a fact.
Quote:
Incorrect again, as there appears to be some dispute.
Quote:
Yet for some reason you've been unable to do just that.
Quote:
I understand you have yet to make an assertion which is supported with any more than arguments from incredulity and ignorance. What we'd be looking for here is objective evidence, something which you have neglected to include.
Quote:
No, it is something you made up in your head. That does not make it a fact.
Quote:
Even if we were to go with your unsupported assertion that something made you, it does not follow that the "something" is a higher authority. So your argument is a non sequitur.
Quote:
I have made no such statement. You have either misunderstood what I've been writing, or your comment above is intentionally untrue. It is giving you the benefit of the doubt that I don't call you out for being a liar.
Quote:
Hey, it's your imaginary friend. You can call it whatever you like. |
3rd December 2012, 02:54 PM | #606 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
3rd December 2012, 03:44 PM | #607 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 3,986
|
What the majority believe in is neither here nor there. I asked you to show me that right and wrong are real things as you claimed. If its so self-evident it should be trivial to do so. Legal systems do exist, laws exist. Right and wrong? Well...let's see your evidence.
|
4th December 2012, 06:51 PM | #608 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
|
|
8th December 2012, 05:37 AM | #609 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
Well you said any god, and Jesus is God in the flesh in the Christian religion so according to Christian beliefs if we have evidence for Jesus we have evidence for God.
Here is evidence for Jesus and thus God in the Christian religion: http://www.internationalskeptics.com...46#post5959646 http://books.google.com/books?id=PCG...0truth&f=false http://www.internationalskeptics.com...25#post6366925 http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336 |
8th December 2012, 06:31 AM | #610 |
Nitpicking dilettante
Administrator Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Berkshire, mostly
Posts: 57,669
|
|
__________________
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.Bertrand Russell Zooterkin is correct Darat Nerd! Hokulele Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 Ezekiel 23:20 |
|
8th December 2012, 06:34 AM | #611 |
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 35,398
|
|
8th December 2012, 06:55 AM | #612 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
I can't tell if you're deliberately lying or really don't have the capacity to understand the arguments which have thoroughly demolished yours.
Which part of "you're conflating a mortal itinerant preacher with a divine being" don't you comprehend? We have evidence for Clark Kent, therefore Superman exists. Do you agree that Superman exists, YES or NO? |
8th December 2012, 06:57 AM | #613 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
8th December 2012, 07:04 AM | #614 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Republic of Ireland
Posts: 23,499
|
Your first three links are 404 Not found, bit like god, eh?
Your last is to the neverending evidence thread, which I read in it's entirety and where you were roundly trounced, failing to produce any evidence at all. I do not believe in your sky daddy, holy spook and rebellious chippy any more than I do Santa Claus. |
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive? ...love and buttercakes... |
|
8th December 2012, 07:48 AM | #615 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
Even with evidence that Jesus existed, the "Jesus is god" part is still baseless supposition. So, no, proof of this Jesus person isn't proof of any god.
|
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
8th December 2012, 05:47 PM | #616 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
...not really. DOC did not claim he had proof of God...he only said he had evidence to support a belief that there is such a thing. That is what the word 'evidence' means. You and the rest of the assembled skeptics may dispute the evidence, but if, for whatever reasons, you are satisfied with the evidence, then it is quite reasonable to follow it to whatever conclusions it leads to. In this case...since the evidence is almost exclusively a function of faith... no one here really has any grounds to dispute it. You can disagree with the conclusions...but there is no way to prove them wrong. |
8th December 2012, 06:04 PM | #617 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
|
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
8th December 2012, 06:06 PM | #618 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 755
|
|
8th December 2012, 06:31 PM | #619 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
8th December 2012, 06:49 PM | #620 |
Guest
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 11,831
|
|
8th December 2012, 08:27 PM | #621 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
It doesn’t really matter what he said. It’s a matter of faith. Obviously, for a Christian, Jesus and God have some variety of equivalence. Jesus exists = God exists. They decide there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus lived…then Jesus lived. They decide that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus is still alive…then Jesus is still alive. They decide that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Jesus = God…then Jesus = God. It’s all faith. It doesn’t have to follow any rules, or reason, or rationality. It’s whatever they say it is. …knock yourself out. |
8th December 2012, 10:32 PM | #622 |
Banned
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 1,703
|
I apologize for being condescending. Bad habit.
Quite so…and it therefore becomes incumbent upon me to demonstrate where your objections are flawed…which I shall proceed to do. …not really…just a metaphor Semantics is not a sufficiently explicit field to assume that there is not more to see. Not necessarily. It is an argument that acknowledges ignorance. I’ll avoid the word ‘fact’ in the future. It is accurate to state that we do not possess the ability to create ourselves. It is accurate to state that there does not exist anything remotely resembling a comprehensive or definitive understanding of how we work. It is logically incoherent to expect a thing to create a thing when it is demonstrably ignorant of how the thing functions. It is accurate to state that those who study the thing called a human being have come to various conclusions about the dimensions of this thing. Generally speaking…it is described as being singularly unique in scale and ability. The descriptions by Scott Heutel and Dan Dennet are more than metaphor…they are measurably accurate…to the degree that there exists the capacity to comprehend the measure of such things. Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what the universe is made of or how it functions? Yes. Is it accurate to state that we don’t know what a human being is or how human beings function? Yes. Is it accurate to state that human beings did not and do not create themselves? Yes. Is it accurate to state that ‘something’ is in control of us? Yes? Why?…because we don’t know how to be and yet we still manage to happen (not to mention the fact that we will die...what kind of control does that imply?). These are all simplifications and generalizations…but for the sake of this argument, they are reasonable and accurate descriptions of the situation. We’ll see. It is not an argument ‘from’ ignorance…it is an argument of ignorance. ‘Something’ does not necessarily implicate a singular quantity. It simply means ‘the condition that we are a function of’. It is no different than the astronomers who establish that some variety of body exists…not because they can measure it directly, but because of the behavior of the surrounding conditions. Again…your adjudication of fallacies leaves something to be desired. If we see some variety of ‘reality’ functioning in some particular manner…and we can accurately establish that the ‘reality’ is not responsible for that functioning…then it is quite reasonable to conclude that something else must be. Again…it has been reasonably established that we do not possess anything like the ability to understand our own condition…let alone ‘operate’ us (create, for example, whatever it is that allows us to achieve sanity, as opposed to madness…or operate the infinite range of activity required for the functioning of a healthy body). It is therefore reasonable to conclude that some other variety of intelligence is involved apart from our own. Whether it’s singular, plural, multi-dimensional…is academic. What’s relevant is that there must be something, because it’s not us. So they are accurate statements then. I’ll repeat them as such: - We can only refer to it as ‘something’ because, ultimately, we do not know anything more about it. - We do not ultimately know what this universe is or how it operates and we do not know what you are or how you operate. They may not be explicitly indisputable…but they are accurate. "We have no idea how consciousness emerges from the physical activity of the brain and we do not know whether consciousness can emerge from non-biological systems, such as computers... At this point the reader will expect to find a careful and precise definition of consciousness. You will be disappointed. Consciousness has not yet become a scientific term that can be defined in this way. Currently we all use the term consciousness in many different and often ambiguous ways. Precise definitions of different aspects of consciousness will emerge ... but to make precise definitions at this stage is premature." This is generally regarded as the consensus position in the international cog sci community …as confirmed by acting research scientists at the Institute for Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London. The ‘dimensions’ of a human being: "The human brain is the most complex object in the known universe ... complexity makes simple models impractical and accurate models impossible to comprehend," Scott Huettel of the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University Daniel Dennett …‘just about the last remaining mystery and the one about which we are still in a terrible muddle’ Is there a TOE...no! Bruce Alberts………… biochemist, editor-in-chief of Science magazine, past president of the US national academy of science “As a coauthor of a textbook in cell biology that is updated at 5-year intervals, I am painfully aware of the huge gap that remains in our understanding of even the simplest cells.” Richard Feynman: - I think it is safe to say that no one understands Quantum Mechanics. - One does not, by knowing all the physical laws as we know them today, immediately obtain an understanding of anything much. - The more you see how strangely Nature behaves, the harder it is to make a model that explains how even the simplest phenomena actually work. So theoretical physics has given up on that. NOTE: None of these statements is definitive. They merely provide evidence that my position is reasonably accurate. Your adjudication is questionable. No…it’s a ‘something’ because there must be something besides us. I’ll assume that the statement ‘something else makes me / is in control of me’ is a reasonable description of human reality. I’ll also assume that it is reasonable to conclude, based on the statements above, that ‘me’ is a thing of – at this point in time – all but immeasurably vast dimensions (‘most complex object in the known universe’ and all that). Your disagreement then must concern the interpretation of the phrase ‘higher authority’. - it creates us…therefore we are subservient to it - creator is primary…created is secondary - since ‘it’ actually would be this thing we refer to as ‘the most complex object in the known universe’ (that’s not us…we’re just somehow a function of that thing)…and the majority of human beings can barely claim to comprehend high school algebra, it is simply reasonable to conclude that ‘it’ is a quantity of a relatively higher order of whatever hierarchy / order there is to this continuum I could probably locate the relevant passage, but it don’t matter no big bunch….except to the degree that ‘higher authority’ constantly becomes reduced to ‘God’. What in hell is a ‘God’ anyway? Nobody ever seems to be able to provide anything remotely resembling an intelligible definition. Not surprisingly…nobody can be expected to. The problem is…that many think they have. - God is a supreme being. - God is omnipotent….omniscient…creator of this, that…etc. - 42 What do they all have in common? None of them mean a single damn thing that anyone has the slightest capacity to realistically comprehend (though that doesn’t stop anyone from pretending they do…believers and skeptics alike). Higher authority…on the other hand…has obvious and immediate connections to a multitude of familiar and intelligible conditions that we all encounter on a regular basis (that which is a controller…and that which is the controlled…that which is the influencer…that which is the influenced…the larger unit that encompasses the smaller unit[s]). In the case of this argument…it is simply extrapolated to an ultimate condition. |
8th December 2012, 11:23 PM | #623 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,679
|
Logical enough (though I'd disagree on "control"). It negates all of the world's religions that I'm aware of, since they claim to know at least some of these things.
Quote:
There's no necessity that something be subservient to its creator, whatever "subservient" means in this context. There's even less logic in using the terms "secondary" and "primary." In importance? In time? Where time doesn't exist normally, it can't be time, and importance doesn't make sense either: which is more important, the rock or the ripples? "The most complex thing in the universe" also doesn't make sense, because it must be separate from the universe, not part of it. If it could exist without creating the universe it isn't part of the universe. Also, there's no evidence that what created the universe was more complex. Again: which is more complex, the rock or the ripples? |
8th December 2012, 11:26 PM | #624 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 9,800
|
No. We create ourselves all the time. We call them children.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This quote is saying, in the exceedingly polite and formal manner that science is generally phrased in, that "consciousness" is a useless term that is a waste of time and you'd be much better off learning more about its individual components, which actually do exist. |
9th December 2012, 05:31 AM | #625 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
As long as people post and re-post the false statement that there is absolutely no evidence of a god, I have the right to respond and give evidence. An empty tomb of a person Christianity claims is part of the Godhead and raised from the dead is some historical evidence of a miracle resurrection indicating divinity. Skeptic Bart Ehrman said Jesus certainly existed. Jesus is part of the Godhead in the Christian religion. His tomb was empty. That is evidence of a claimed resurrection and thus divinity. It is not proof but it is evidence.
Yeah, I see that so people can go to this link and try them from there. http://www.internationalskeptics.com...36#post8626336 |
9th December 2012, 06:35 AM | #626 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
9th December 2012, 06:43 AM | #627 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
You didn't answer my question, DOC. Is a man named Clark Kent evidence that Superman is real? YES or NO?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
9th December 2012, 07:53 AM | #628 |
No longer the 1
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 30,145
|
|
__________________
As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves. |
|
9th December 2012, 08:20 AM | #629 |
ETcorngods survivor
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 24,328
|
I don't think that statement means what you think it means.
Quote:
It is neither. Your apologetics for DOC notwithstanding, what DOC says does matter. He has expanded his arsenal of vacuous arguments that god exists with "evidence of Jesus' existence is evidence of god's existence." This addition is worthless right out of the gate because of its implicit, faith-based premise. You arguing it is a matter of faith so it can't be argued is pure nonsense, too. The discussion is not whether DOC believes something on faith--he's entitled to do that. It is whether those beliefs are admissible in a substantive debate. |
__________________
A proud member of the Simpson 15+7, named in the suit, Simpson v. Zwinge, et al., and founder of the ET Corn Gods Survivors Group. "He's the greatest mod that never was!" -- Monketey Ghost |
|
9th December 2012, 08:56 AM | #630 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
9th December 2012, 08:57 AM | #631 |
Banned
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 7,235
|
Your conclusion does not follow. That's called a non sequitur. If you learn to recognize a non sequitur before writing it, it may help you avoid silly failed arguments like that.
Quote:
Nope, that's just more gibberish. It may make you comfortable to believe you're under the control of some invisible metaphysical authority, but out here in the real world, making stuff up to fill in for what we don't know or understand isn't considered rational.
Quote:
Yes, it is an argument from ignorance. You'd do well to familiarize yourself with the most common logical fallacies. That would help you avoid making foolish sounding comments like the one above.
Quote:
Yet you aren't able to demonstrate that the alleged body exists. And speculating that one thing is true because you don't understand something else is a non sequitur. Just can't help yourself spewing those nonsensical logical fallacies, can you?
Quote:
No, that is not reasonable at all. You're starting with a conclusion and building an argument on ignorance, incredulity, unsound rationalizations, and some bizarre fantasy logic. When you are able to recognize that, you'll understand why you continue to fail here.
Quote:
Hell, we don't even know if "it" exists, because nobody, least of all you, has been able to objectively show that it does. You've said yourself that you can't define this alleged "it", yet you're attributing it with characteristics you made up in your head. That, giving you every benefit of the doubt, is called using your imagination. Referring to something you've made up in your head as a higher authority makes for a pretty silly sounding argument.
Quote:
And when you jump from there to "therefore a higher authority" you're making an argument from incredulity and ignorance.
Quote:
Here we are exactly where we were before you started writing this. You are unable to objectively demonstrate that any sort of higher authority exists. Your argument is exactly as sound as DOC's. Do note that in over 5 years and more than 7,000 posts, his failure to success ratio results in a divide by zero error. |
11th December 2012, 02:52 AM | #632 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
11th December 2012, 03:02 AM | #633 |
Muse
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 755
|
|
11th December 2012, 03:28 AM | #634 |
Ovis ex Machina
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sir Ddinbych
Posts: 7,001
|
|
11th December 2012, 06:32 AM | #635 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
|
12th December 2012, 05:29 PM | #636 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
No, to your Strawman argument. I was talking about the historical evidence of an empty tomb. An empty tomb is some evidence of a reported Resurrection. It is not proof, but it is some evidence. Bottom line is in 2000 years of looking no one has found the body of the famous person (Jesus) that Bart Ehrman said "certainly existed".
|
12th December 2012, 05:40 PM | #637 |
Hostile Nanobacon
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Rachel, KS
Posts: 33,127
|
You have no clue what "strawman" means, do you? I still think you could get your money back from whoever claimed to teach you logic and you should also go for punitive damages.
So, no, a mortal person existing isn't evidence that a magical being exists having the same name. Are you going to stop using that argument now?
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
12th December 2012, 05:44 PM | #638 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
12th December 2012, 05:53 PM | #639 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 7,959
|
|
12th December 2012, 05:55 PM | #640 |
Troublesome Passenger
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 21,844
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|