ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


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.
Reply
Old 13th March 2020, 01:01 PM   #241
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But as I may have mentioned once or twice PsionI0 has to use a god unlike any god that people actually claim to believe in.
That seems to be goalpost moving. There have been many different conceptions of deity. Do only the notions currently popular count? The God of Abraham is very different from the god of Spinoza. We've had ideas of an Unmoved Mover, the Cloud of Unknowing, the Gnostic demiurge, and we'd actually need an omnicognizant god just to list all the variations on the notion Buddhism has come up with. Some people even believe in pantheism--that the universe itself is God.

It's not exactly fair to announce you get to decide the definition of the thing the other side of the argument believes in.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:05 PM   #242
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,388
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But as I may have mentioned once or twice PsionI0 has to use a god unlike any god that people actually claim to believe in.
Oh, I think we've all mentioned it once or twice. Sagan's original analogy was directed toward how people who believe in gods actually go about excusing not only the lack of evidence but their responsibility to obtain any before expecting others to concede to their beliefs. It's precisely that they have to abandon any semblance of a believed-in (or believable) god in order to produce the illusion that they succeeded.

Quote:
...why even use the word god to describe this entity?
Indeed, that's exactly what I referred to in an earlier post using the words "ontological nonsense." And exactly what I mean by saying that in order to escape the analogy, he has to resort to contemplating something that no one would recognize as a god. It's the same old slipshod apologetics of denying that words need to have agreed-upon meanings before they can be usefully employed.

Quote:
So this entity that we apparently can't say might not not exist is even more similar to the invisible dragon in that no one believes in either!
And I would argue that his perfectly featureless deity is just as silly a concept as an invisible, floating, irradiant, incorporeal dragon -- but for different reasons. The garage owner in Sagan's book simply propounded increasingly specific, increasingly ad hoc, and therefore increasingly unlikely, traits for the dragon. PsionI0 has just applied ordinary induction to the process Sagan describes, and in doing so described something that now cannot meaningfully exist.

It sounds like PsionI0 wants to say, "I've changed the proposition enough that your analogy no longer applies." But the analogy isn't that. The analogy is to the infinitely iterated process of ad hoc changes that seeks to avoid any burden of proof. It's to the process he's using, not to the result of the process.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:10 PM   #243
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
But the analogy isn't that. The analogy is to the infinitely iterated process of ad hoc changes that seeks to avoid any burden of proof. It's to the process he's using, not to the result of the process.
Very well put!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:18 PM   #244
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,725
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
There's no way to not believe in God and not be a dick about as long as we give the God question special privileges. I'm not going to be one of those groveling, sorry for even existing atheist to appease you, Psion, or anyone else.

I'm being nicer to Psion then I actually would be to someone who's demanding I prove there's not dragon in my garage, so spare me the mother hen act.
Amen!
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:21 PM   #245
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,725
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
May the nonexistent and/or hidden gods grant you the same courtesy you extend to others.
Strange response from someone who doesn't believe in gods.

May the nonexistent and/or hidden dragons grant you the same courtesy you extend to others.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:34 PM   #246
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
That seems to be goalpost moving. There have been many different conceptions of deity. Do only the notions currently popular count? The God of Abraham is very different from the god of Spinoza. We've had ideas of an Unmoved Mover, the Cloud of Unknowing, the Gnostic demiurge, and we'd actually need an omnicognizant god just to list all the variations on the notion Buddhism has come up with. Some people even believe in pantheism--that the universe itself is God.



It's not exactly fair to announce you get to decide the definition of the thing the other side of the argument believes in.
But I'm not picking one god over another, I'm going from what those that claim a god exists say. It is the believers that define their god, not me not PsionIO.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 13th March 2020 at 01:37 PM. Reason: The other over
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:37 PM   #247
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,892
Again you don't have to define every single possible version of beer that could possibly exist before saying the phrase "There is no beer in the fridge" with intellectual honesty if you look in the fridge and don't see any beer

Or look at it this way. Everyone in this thread owes me money. If you disagree I put the onus on you to tell me exactly how much money you don't owe me. Do you not owe me 10 dollars? 20 dollars? 50? A hundred? You can't just say you don't owe me the generic value of "no amount of money" or that I have no proof that you owe me money, you have to define exactly how much money you don't owe me to the second decimal.

And not just real world money, oh no. I demand you prove you don't owe me hypothetical monies that don't even exist. Prove you don't owe me Bottlecaps from Fallout. I want you to make up every possible currency that could exist.

And if you can't tell me exactly how much money you don't owe me then obviously the can't say you don't owe me money.

I accept cash, checks, money orders, Bitcoin, credit cards (the actual cards, not credit card payments), high end whiskies, Cuban Cigars, rare signed or first edition horror and sci-fi novels, or a set of radial summer tires for a 2013 Dodge Dart.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 13th March 2020 at 01:46 PM.
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:43 PM   #248
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,725
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post

So, I am confused. Why exactly is the comparison unfair?
Apparently it's because one is "emotional" and the other is "just silly" .

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
This is just illustrating another important difference between the concept of gods and dragons in the garage. One concept is far more emotional than the other.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
However, it still needs to be a good analogy. This particular one seems to have been chosen only because it is silly.
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.

Last edited by ynot; 13th March 2020 at 02:46 PM.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:44 PM   #249
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,388
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
There have been many different conceptions of deity. Do only the notions currently popular count?
No, and this has never bothered atheists. If you want to talk about specific formulations of deities, whether currently believed in or not, then the God of Abraham and Zeus fall into the same bucket when it comes to falsification or a burden of proof. Yes, they are very different, and the invisible garage dragon is meant to apply to each of them in turn. How one believer attempts to evade falsifying the Abrahamic God may not be how a different believer tries to evade falsifying Zeus. It doesn't matter. What matters is that the process of refining the formulation is ad hoc in response to skepticism, and, if followed extensively, transmutes the original proposition.

We don't need anyone to actually preach the gospel of Zeus in order to see the problem. If our purely hypothetical Zeus-advocate has to keep refining the definition to escape a skeptic's proposal for falsifying Zeus's existence, then a point will be reached where hypothetical followers of Zeus will say, "But that's not the Zeus I believe in." That's tantamount to admitting the original formulation of Zeus was probably falsifiable, therefore rationally deniable absent any evidence pro. When we say "That's a god no one believes in," what we mean is that it becomes evident the revision process Sagan describes is being driven ad hoc in reaction to skepticism, not by the factors that originally compelled belief. Basically it says that the issues of falsification and burden of proof are to be categorically avoided by any means necessary. And because of that, the process fails equally well for gods as dragons.
JayUtah is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:47 PM   #250
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,589
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
I know what it is. Psion's saying that we can't 100% disprove the existence of gods, especially the broadest definition.

My point to him is that it's a moot point, first because we're talking about specific gods anyway, and second because 100% certainty is never required for anything. We know there are no gods for all practical intents and purposes, and that's enough.
I cannot 100 percent prove or disprove anything.

But I do believe I can dismiss the existence of many things despite that. Sure, I could be wrong about Santa, the Easter Bunny, Leprechauns, Sauron, Mt Doom or the invisible dragon as well as every god hypothesis I have ever heard. It simply isn't reasonable to consider them.

And that is why scientists don't. At least outside of Newton. And as smart as Newton was, he was very ignorant compared to today's average physicist.

The problem with injecting the unfalsifiable into the problem is that one is proposing to solve mysteries with another mystery. It offers no explanatory power. Theists for the most part do not tell you what constitutes a god or offer a definition. Usually, it's either pablum or they say what god isn't. Which really isn't useful.

When J.J. Thomson first proposed the existence of the invisible electron he wasn't appealing to an ignorant mystery. He set aside to conduct experiments that would prove it's existence and today the understanding of electrons truly controls our modern lives. Saying god did it does nothing for us. Whereas natural explanations offer substantial value.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 13th March 2020 at 02:58 PM.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 01:49 PM   #251
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,892
We can't disprove anything to this level.

We say "X doesn't exist" all the time without anyone pitching a hissy fit but you can buy the farm on getting it if you say "God doesn't exist."

Why... is... God... different?

How many times do we have to ask this question before we get an answer?

Has Jabba proven immortality yet? Has anyone checked?
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 03:06 PM   #252
ynot
Philosopher
 
ynot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 8,725
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Why... is... God... different?

How many times do we have to ask this question before we get an answer?
Um . . . because . . . god beliefs . . . are . . . um . . . far more emotional than other beliefs? (do I win a prize?)
__________________
Paranormal beliefs are knowledge placebos.
Rumours of a god’s existence have been greatly exaggerated.
Make beliefs truths and you get make-believe truths.
ynot is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 03:29 PM   #253
xjx388
Philosopher
 
xjx388's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 8,016
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's the way it is written. I have no way of knowing that "garage = universe" wasn't simply added when it was pointed out that garage was unnecessarily restrictive.


Well, it’s not really an analogy where A:B as C. It’s a story with a point about the burden of proof and falsifiability.

The thrust of the story is that claims that cannot be evidenced or falsified can be rejected. It can also be seen as an corollary to/expansion of Sagan’s most famous quote: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

You are reading too much into it when you formulate it as dragon:god as garage:universe.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 04:05 PM   #254
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,243
The only way to maintain that we can't know gods exist is to stretch the definitions of "know", "god", and "exist" to the point that they lose any useful meaning.

You either must also conclude that we can know nothing, or that anything that can be imagined exists, or that "god" has a meaning entirely unlike the meaning it's been given since the term was first invented as Og saw a lightning strike outside his cave.

It's the modern equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 05:12 PM   #255
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
But I'm not picking one god over another, I'm going from what those that claim a god exists say. It is the believers that define their god, not me not PsionIO.
If Psion is arguing for the existence of a god, that's Psion's call to define what sort of god thing they're arguing for. You can't say "no, you have to argue the god other people over there believe in". That's like telling someone who's arguing that vampires are sexy they can only use the Twilight version of vampires, and not the one they want to.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 05:18 PM   #256
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
When we say "That's a god no one believes in," what we mean is that it becomes evident the revision process Sagan describes is being driven ad hoc in reaction to skepticism, not by the factors that originally compelled belief.
That's a bit arrogant. Somebody in the Middle Ages comes up with a complex theory about deity and you declare centuries later "he's just inventing a new kind of god to avoid being challenged on it". You can argue the correctness of a belief all you like, but without being a mindreading timetraveller I don't think you can ascribe particular motivations to why someone might believe it. It's also rather discourteous to assume a priori that everyone who disagrees with you must necessarily be dishonest!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 05:25 PM   #257
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
The only way to maintain that we can't know gods exist is to stretch the definitions of "know", "god", and "exist" to the point that they lose any useful meaning.
With you being the arbiter of what is and isn't "useful meaning", of course.

Quote:
You either must also conclude that we can know nothing,
Which is rather famously the base starting point of several notable schools of thought!

Quote:
or that anything that can be imagined exists,
The "many worlds" theory?

Quote:
or that "god" has a meaning entirely unlike the meaning it's been given since the term was first invented as Og saw a lightning strike outside his cave.
Are you a scholar of religious history? Because conceptions of deity have taken many forms over the millennia. Just because you can only conceive of one particular (rather Hanna Barbera!) idea of thing doesn't mean nobody else has.

Quote:
It's the modern equivalent of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
The lovely thing about modernity is that you're not compelled to take part in theorizing about things if you find them uninteresting or nonsensical. If you aren't interested in Gnostic Logoses or Prime Movers or Yahweh you can ignore those things. They can't hurt you, particularly if they aren't real.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 05:29 PM   #258
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,589
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If Psion is arguing for the existence of a god, that's Psion's call to define what sort of god thing they're arguing for. You can't say "no, you have to argue the god other people over there believe in". That's like telling someone who's arguing that vampires are sexy they can only use the Twilight version of vampires, and not the one they want to.
Except Psion doesn't. He plays games trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Psion has been referring to a possibility of a creator of the universe. A sentient prime mover and little else. So it's a major god, not a minor polytheistic god.

No I fully expect him to make a post saying I'm putting words in his mouth. Nevertheless, I feel I am being very fair.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 05:35 PM   #259
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Except Psion doesn't. He plays games trying to have his cake and eat it too.

Psion has been referring to a possibility of a creator of the universe. A sentient prime mover and little else. So it's a major god, not a minor polytheistic god.

No I fully expect him to make a post saying I'm putting words in his mouth. Nevertheless, I feel I am being very fair.
Well, would one expect to be able to prove or disprove the existence of a prime mover type of thing? Either it's true or not, but there's no way to tell and no difference either way, so why bother about it? It's not even very interesting to think about.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 06:19 PM   #260
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,589
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Well, would one expect to be able to prove or disprove the existence of a prime mover type of thing? Either it's true or not, but there's no way to tell and no difference either way, so why bother about it? It's not even very interesting to think about.
I agree. It fails on the first level of a reasonable hypothesis. That being unfalsifiable. The definition (that being none), so far espoused for his creator lacks any and all testable properties.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 06:49 PM   #261
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,966
Originally Posted by I Am The Scum View Post
Your primary error in this thread is that you are not addressing the underlying principle, and instead nitpicking the more understandable/commonplace terms. I outlined the principle in post #125. Feel free to address it, or we can try to figure out how many cars will fit in the garage.
I didn't really have a problem with your post #125. People who claim that God is scientifically provable quickly get tied up in knots when they try. Since the "underlying principle" in post #125 wasn't really about the analogy, I didn't respond to it.

However, it is possible to adapt that principle to the analogy:
Quote:
Take two people. We'll call them Observer and Skeptic.

1. Skeptic makes an analogy of the original claim (that gods don't exist).
2. That analogy entails several implications against those who would question the original claim.
3. Observer examines the compatibility of the analogy and the original claim.
4. Observer notes that the analogy and the original claim are not 100% compatible.
5. Skeptic makes a new interpretation of the analogy to hand-wave this incompatibility.
6. Repeat steps 3-5 several times.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 08:12 PM   #262
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,589
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I didn't really have a problem with your post #125. People who claim that God is scientifically provable quickly get tied up in knots when they try. Since the "underlying principle" in post #125 wasn't really about the analogy, I didn't respond to it.

However, it is possible to adapt that principle to the analogy:
Yeah. Like that made sense.

If you cant dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull ****.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 08:41 PM   #263
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,243
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
With you being the arbiter of what is and isn't "useful meaning", of course.
No, actually. The concept of "You can't know if the god is completely outside the universe" is the same as "you can never really prove 100% you aren't a brain in a jar." WHile technically true, it isn't useful at all. If there's no effect and no way to determine existence, it is by definition not useful.

Quote:
Which is rather famously the base starting point of several notable schools of thought!
Notable, sure. Useful? That's a different argument.

Quote:
The "many worlds" theory?
No, each of the "many worlds" is still constrained by physical law, just different outcomes of them. They aren't anything you can imagine.

Quote:
Are you a scholar of religious history? Because conceptions of deity have taken many forms over the millennia. Just because you can only conceive of one particular (rather Hanna Barbera!) idea of thing doesn't mean nobody else has.
Yes, many forms. But no religions propose the deist deity; that's pretty much the realm of scientists who want to hold on to some form of belief. And pretty much by definition, the deist deity is non-essential (an extraneous entity). What I mean is the idea fo the god that is entirely undetectable...it's no different than no god, thus not useful.

Quote:
The lovely thing about modernity is that you're not compelled to take part in theorizing about things if you find them uninteresting or nonsensical. If you aren't interested in Gnostic Logoses or Prime Movers or Yahweh you can ignore those things. They can't hurt you, particularly if they aren't real.
Yes, I know. But the whole point of this is we routinely discard other ideas that have no discernable effect, yet somehow when it's labelled as "god" we have to treat it differently. There's no reason for that. As thought experiments that's fine, but you rarely see people arguing about "you can't really know that 100%" when we say we saw a plane take off from the airport (as an example). Yet you can't prove that your vision of a plane isn't just a video image transmitted directly to a brain in jar. That's the level of arguments about "you can't know god doesn't exist".

You either reduce the concept of "know" to requiring a standard of proof that can't be met (because nothing is absolutely positively true, ad hoc conditions can always be added), which means "know" as a word looses any possible meaning because it can't apply to anything. It's a denial of the entire concept of knowledge. Or you reduce the concept of existence to meaninglessness (by having something being said to exist and only exhibiting the property of existence, with no detectable properties or effect on the world in any way). Anything can exist, just not be detectable. So I can imagine whatever I want and just say it exists undetectably, thus making the entire concept of existence meaningless. Or you reduce the concept of god to the deist concept, which is an unnecessary entity pretty much by definition.
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

Last edited by Hellbound; 13th March 2020 at 08:46 PM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 08:43 PM   #264
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,095
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
What do you mean by soundness? For example, do you mean that it's unsound because a garage dragon is facially absurd at first blush? Or do you question the fidelity of the analogy to the argument it's supposed to recontextualize? Tell us where you're trying to go.
Apologies for not responding promptly. Got the news that we have Covid 19 school shutdowns underway, and I had to rock and roll to prepare to extract my three students from colleges in three states with no warning. Puts a damper on online philosophizing.

I note you responded to another poster later that the point of the Invisible Garage Dragon is to demonstrate that one unprovable should not be privileged over another. Point taken.

I see the theist's premise as basically an extension of the chain of cause and effect: a baby didn't just magically appear in mommy's belly; daddy caused it by going to pound town. The theist takes as a given that the universe/time/space also logically had a creator. If so, it would not be detectable or even comprehensible to us within it's creation. So I don't see it as privileged or a special pleading. It is a kinda-sorta logically sound conclusion, if you accept the possible explanation of a prime mover/god as cause/effect for the BB and what existed before it.

The Invisible Dragon in the Garage has no attributes of a theorized prime mover, which is why I believe it smacks of straw, to make the image silly and hence easier to attack. As you noted, the Abrahamic god or Zeus concept of god is much easier to refute. But the abstraction of a goddy-thingy I don't believe is suplexed by the Invisible Dragon.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 09:07 PM   #265
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
No, actually. The concept of "You can't know if the god is completely outside the universe" is the same as "you can never really prove 100% you aren't a brain in a jar." WHile technically true, it isn't useful at all. If there's no effect and no way to determine existence, it is by definition not useful.
You don't find it useful. Others might. For one thing, it's an entertaining notion to consider. Evidence: we're doing that right now.

Quote:
Notable, sure. Useful? That's a different argument.
Yeah, what did them Empiricists ever do? Besides invent empiricism.

Quote:
No, each of the "many worlds" is still constrained by physical law, just different outcomes of them. They aren't anything you can imagine.
I bow to your expert knowledge of not just how one universe operates, but how all possible universes must operate. Perhaps you are the God you don't believe in!

Quote:
Yes, many forms. But no religions propose the deist deity;
I'm sure the Deists would have been fascinated to learn that their religion, Deism, doesn't have a deist deity.

Quote:
that's pretty much the realm of scientists who want to hold on to some form of belief. And pretty much by definition, the deist deity is non-essential (an extraneous entity). What I mean is the idea fo the god that is entirely undetectable...it's no different than no god, thus not useful.
Of course it's different, otherwise you wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two notions. "Not useful" again depends on the individual and what they're using it for. If you want a god who acts like a superhero or Gandalf or Santa, then yeah, such a god wouldn't be "useful". If you just derive spiritual comfort from the notion that somewhere over the rainbow is a magical entity then that's a use.

Quote:
Yes, I know. But the whole point of this is we routinely discard other ideas that have no discernable effect, yet somehow when it's labelled as "god" we have to treat it differently. There's no reason for that. As thought experiments that's fine, but you rarely see people arguing about "you can't really know that 100%" when we say we saw a plane take off from the airport (as an example). Yet you can't prove that your vision of a plane isn't just a video image transmitted directly to a brain in jar. That's the level of arguments about "you can't know god doesn't exist".
Treat it as you like. Just don't keep being flabbergasted and amazed when people who disagree don't fall into line with your hot take on the matter. If they're not bugging you to convert to their point of view then why on earth are you so insistent that they convert to yours?

Quote:
You either reduce the concept of "know" to requiring a standard of proof that can't be met (because nothing is absolutely positively true, ad hoc conditions can always be added), which means "know" as a word looses any possible meaning because it can't apply to anything. It's a denial of the entire concept of knowledge.
False. We know that our knowledge is necessarily limited by our perceptions, our consciousness, our physical brains, our perspective. We also know that there are some things we can know absolutely regardless of those human limitations, like logic and mathematics. Humans are still able to function in life even with full awareness that our knowledge is necessarily and inexorably limited. What we know needn't be perfect and guaranteed correct (even if there were any entity capable of making such a guarantee). It's not a "denial of the entire concept of knowledge" to admit that we can't know everything. It's not even so if we admit we can't completely know anything.

Quote:
Or you reduce the concept of existence to meaninglessness (by having something being said to exist and only exhibiting the property of existence, with no detectable properties or effect on the world in any way). Anything can exist, just not be detectable. So I can imagine whatever I want and just say it exists undetectably, thus making the entire concept of existence meaningless
That sounds like that Kantian game where one confuses semantics for fundamental laws of reality. A thing either is or isn't, whether we know it or not, or are even capable of knowing it or not. It won't matter to us if an existing thing were known to us or not, but our knowledge of it or lack of knowledge of it won't change whether it exists or not. From it's perspective, if it had one, whether it exists or not is pretty fundamentally important regardless of our notions of it!

Quote:
. Or you reduce the concept of god to the deist concept, which is an unnecessary entity pretty much by definition.
I think the Deists would disagree with the assertion that a deist deity is unnecessary.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 09:15 PM   #266
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,243
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
You don't find it useful. Others might. For one thing, it's an entertaining notion to consider. Evidence: we're doing that right now.



Yeah, what did them Empiricists ever do? Besides invent empiricism.



I bow to your expert knowledge of not just how one universe operates, but how all possible universes must operate. Perhaps you are the God you don't believe in!



I'm sure the Deists would have been fascinated to learn that their religion, Deism, doesn't have a deist deity.



Of course it's different, otherwise you wouldn't be able to distinguish between the two notions. "Not useful" again depends on the individual and what they're using it for. If you want a god who acts like a superhero or Gandalf or Santa, then yeah, such a god wouldn't be "useful". If you just derive spiritual comfort from the notion that somewhere over the rainbow is a magical entity then that's a use.



Treat it as you like. Just don't keep being flabbergasted and amazed when people who disagree don't fall into line with your hot take on the matter. If they're not bugging you to convert to their point of view then why on earth are you so insistent that they convert to yours?



False. We know that our knowledge is necessarily limited by our perceptions, our consciousness, our physical brains, our perspective. We also know that there are some things we can know absolutely regardless of those human limitations, like logic and mathematics. Humans are still able to function in life even with full awareness that our knowledge is necessarily and inexorably limited. What we know needn't be perfect and guaranteed correct (even if there were any entity capable of making such a guarantee). It's not a "denial of the entire concept of knowledge" to admit that we can't know everything. It's not even so if we admit we can't completely know anything.



That sounds like that Kantian game where one confuses semantics for fundamental laws of reality. A thing either is or isn't, whether we know it or not, or are even capable of knowing it or not. It won't matter to us if an existing thing were known to us or not, but our knowledge of it or lack of knowledge of it won't change whether it exists or not. From it's perspective, if it had one, whether it exists or not is pretty fundamentally important regardless of our notions of it!



I think the Deists would disagree with the assertion that a deist deity is unnecessary.
You're ascribing a lot of motivation to my comments that do not reflect my position. I don't care what people believe (as long as they don't force it on me). I do object to people claiming science for what is not a scientific position. That is all.

ETA: And deists I don't consider as having a religion, so much as a belief. They don't really organize...which is where the difference is. Hey, if others can redefine know, I can redefine religion
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell

Last edited by Hellbound; 13th March 2020 at 09:17 PM.
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 09:20 PM   #267
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,966
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
Yeah. Like that made sense.
It sure did. That's why you had to play the "I don't understand you therefore you are talking nonsense" card.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 09:52 PM   #268
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,574
Originally Posted by Hellbound View Post
You're ascribing a lot of motivation to my comments that do not reflect my position. I don't care what people believe (as long as they don't force it on me).
Okay, my bad.

Quote:
I do object to people claiming science for what is not a scientific position. That is all.
Well, naturally. But the existence of deities isn't a scientific proposition no matter whether they exist or not. By the very nature of the question it's clear science is not the proper avenue to research an answer.

Quote:
ETA: And deists I don't consider as having a religion, so much as a belief. They don't really organize...which is where the difference is. Hey, if others can redefine know, I can redefine religion
Well, there was at least one historical example of Deists organizing. A bunch of 'em did a sociopolitical experiment sort of thing, a couple centuries back. Started a project. I can't remember how it turned out in the end, probably a huge disastrous mess.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 13th March 2020, 10:12 PM   #269
Hellbound
Merchant of Doom
 
Hellbound's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Not in Hell, but I can see it from here on a clear day...
Posts: 14,243
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Okay, my bad.
No worries. Text is not conducive to tone or intricacies, easy to misconstrue. And I'm not the best at explaining myself when I fire off quick posts



Quote:
Well, naturally. But the existence of deities isn't a scientific proposition no matter whether they exist or not. By the very nature of the question it's clear science is not the proper avenue to research an answer.
Yep.

Quote:
Well, there was at least one historical example of Deists organizing. A bunch of 'em did a sociopolitical experiment sort of thing, a couple centuries back. Started a project. I can't remember how it turned out in the end, probably a huge disastrous mess.
Yeah, but I don't think there's any deist inquisitions, so I can live with them types
__________________
History does not always repeat itself. Sometimes it just yells "Can't you remember anything I told you?" and lets fly with a club. - John w. Campbell
Hellbound is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 03:02 AM   #270
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
If Psion is arguing for the existence of a god, that's Psion's call to define what sort of god thing they're arguing for. You can't say "no, you have to argue the god other people over there believe in". That's like telling someone who's arguing that vampires are sexy they can only use the Twilight version of vampires, and not the one they want to.
Again it is PsionIO that defines the god he is talking about, not me. In the other thread they did try to equate their god with their idea that there is "an" Abrahamic god. But as I and others pointed out an undectable god is not a god any of the religions claim exists. It is PsionIO that claims their Twilight vampire is the same as Stoker's vampire because they both drink blood, all the rest of us are pointing out is that they aren't the same even if they share one characteristic.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 03:08 AM   #271
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Well, would one expect to be able to prove or disprove the existence of a prime mover type of thing? Either it's true or not, but there's no way to tell and no difference either way, so why bother about it? It's not even very interesting to think about.
You would have to ask the religions that have such a god why they believe they can prove it exists. It is not my claim that for example that the gods the Christians claim exist are meant to be proved by objective evidence we all have access to. You are in fact now doing what you (incorrectly) pulled me up over, i. E. Telling the religious what their god must be!
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 03:23 AM   #272
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,966
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Again it is PsionIO that defines the god he is talking about, not me. In the other thread they did try to equate their god with their idea that there is "an" Abrahamic god. But as I and others pointed out an undectable god is not a god any of the religions claim exists. It is PsionIO that claims their Twilight vampire is the same as Stoker's vampire because they both drink blood, all the rest of us are pointing out is that they aren't the same even if they share one characteristic.
Your lack of focus is getting really disturbing.

You are so fixated on the idea that I created a "unique" god that nobody believes in that you have been impervious to every post on the subject.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 04:27 AM   #273
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,892
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are so fixated on the idea that I created a "unique" god that nobody believes in that you have been impervious to every post on the subject.
Well because that's exactly what you've done.

And you've done it specifically to stall out the argument at a "Not saying, just saying" level forever.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 04:47 AM   #274
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Your lack of focus is getting really disturbing.



You are so fixated on the idea that I created a "unique" god that nobody believes in that you have been impervious to every post on the subject.
I was replying to someone's else's post...
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 05:35 AM   #275
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,966
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
I was replying to someone's else's post...
I get it. You were posting about me, not to me. But a false claim is a false claim no matter who you post it to.
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 06:04 AM   #276
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
I get it. You were posting about me, not to me. But a false claim is a false claim no matter who you post it to.
I've not made one false claim about what you posted in this thread nor the thread that was the genesis of this thread. And just to note you made this thread about yourself.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 06:21 AM   #277
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,084
TBH, personally I'd even drop the requirement of picking a very specific God.

The point of the analogy is really just that you need evidence for such a claim. And it really applies to any such claim, since gods tend to be a collection of several claims. At the very least, a god proposition has to be an MCI ("it's like X, except it has attribute Y"; e.g., "it's like an old guy, except invisible") which is two claims minimum. Supporting only one of them leaves you with either something ordinary or something which doesn't even start to identify the proposed entity. So essentially one needs evidence for both. Or for however many basic claims it breaks down into.

So basically I'm open to applying it to any miraculous being, rather than insisting it be specifically the god of Abraham or whatever. It can be God or Thor or Amaterasu or whatever, really. If someone can give me evidence for all the attributes defining such a supernatural entity, I'm game.

But that's basically it: it has to check all the boxes, or at least enough boxes to count as a miraculous being. E.g., one can't just show that the Sun exists, and go "therefore Ra/Amaterasu exist."
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 06:34 AM   #278
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,084
More specifically, in the context of what this analogy is supposed to illustrate, I'm not particularly concerned with redefining God into the god of the gaps that never does anything. Sure, it's not like the one in any particular scriptures (except for the Gnostics, I guess.) BUT the important part is that it's been backed into a corner where not only it has no evidence, but CAN'T have any evidence. Which makes it be the perfect candidate for discarding, regardless of exactly what it supposedly IS.

The most extreme case is basically the Deist deity. We're talking a god which not only is hiding in a gap NOW, and doesn't reveal himself NOW, but typically a god who was always hidden and never revealed himself. So essentially not only the proponent has no evidence, but there was NEVER ANY evidence for specifically that proponent's god, especially not for any identifying attributes for who that god is or what he wants.

Which seems to me like more than enough to fall back to the "doesn't exist" null hypothesis, even without getting into forcing an exact definition. Something undefined that has no evidence for its existing, is just as subject to that null hypothesis as a well defined one, or anything in between.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 06:39 AM   #279
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
TBH, personally I'd even drop the requirement of picking a very specific God.

The point of the analogy is really just that you need evidence for such a claim. And it really applies to any such claim, since gods tend to be a collection of several claims. At the very least, a god proposition has to be an MCI ("it's like X, except it has attribute Y"; e.g., "it's like an old guy, except invisible") which is two claims minimum. Supporting only one of them leaves you with either something ordinary or something which doesn't even start to identify the proposed entity. So essentially one needs evidence for both. Or for however many basic claims it breaks down into.

So basically I'm open to applying it to any miraculous being, rather than insisting it be specifically the god of Abraham or whatever. It can be God or Thor or Amaterasu or whatever, really. If someone can give me evidence for all the attributes defining such a supernatural entity, I'm game.

But that's basically it: it has to check all the boxes, or at least enough boxes to count as a miraculous being. E.g., one can't just show that the Sun exists, and go "therefore Ra/Amaterasu exist."
Totally agree with you. I always say in this type of thread I'm happy to go from what those that make the claims for their god or gods existing say are its properties. The only niggle for me is the false equivalence that some try to claim exists between all those entities simply because they all use the English word "god" as a label (by English speaking folk). The word God is not actually a class.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 14th March 2020, 06:47 AM   #280
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,614
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
More specifically, in the context of what this analogy is supposed to illustrate, I'm not particularly concerned with redefining God into the god of the gaps that never does anything. Sure, it's not like the one in any particular scriptures (except for the Gnostics, I guess.) BUT the important part is that it's been backed into a corner where not only it has no evidence, but CAN'T have any evidence. Which makes it be the perfect candidate for discarding, regardless of exactly what it supposedly IS.

The most extreme case is basically the Deist deity. We're talking a god which not only is hiding in a gap NOW, and doesn't reveal himself NOW, but typically a god who was always hidden and never revealed himself. So essentially not only the proponent has no evidence, but there was NEVER ANY evidence for specifically that proponent's god, especially not for any identifying attributes for who that god is or what he wants.

Which seems to me like more than enough to fall back to the "doesn't exist" null hypothesis, even without getting into forcing an exact definition. Something undefined that has no evidence for its existing, is just as subject to that null hypothesis as a well defined one, or anything in between.
Which is why we have another word, agnostic that has unfortunately been mangled and much misused. A deist is an agnostic who believes in something that they agree there is no way to know if it exists.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:34 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.