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 12th March 2020, 06:51 AM   #41
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,468
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post

The garage argument is certainly straw, ascribing local boundaries of the search to the area created by it's creator, who probably wouldn't be there. If I bake a cake, you wouldn't look for me inside the ******* cake.
Thank you for this. I find it thought provoking.
carlitos 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 12th March 2020, 06:51 AM   #42
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,433
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
L'Advoquette de la Deville:

A being that created time and space would not logically be bound by it, or be found within it. It would be beyond both.

The garage, of course is a small area fully bound and searchable. What is the comparable search area for a being that created the entirety of the universe? Have you searched it?

The garage argument is certainly straw, ascribing local boundaries of the search to the area created by it's creator, who probably wouldn't be there. If I bake a cake, you wouldn't look for me inside the ******* cake.
So you believe dragons exist? Because whilst we can say we have no real life examples on earth they could exist elsewhere somewhere we haven't looked?
__________________
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 12th March 2020, 06:53 AM   #43
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,901
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
For example most gods people claim they believe in do not claim to have created the universe.
That needs actual evidence.

Originally Posted by Darat View Post
Such gods are a small subset of gods, so if you want to use the creation of the universe to make an ontological argument as PsionIO has done in the past you need to define your god for it to have meaning.
That is also something you have made up. That's like saying that if you want to discuss the possible existence of aliens then you have to define the aliens first. Ridiculous!
__________________
"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 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 12th March 2020, 06:56 AM   #44
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Leaving that aside, Carl Sagan's assertion that "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless" could easily apply to the concept of alien life.
No, because alien life CAN be tested.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 06:57 AM   #45
carlitos
"más divertido"
 
carlitos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 21,468
Aliens - sentient beings that live on another planet.

Done.
carlitos 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 12th March 2020, 06:57 AM   #46
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,035
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So you believe dragons exist? Because whilst we can say we have no real life examples on earth they could exist elsewhere somewhere we haven't looked?
Continuing Advocacy:

Same as the garage argument. Any physical description, visible or otherwise, I would not expect to be analogous to a Thingy that created visibility and entities. Why would you expect so?
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
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 12th March 2020, 06:57 AM   #47
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That's like saying that if you want to discuss the possible existence of aliens then you have to define the aliens first. Ridiculous!
Why is it ridiculous? The properties these allegedly existing aliens would have to exhibit greatly informs a discussion about the likelihood that they actually exist. We can say with some degree of scientific plausibility that microbial alien life might exist in the solar system. By the same standard it's less plausible that intelligent aliens who look just like humans (e.g., Klaatu) would be found elsewhere. Also, you just violated Rule 11 in the way you accuse your critics of doing.
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 12th March 2020, 06:59 AM   #48
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Nobody tries to define aliens as "magically undetectable" so there's no functional difference between an alien and no alien.

Apologist fail 0/10, please try again.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:01 AM   #49
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
L'Advoquette de la Deville:

A being that created time and space would not logically be bound by it, or be found within it. It would be beyond both.

The garage, of course is a small area fully bound and searchable. What is the comparable search area for a being that created the entirety of the universe? Have you searched it?

The garage argument is certainly straw, ascribing local boundaries of the search to the area created by it's creator, who probably wouldn't be there. If I bake a cake, you wouldn't look for me inside the ******* cake.
It's only straw if you misunderstand or misconstrue the scope of the analogy.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 07:03 AM   #50
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Okay since the analogy makes people's thinkers hurt and the internet argumentative squad decided "analogies are bad things" at it's last meeting.

I take you in my garage and tell you I see an invisible, intangible, undetectable thing that created the universe.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:05 AM   #51
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That is also something you have made up. That's like saying that if you want to discuss the possible existence of aliens then you have to define the aliens first. Ridiculous!


Yes, who needs to know what the **** the words we're using mean before we can understand each other and our respective claims and arguments? Ridiculous!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 07:09 AM   #52
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Also there's a MASSIVE difference between "Not 100% clearly defined, with room left for clarification as new information is obtained" and "intentionally obtusely defined, with everything defined after the fact to avoid intellectual standards."

In other words... I'm done explaining to Woo Slingers what Special Pleading is and why it's bad.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:09 AM   #53
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,035
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
It's only straw if you misunderstand or misconstrue the scope of the analogy.
The scope is exactly the problem with the analogy. By trivializing the scope to a small, manageable area, it negates the very argument for a god, that it would by nature be undetectable within its creation.

Dragons in garages turn incomprehensible vastness into a silly trivial, to more easily ridicule. Textbook straw.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
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 12th March 2020, 07:10 AM   #54
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
"Comparing it to a dragon makes my God looks silly."

So close and yet... so far.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:12 AM   #55
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The scope is exactly the problem with the analogy. By trivializing the scope to a small, manageable area, it negates the very argument for a god
No, it doesn't, because the god argument is NOT dependant on scope. It's dependant on unfalsifiability, which is EXACTLY what the dragon argument does.

Did people just suddenly forget what analogies are for? They compare similar features of two points. Focusing on the differences is completely missing the point.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 07:19 AM   #56
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,035
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, it doesn't, because the god argument is NOT dependant on scope. It's dependant on unfalsifiability, which is EXACTLY what the dragon argument does.

Did people just suddenly forget what analogies are for? They compare similar features of two points. Focusing on the differences is completely missing the point.
Please believe me: I am not over scrutinizing the analogy for a flaw.

The flaw is in throttling the entirety of time and space to a garage for the analogy to work. That misses the whole point of a prime mover that would be beyond time and space.

AFAIK, believers do not deny unfalsibility; they embrace faith in the unprovable as a basic tenet. So what is the point in demonstrating unfalsibility? It is a smug argument that completely sidesteps the issue.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
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 12th March 2020, 07:21 AM   #57
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Okay.

Let's look for an invisible, undetectable dragon in the "entire scope of the universe" instead of just my garage. Or we can look for God in my garage instead of the dragon.

Nothing changes. Both are still the same thing.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:23 AM   #58
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Okay since the analogy makes people's thinkers hurt and the internet argumentative squad decided "analogies are bad things" at it's last meeting.

I take you in my garage and tell you I see an invisible, intangible, undetectable thing that created the universe.
It's more original than inviting someone in to look at etchings, I guess.

There are no invisible dragons in my garage: I prayed to Thoth to repel dragons. 100% success rate so far.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 12th March 2020, 07:24 AM   #59
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
The flaw is in throttling the entirety of time and space to a garage for the analogy to work.
Again, that's only true if you ignore the point of the analogy. You could also say that the analogy fails because the dragon didn't create the garage or the universe, but that's not the point.

Quote:
That misses the whole point of a prime mover that would be beyond time and space.
That it's a prime mover is IRRELEVANT to the analogy, Thermal. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 07:25 AM   #60
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
No, it doesn't, because the god argument is NOT dependant on scope. It's dependant on unfalsifiability, which is EXACTLY what the dragon argument does.

Did people just suddenly forget what analogies are for? They compare similar features of two points. Focusing on the differences is completely missing the point.
An analogy is like a sheep in the field!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 12th March 2020, 07:31 AM   #61
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,040
Thing one - something for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence.

Thing two - something else for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence.

Which one is it OK to dismiss the existence of offhand and which one deserves special consideration?
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster 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 12th March 2020, 07:32 AM   #62
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Please believe me: I am not over scrutinizing the analogy for a flaw.

The flaw is in throttling the entirety of time and space to a garage for the analogy to work. That misses the whole point of a prime mover that would be beyond time and space.

AFAIK, believers do not deny unfalsibility; they embrace faith in the unprovable as a basic tenet. So what is the point in demonstrating unfalsibility? It is a smug argument that completely sidesteps the issue.
Agreed. Suppose a Gnostic flavor of belief, that there's an entity outside the universe that doesn't interact with it. Cue indignant screams of "that can't be proven!" Okay, yeah, they already know it can't be proven. They're not trying to prove it. Proving things isn't a value they have not do they require it be done.

It as ridiculous to insist someone who isn't playing the game abide by the rules of that game as it is for people not playing that game to claim they've won it.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 12th March 2020, 07:34 AM   #63
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
Thing one - something for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence.

Thing two - something else for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence.

Which one is it OK to dismiss the existence of offhand and which one deserves special consideration?
Determining the value of things, whether they're "OK" or "deserving special consideration" is a judgment up to the individual. Different people will decide differently.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 12th March 2020, 07:35 AM   #64
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,433
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
That needs actual evidence.





That is also something you have made up. That's like saying that if you want to discuss the possible existence of aliens then you have to define the aliens first. Ridiculous!
Hindu pantheon, only one god is the creator.
__________________
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 12th March 2020, 07:36 AM   #65
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,035
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Again, that's only true if you ignore the point of the analogy. You could also say that the analogy fails because the dragon didn't create the garage or the universe, but that's not the point.



That it's a prime mover is IRRELEVANT to the analogy, Thermal. That's what I'm trying to get you to understand.
Oh, I not only understood, but directly responded. You may have missed it while you were taking the time to snip it out.

Believers are unimpressed with the unfalsifyability argument. They know. So strawing the argument down to silly-sounding dragons and garages falls flat before it starts.

A theist is not proposing physical detectability, so what is the point in analogizing it? It only preaches to the choir and sounds like a zinger. The analogy itself is as utterly irrelevant to a theist as arguing any other irrelevant proof.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
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 12th March 2020, 07:40 AM   #66
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Believers are unimpressed with the unfalsifyability argument. They know.
Oh well that makes it okay then...

That's the core of this disagreement that we all have to pretend isn't there.

Faith isn't a virtue to some of us.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:44 AM   #67
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh well that makes it okay then...

That's the core of this disagreement that we all have to pretend isn't there.

Faith isn't a virtue to some of us.
And empirical science isn't a value to others. Diff'rent strokes. So now what? Live and let live, or complain that not everybody thinks the same things?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 12th March 2020, 07:47 AM   #68
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And empirical science isn't a value to others. Diff'rent strokes. So now what? Live and let live, or complain that not everybody thinks the same things?
I'm not going down a "Okay now explain to me why being factually correct matters, eh smart guy" Bob-hole, until you decide to either go "Oh we's just being all people talking up here on the internet none of it gone done matters" or tell me to watch my blood pressure.

If the last 4 years haven't jostled the "Okay being wrong actually has consequences" subroutine in your head into the "on" position I can't help you.

"Some people just choose to be wrong, what's the harm?" is a question not worth answering because if you ask it you're too far gone to help.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:48 AM   #69
Finster
Graduate Poster
 
Finster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 1,040
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Determining the value of things, whether they're "OK" or "deserving special consideration" is a judgment up to the individual. Different people will decide differently.
True - but some people think there is some inherent difference that is more than just their personal preference but can't come up with any argument to support their contention. That's the point.
__________________
"You can't help respecting anybody who can spell TUESDAY, even if he doesn't spell it right; but spelling isn't everything. There are days when spelling Tuesday simply doesn't count." - WtP
Finster 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 12th March 2020, 07:48 AM   #70
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Finster View Post
Thing one - something for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence.

Thing two - something else for which there is no evidence and for which there can be no evidence.

Which one is it OK to dismiss the existence of offhand and which one deserves special consideration?
That's off topic!!!!!
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward


Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 07:49 AM   #71
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,035
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Oh well that makes it okay then...

That's the core of this disagreement that we all have to pretend isn't there.

Faith isn't a virtue to some of us.
No one is arguing that it is, Brosef.

The argument here is that athiests want proof (or really lack of proof) of a god, within their own boundaries. A theist starts from the assumption that a god would be outside of those limited boundaries. So you are arguing at cross purposes right out of the gate.

When you find the edges of time and space and get a peek beyond, there will be more equal premises for this kind of argument. Till then, not so much.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
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 12th March 2020, 07:50 AM   #72
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, I not only understood, but directly responded. You may have missed it while you were taking the time to snip it out.
Oh, great. Another poster who thinks that all of their posts are so important that they can't be cut for brevity's sake, or that doing so makes the argument disappear from everyon's minds.

Quote:
Believers are unimpressed with the unfalsifyability argument. They know. So strawing the argument down to silly-sounding dragons and garages falls flat before it starts.
Again, it's NOT A STRAWMAN.

It's not a characterisation of someone's argument. It's an illustration of why it doesn't WORK.
__________________
Master of the Shining Darkness

"My views are nonsense. So what?" - BobTheCoward



Last edited by Belz...; 12th March 2020 at 07:51 AM.
Belz... 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 12th March 2020, 07:52 AM   #73
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm not going down a "Okay now explain to me why being factually correct matters, eh smart guy" Bob-hole, until you decide to either go "Oh we's just being all people talking up here on the internet none of it gone done matters" or tell me to watch my blood pressure.

If the last 4 years haven't jostled the "Okay being wrong actually has consequences" subroutine in your head into the "on" position I can't help you.

"Some people just choose to be wrong, what's the harm?" is a question not worth answering because if you ask it you're too far gone to help.
"Being factually correct" isn't something you can claim certainty of. You think you can approach it via probability of theories derived from empirical evidence. Other people think they can approach it by other means. You aren't going to convince them you're right because the means you would use aren't recognized by them as being the correct means. Just as you don't recognize their methods so you can't be persuaded by them.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 12th March 2020, 07:52 AM   #74
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
It's only a strawman if it comes from a specific region of France, otherwise it's a sparkling "Human facsimile hastily constructed of dried stalks of cereal plants for purposes of easily tipping over."
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:52 AM   #75
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31°57'S 115°57'E
Posts: 15,901
Originally Posted by Loss Leader View Post
Just to be sociable, though, I'll take your word that such entities exist.

That was step 1. What's your step 2?
Then we haven't got past step 1. I am not asserting that such entities exist. I am only saying that we can't say the exist or not because we don't know.

The funny thing is that if somebody said, "there is an invisible dragon in my garage", most of us would just say "Yeah, whatever".

But when it comes to gods, you don't even have to rise to the level of assertion. Merely failing to vehemently deny any possible existence of any god whatsoever will bring the wrath of the entire forum on you.
__________________
"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 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 12th March 2020, 07:53 AM   #76
Thermal
Penultimate Amazing
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 10,035
Originally Posted by Belz... View Post
Oh, great. Another poster who thinks that all of their posts are so important that they can't be cut for brevity's sake.
Cutting out the direct addressing of the argument, then arguing as if it was never said, is not 'for brevity's sake'.

Quote:
Again, it's NOT A STRAWMAN.

It's not a characterisation of someone's argument. It's an illustration of why it doesn't WORK.
It only 'works' if you demand the theist argue from a point WHICH HE REFUTES BY DEFINITION. That's why this particular argument does NOT work.
__________________

Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect -Mark Twain

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie -Miyamoto Musashi
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 12th March 2020, 07:54 AM   #77
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
"Being factually correct" isn't something you can claim certainty of.
But it is something you can proudly abandon.

I'm not claiming absolute certainty over being correct. I'm just saying I haven't rejected it as concept.
__________________
- "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 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 12th March 2020, 07:57 AM   #78
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,433
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Agreed. Suppose a Gnostic flavor of belief, that there's an entity outside the universe that doesn't interact with it. Cue indignant screams of "that can't be proven!" Okay, yeah, they already know it can't be proven. They're not trying to prove it. Proving things isn't a value they have not do they require it be done.



It as ridiculous to insist someone who isn't playing the game abide by the rules of that game as it is for people not playing that game to claim they've won it.
But that isn't really the case, those religions that have gods do not believe in a god or gods that does not interact in the world in ways humans can detect.

It is those religions that not only claim there could be evidence they actually state there *is* evidence of their gods. For example most Christian denominations.
__________________
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 12th March 2020, 07:59 AM   #79
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,433
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, I not only understood, but directly responded. You may have missed it while you were taking the time to snip it out.



Believers are unimpressed with the unfalsifyability argument. They know. So strawing the argument down to silly-sounding dragons and garages falls flat before it starts.



A theist is not proposing physical detectability, so what is the point in analogizing it? It only preaches to the choir and sounds like a zinger. The analogy itself is as utterly irrelevant to a theist as arguing any other irrelevant proof.
Which theists are these? The RCC even has a department that verifies the evidence of their god!
__________________
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 12th March 2020, 08:01 AM   #80
Apathia
Philosopher
 
Apathia's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 5,574
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Oh, I not only understood, but directly responded. You may have missed it while you were taking the time to snip it out.

Believers are unimpressed with the unfalsifyability argument. They know. So strawing the argument down to silly-sounding dragons and garages falls flat before it starts.

A theist is not proposing physical detectability, so what is the point in analogizing it? It only preaches to the choir and sounds like a zinger. The analogy itself is as utterly irrelevant to a theist as arguing any other irrelevant proof.
Enter Theologian, Karl Barth's assertion that God is wholly other, beyond our objective measure and verification. So, of course not in the same league as a dragon, real or imagined.

https://kinginstitute.stanford.edu/k...conception-god
__________________
"At the Supreme Court level where we work, 90 percent of any decision is emotional. The rational part of us supplies the reasons for supporting our predilections."
Justice William O. Douglas

"Humans aren't rational creatures but rationalizing creatures."
Author Unknown
Apathia 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 03:05 AM.
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.