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, 08:13 AM   #201
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by Apathia View Post
In that great mall in the sky!
If there were a God then Chess King would still be around.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 08:19 AM   #202
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,095
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Every time I dare to post in this section, others immediately try to change the topic of the particular thread to "invisible dragons in the garage" regardless of the actual topic nor what I have posted.

I thought that I would create this thread so all of those arguments can be dealt with once and for all.

I would rather that the comparison be with "undetectable entities in the garage" but I understand that everybody wants to sillify the discussion.
For example, if I walk through the woods and kick over a rotting log, I have just disrupted a whole bunch of life, and to this snaggle of life and matter, I am an august deity. I am a god.
We have only been monitoring our rotting log for 13.x billion years - and we have no ideahow limited is our POV - and if there are any august deities on a grander scale out there.
Not to say we should believe they are are out there - or make one up and worship it.
If you are speaking of a God with a capital 'G' that's a different issue. Then we are no longer speaking of an august deity. We are then refering to a set of absolute(s) with a personality.
LarryS 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, 08:39 AM   #203
Giordano
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 16,581
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
Science doesn't bother with any of them. The point of the analogy is to ask why one unknowable, untestable thing should be so privileged.



Science doesn't care how you feel.



That's what makes it a good analogy in spite of your protests, circular reasoning, and ad hoc revision to avoid it. It shows that there is no meaningful difference between the beliefs on their merits. The difference is purely in the eyes of the believers, who contort both facts and reason to try circumventing that elegant fact. You can't seem to grasp that a large number of people think belief in gods is just as objectively silly as belief in dragons -- and they have a point. This is why your special pleading fools no one and why it doesn't make the analogy go away.



No, not really. We tried to discuss how magic aliens are no more plausible than magic gods or mythical creatures. You didn't want to go there. If you're going to change horses and talk about prima facie plausibility, you have to give it more than lip service.
Ta-Da! Well stated!

Last edited by Giordano; 13th March 2020 at 08:42 AM.
Giordano 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, 08:48 AM   #204
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Yeah we keep stating it and nobody is listening.

There's all manner of "Technically still possible but we have literally no reason to even ask the question" things.

WHY IS GOD SPECIAL!?
__________________
- "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 13th March 2020, 08:49 AM   #205
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Seems to me psionl0 is grasping an unintended inference from the garage.
I think it's because he's growing increasingly desperate to find ways in which he can say the analogy doesn't hold. Then that goes to the proposition that scientific criticism of belief in gods is irrational or hypocritical because it relies upon flawed analogies to flog believers. As others have said:

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
But some people struggle with analogies.
Some do, with various amounts of innocent intent. You go on to say

Originally Posted by Jack by the hedge View Post
Its point is not that there exist other places which are not the garage. Its point is to illustrate that having a vast and unsearchable universe to hide in does not matter when we're considering a hypothetical undetectable entity.
I agree. But I don't think the proximity-versus-infinity argument needs to be an either-or proposition. We can certainly make the point that a vast universe is irrelevant to an entity that is proposed to be inherently undetectable. Undetectability in that case is not predicated on the size of the space. We can certainly point out that the garage is a practically searchable space. These are important points, and an effective and complete rebuttal. But in my use of the analogy, the proximity of the garage matters too. Finiteness and proximity are compatible but different lines of reasoning.

A garage in Dresden, Germany is just as searchable as mine, and just as capable of holding an invisible dragon, but I don't care about it. Any number of things could be in there, and any number of things could be going in there that matter to the people in Dresden, but largely don't concern me. What happens in my garage affects me and those around me, so a potential dragon there matters more to me than whether there are dragons on a planet orbiting Betelgeuse. And this matters for the analogy. As far as the undetectable dragon goes, prima facie plausibility doesn't care where the garage is. But for the purpose of keeping the analogy faithful to the actual phenomenon of religion, it matters. The dragon has to have power to affect me, the same sort of proximal effectiveness that religion has on those around it.

Notwithstanding Joe's frustration, it is possible for people to be religious and God-fearing without being dicks about it. And if that were the totality of religious expression, there'd be no debate. We debate the issue because there are people who are dicks about it. I just hired a brilliant quality program supervisor who happens to be a devout Roman Catholic and totally not a dick about it. However, there are others in my state who insist that their devout belief in various myths is just cause to prevent me, for example, from joining the home-delivery bourbon of the month club. That's my garage, dammit.

There are, of course, other believers in gods who extol the virtues and benefits of doing so. The point is that the gods being analogized are obviously effectual gods, not abstract pseudo-philosophical navel-gazing. Regardless of what's happening -- or not happening -- in Dresden, on the Moon, or zillions of light years away, gods are purported to be affecting people's lives for good or ill in clearly delineated ways. This is why the dragon has to be in a nearby garage (or toolshed or poolhouse or whatever).

And in further desperation, the only way pseudo-philosophers can rescue gods from the analogy is to transform them into something that's no longer recognizable as a god.

Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
"Something exists, but has no testable properties."

The claim is worthless. Something that is claimed to exist but has no testable properties effectively doesn't exist.
A purportedly effectual god without testable properties is simply a contradiction. Trying to argue that the analogy doesn't hold after you replace the original proposition with meaningless gibberish is just more desperation. It's trying to score a moral victory over criticism rather than arrive at useful knowledge.
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, 08:55 AM   #206
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Betwixt
Posts: 16,043
Originally Posted by LarryS View Post
For example, if I walk through the woods and kick over a rotting log, I have just disrupted a whole bunch of life, and to this snaggle of life and matter, I am an august deity. I am a god.

No, you're really not. Not anything like any of the gods described and worshipped by any religion. As Darat keeps pointing out in such threads.

Do you watch over the bugs under the log to check on whether or not they're mating correctly? Or whether or not they're making the appropriate worshipful bug-gestures toward you, to make you happy? Or toward somebody else, which would make you really angry? Do you even know what humble respectful bug-gestures look like compared to, say, indifferent or insulting ones? Do their choices of gestures influence your decision about which ones to rescue from hungry birds and which ones to stomp on? Do you assist those bugs who particularly devote themselves to prayer and contemplation so that they can eventually become human like you? Do you sometimes turn yourself into a rotting-log-bug so you can crawl among them and understand their plight? Does reaching out to you or reading the things you've dictated to them in bug-speak inspire them to become better happier bugs? When the bugs die, do you bring them to a different eternal rotting log where they can continue to live forever?

If you're not doing any of those things, then you aren't at all like any of the gods promoted by any actual religion. You're just a bigger smarter animal. Which, by they way, they can perceive just fine. You're not a god to them, you're a kaiju.
__________________
A z°mbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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, 09:09 AM   #207
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,499
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Why on earth would anyone want to attempt a civil discussion when you speak like this? We get it: you don't believe in gods. Can you express that without being juvenile, abrasive, and insulting? Can you rein in your contempt enough to be polite? This isn't the politics subforum.

I don't believe in gods, either, but I'm not a dick about it.
As opposed to those nice theists like Torquemada that throughout the centuries tortured and even executed those who had the temerity to question their invisible dragons?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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, 09:11 AM   #208
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
As opposed to those nice theists like Torquemada that throughout the centuries tortured and even executed those who had the temerity to question their invisible dragons?
As far as I know that individual has been dead for several minutes and hasn't been posting in this thread.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 09:36 AM   #209
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,430
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
As far as I know that individual has been dead for several minutes and hasn't been posting in this thread.
So you are meant to think.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 09:43 AM   #210
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31░57'S 115░57'E
Posts: 15,900
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
"Something exists, but has no testable properties."

The claim is worthless. Something that is claimed to exist but has no testable properties effectively doesn't exist. This is equally true of gods in universes and dragons in garages. And dragons in universes.
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).

Something that is scientifically untestable or evidently unobservable can indeed be dismissed. There may be no point in even considering it. But none of that proves it doesn't exist.

Analogies don't prove anything. They only illustrate it. That's fine until you start drawing conclusions from the analogy and consider it "proof" of the original claim (that gods don't exist). You can call it "special pleading" if you like but the assertion that gods don't exist and the dragon analogy are not 100% compatible.

Unfortunately, if I try to point out the differences, I get accused not just of "misunderstanding" the analogy but of actually being dishonest. To paraphrase another poster, it's a case of people saying "WAH WAH WAH you don't understand us".
__________________
"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, 09:44 AM   #211
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by Darat View Post
So you are meant to think.
I'm expecting a particular image to appear, does my expectation of it cancel its arrival?
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 09:47 AM   #212
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).
Don't start. We know what your claim "isn't" you just won't say what it is.

Stop acting like we're confused as to what you are saying. We know it's the same coyish, passive aggressive "Hmmmmm maybe God" routine as every apologist.

Why "Hmmmmm maybe God" and not why "Hmmm maybe dragon" is the question you refuse to answer.
__________________
- "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 09:48 AM.
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 13th March 2020, 09:52 AM   #213
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,499
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
As far as I know that individual has been dead for several minutes and hasn't been posting in this thread.
So what? I've seen videos of theists chopping off the heads of theists that don't believe in exactly the same kind of invisible dragon.

I don't think we should ever forget how theists acted when they wielded power. It's only now that they pretend to be tolerant and that has only come begrudgingly because of the power of science and logic.

What Christian or Muslim do you know that don't want you to submit to the authority of their made up dragon? Islam means submission. Second Corinthians says: We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I've listened to their smarmy preachers calling non-believers immoral and their enemies. As best as I can tell, religion is the enemy of reason and they are desperate to resume their authority over those that think.

Well screw that.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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, 09:57 AM   #214
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
So what? I've seen videos of theists chopping off the heads of theists that don't believe in exactly the same kind of invisible dragon.

I don't think we should ever forget how theists acted when they wielded power. It's only now that they pretend to be tolerant and that has only come begrudgingly because of the power of science and logic.

What Christian or Muslim do you know that don't want you to submit to the authority of their made up dragon? Islam means submission. Second Corinthians says: We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I've listened to their smarmy preachers calling non-believers immoral and their enemies. As best as I can tell, religion is the enemy of reason and they are desperate to resume their authority over those that think.

Well screw that.
Well yeah but atheist are sometimes a little sarcastic and don't properly phrase it as "I think the giant invisible sky wizard doesn't exist" and have the gall to just say "The giant invisible sky wizard doesn't exist" so it's practically the same.

That's why Richard Dawkins is just as bad as Fred Phelps and we have to pretend that makes sense.
__________________
- "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 13th March 2020, 09:59 AM   #215
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by acbytesla View Post
So what? I've seen videos of theists chopping off the heads of theists that don't believe in exactly the same kind of invisible dragon.

I don't think we should ever forget how theists acted when they wielded power. It's only now that they pretend to be tolerant and that has only come begrudgingly because of the power of science and logic.

What Christian or Muslim do you know that don't want you to submit to the authority of their made up dragon? Islam means submission. Second Corinthians says: We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ.

I've listened to their smarmy preachers calling non-believers immoral and their enemies. As best as I can tell, religion is the enemy of reason and they are desperate to resume their authority over those that think.

Well screw that.
Neither I nor anybody else in this thread has argued for the merits of particular religions, or even religion in general. Certainly nobody's advocated a theocracy. You are arguing against positions not being taken. Which suggests either you haven't been reading this thread, or you don't care and just want to complain about religion. Perhaps you could start a new thread for that.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 10:01 AM   #216
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).
No, I don't assume that. Now try again, this time addressing my actual argument instead of the one you're making up and shoving in my mouth.
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, 10:02 AM   #217
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 42,744
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).
That was me, not JayUtah.

And no, I'm not assuming your claim.

I'm assuming that you see the flaw in the class of claims: "something exists, but has no testable properties".

Is that a bad assumption? Do you not see the flaw in that class of claims?
theprestige 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, 10:03 AM   #218
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 19,846
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).
Correct. That is not yet your claim. You simply have not yet reached that part of the script. That is how the theist's script works. I suppose a "Well done" is in order for following the oft trodden path. Not really.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon 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, 10:03 AM   #219
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,786
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Analogies don't prove anything. They only illustrate it. That's fine until you start drawing conclusions from the analogy and consider it "proof" of the original claim (that gods don't exist). You can call it "special pleading" if you like but the assertion that gods don't exist and the dragon analogy are not 100% compatible.
The original argument is "you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore science fails". The riposte is "Neither can it be proven that an invisible dragon does not exist in my garage" which is obviously not a failing of science, so neither is the original argument.

By turning the same argument into a ridiculous proposition, it is obvious to everyone that this line of argumentation was wrong from the beginning.

It can be argued that the analogy fails because believers tend to ignore the point and take an emotional position instead, as do you, apparently.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh 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, 10:04 AM   #220
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
I know what people's arguments aren't a lot more then I know what they are

"I'm just saying well maybe so I'm not saying anything" is not an argument you can make forever, especially when you only do it in one topic.

Yet again this has been the point since Psion made the first "LORDY JESUS YOU CAN'T SAY THERE ISN'T A GOD!" hissy fit.

Why is God a "maybe we have to acknowledge" but the dragon isn't? SOMEONE ANSWER THAT GODDAMN QUESTION with an answer that isn't pure special pleading, a bland meaningless truism, or an appeal to popularity.
__________________
- "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 10:05 AM.
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 13th March 2020, 10:06 AM   #221
LarryS
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 1,095
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
No, you're really not. Not anything like any of the gods described and worshipped by any religion. As Darat keeps pointing out in such threads.

Do you watch over the bugs under the log to check on whether or not they're mating correctly? Or whether or not they're making the appropriate worshipful bug-gestures toward you, to make you happy? Or toward somebody else, which would make you really angry? Do you even know what humble respectful bug-gestures look like compared to, say, indifferent or insulting ones? Do their choices of gestures influence your decision about which ones to rescue from hungry birds and which ones to stomp on? Do you assist those bugs who particularly devote themselves to prayer and contemplation so that they can eventually become human like you? Do you sometimes turn yourself into a rotting-log-bug so you can crawl among them and understand their plight? Does reaching out to you or reading the things you've dictated to them in bug-speak inspire them to become better happier bugs? When the bugs die, do you bring them to a different eternal rotting log where they can continue to live forever?

If you're not doing any of those things, then you aren't at all like any of the gods promoted by any actual religion. You're just a bigger smarter animal. Which, by they way, they can perceive just fine. You're not a god to them, you're a kaiju.
I agree that many practitioners of religion have odd beliefs - like God creeps around, inspires and spanks. I am not refering to the noisiest of religious beliefs - but rather 'steelmanning' religion - standing up the strongest religious position I can.
The more serious and professional religious types speak of God as a set of absolute(s) with a lean personality . . . like a quivering quantum vacuum with a purpose or bias.
As such, God does not belong to the set of all possible things, nor to the set of all possible beings.
I am an atheist so this is not my wheelhouse - but I still have a responsibility to stand up the strongest religious argument I can, not the weakest.
LarryS 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, 10:07 AM   #222
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Can we plead, specially, to tone down the all caps? Gentlemen utilize italics.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 10:10 AM   #223
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Can we plead, specially, to tone down the all caps? Gentlemen utilize italics.
The second new Jabba gives me even an attempt at pretending to give me an answer I promise I will speak in nothing but perfectly flat 12 point Helvetica, not before.

I'll never understanding why not answering perfectly valid questions poised to you in a discussion isn't considered a form of rudeness but getting frustrated at it is.
__________________
- "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 13th March 2020, 10:16 AM   #224
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,499
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Well yeah but atheist are sometimes a little sarcastic and don't properly phrase it as "I think the giant invisible sky wizard doesn't exist" and have the gall to just say "The giant invisible sky wizard doesn't exist" so it's practically the same.

That's why Richard Dawkins is just as bad as Fred Phelps and we have to pretend that makes sense.
Bull feces! The idea there is an equivalence is beyond absurd.

I don't propose that I have the authority to tell you what to think and how to live or that you should die because you don't think as I do.

And neither does Dawkins. The same cannot be said about Reverend Phelps. I don't see Richard Dawkins protesting with signs at Christian funerals telling them to consider Einstein's Theory of Relativity or Schrodinger's Cat or be tortured for eternity.

I definitely ridicule religion. But that is because it is ridiculous. It is an invisible dragon. But I don't knock on people's doors sharing the good news of Maxwell's equations.

Oops. You're being sarcastic.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 13th March 2020 at 10:18 AM.
acbytesla 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, 10:24 AM   #225
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,499
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Neither I nor anybody else in this thread has argued for the merits of particular religions, or even religion in general. Certainly nobody's advocated a theocracy. You are arguing against positions not being taken. Which suggests either you haven't been reading this thread, or you don't care and just want to complain about religion. Perhaps you could start a new thread for that.
Maybe. But I tire of how quickly theists become offended. How i am supposed to respect their faith. That I should be tolerant of absurdity and irrationality.

You know what? I don't. The biggest con ever perpetrated on mankind is that we should respect these things.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.
acbytesla 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, 10:32 AM   #226
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
It's the theist version of the Trumpers and their "Oh lordy me I just don't understand why you refuse to have a civil discussion about whether or not we should keep children in cages" routine and their Victorian wailing routine whenever anyone is dare "uncivil" to them in response.
__________________
- "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 13th March 2020, 10:35 AM   #227
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 54,422
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's the theist version of the Trumpers and their "Oh lordy me I just don't understand why you refuse to have a civil discussion about whether or not we should keep children in cages" routine and their Victorian wailing routine whenever anyone is dare "uncivil" to them in response.
Again, not something occurring in this thread. Start a thread for general complaints about religion and rant in there.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 10:41 AM   #228
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 23,738
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Again, not something occurring in this thread. Start a thread for general complaints about religion and rant in there.
*Confused* I didn't start this callout thread, don't blame me.

Don't buy Psion's excuse that he's actually confused on the metaphor or that's what this thread is really about.
__________________
- "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 10:44 AM.
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 13th March 2020, 10:51 AM   #229
I Am The Scum
Illuminator
 
I Am The Scum's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 4,261
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Unfortunately, if I try to point out the differences, I get accused not just of "misunderstanding" the analogy but of actually being dishonest. To paraphrase another poster, it's a case of people saying "WAH WAH WAH you don't understand us".
Of course there are differences. All analogies have differences here and there.

Sagan's analogy isn't really about a garage. It isn't really about a dragon, either. Might as well argue that Sagan said God breathes fire and flaps its wings to fly.

It's just an analogy. It's a rhetorical device used to establish a complex principle of reasoning into more understandable/commonplace terms. 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 Am The Scum 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, 10:52 AM   #230
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,499
Frankly, I'm not sure what this thread is about. It seems as if Psion objects to the comparison of an invisible dragon to a creator of the universe.

But that of course is ignoring the point of the comparison. Both the invisible dragon and the creator are mental creations. Both are invisible and undetectable. Both have no evidence of existence. And most important, both are unfalsifiable.

So, I am confused. Why exactly is the comparison unfair?
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 13th March 2020 at 10:55 AM.
acbytesla 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, 11:04 AM   #231
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
The original argument is "you can't prove that God doesn't exist, therefore science fails".
Or, possibly, "Since you have no information either way, asserting that no gods exist is unscientific and irrational." And then, "Similarly, having no information makes it even more irrational and unscientific to assert that no gods can exist." The attempt to corral atheists into increasingly straw positions hides all the ad hoc refinements that the challenger has to go through to get there. That's what Carl Sagan originally meant the garage dragon analogy to prove. At first the dragon is not invisible; the claim is revised to include that. Then the dragon is said to float in the air, so that it doesn't leave footprints. And so forth. The theist can certainly force the atheist into an untenable position, but only by making his own position nonsensical.

If we stay within the realm of practical religion, practical atheism in response is not unreasonable. As Russell famously noted, the line between technical agnosticism and practical atheism is unimportant and not something science needs to fret and stew over in order in hopes of retaining the ideological purity its critics insist it have.

Quote:
It can be argued that the analogy fails because believers tend to ignore the point and take an emotional position instead, as do you, apparently.
Sure. Defusing the analogy by ad hoc refinement reveals the proposition to be entirely contrived as a thing of the mind, and not the practical proposition originally put forward. Defusing the analogy in the other direction produces ontological nonsense in addition to undercutting the original proposition once again. In the end all that remains is special pleading. Having no data either way, the emotional considerations of the proponents have to be operatively respected. But that's a social argument, not a scientific one. Atheists are not obliged to confound them.
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, 11:23 AM   #232
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,074
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).

Something that is scientifically untestable or evidently unobservable can indeed be dismissed. There may be no point in even considering it. But none of that proves it doesn't exist.

Analogies don't prove anything. They only illustrate it. That's fine until you start drawing conclusions from the analogy and consider it "proof" of the original claim (that gods don't exist). You can call it "special pleading" if you like but the assertion that gods don't exist and the dragon analogy are not 100% compatible.

Unfortunately, if I try to point out the differences, I get accused not just of "misunderstanding" the analogy but of actually being dishonest. To paraphrase another poster, it's a case of people saying "WAH WAH WAH you don't understand us".
1. I don't recall any poster saying anything to the effect of "the analogy proves that God doesn't exist." In fact, as was told to you REPEATEDLY at this point, the thing that is supposed to illustrate is why one can't just reverse the burden of proof when it comes to their existence.

The non-existence is just the null hypothesis, rather than being proven by the absence of dragons in the garage. The actual reasoning is more like this: no, you don't get to reverse the burden of proof (just like with the dragon in the garage) ==>> so we're back to needing evidence for God ==>> since you have provided none, we'll fall back to the null hypothesis.

2. Even if hypothetically someone did make some broken inference involving the invisible dragon, it still doesn't explain and wouldn't warrant your fixation with the garage and/or other ways to fallaciously extend the analogy. If such an argument were broken, or even if it were based on a broken analogy, you can attack it on the actual logical grounds of why it's broken. Not by committing the extended analogy fallacy. The latter is NOT a valid counter-argument, pretty much by definition of it being a fallacy.

3. Actually the argument from analogy -- even though, again, that's not what's actually done in this case -- actually is not automatically a fallacy. It can work or not, based on how well the RELEVANT property is shared between those two contexts.

E.g., if some coworker asked how he's supposed to remember everything from a conference, telling him to take notes LIKE IN SCHOOL, would be a valid analogy. Telling him to wear a backpack like in school would be an invalid one. In the former case the shared attribute between the situations is the relevant one, in the latter case it's quite obviously not.

But again, the key to attacking (or for that matter supporting) one is to pick on the relevant attribute in the analogy. NOT to do the dumb thing and see what spurious other attributes don't match and basically be complaining that it's not an identity. E.g., in the above example, replying to "take notes like in school" with something like "OMG, you mean I also need to wear a backpack and can't smoke in the breaks?" would be the dumb way to attack the analogy.
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 11:44 AM   #233
smartcooky
Penultimate Amazing
 
smartcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Nelson, New Zealand
Posts: 13,658
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
ie: the concept of gods is silly because the analogy is silly. Now that is circular reasoning.
You're still getting it wrong.

The concept of gods is silly because the analogy demonstrates that it is silly.

Your focus on the garage appears obsessive. In fact, the garage isn't even necessary in order for the analogy to work. I can simply say that I have an invisible dragon right here, and its next next to us as we speak.

Quote:

NOTE: I have marked my changes in red

"A fire-breathing dragon lives with me"

"Show me," you say. I point to my right but you see no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
'

No garage - still works
__________________
"You can't promote principled anti-corruption action without pissing-off corrupt people!" - George Kent on Day one of the Trump Impeachment Hearings

If you don't like my posts, my opinions, or my directness then put me on your ignore list. This will be of benefit to both of us; you won't have to take umbrage at my posts, and I won't have to waste my time talking to you... simples! !

Last edited by smartcooky; 13th March 2020 at 11:47 AM.
smartcooky 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, 11:58 AM   #234
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,430
By now anyone reading this thread who claims they can't understand the issues the analogy is meant to illustrate has to be of very low intelligence or be pretending to not understand the analogy.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you

Last edited by Darat; 13th March 2020 at 12:02 PM. Reason: Ants get everywhere
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, 11:59 AM   #235
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 24,499
Originally Posted by smartcooky View Post
You're still getting it wrong.

The concept of gods is silly because the analogy demonstrates that it is silly.

Your focus on the garage appears obsessive. In fact, the garage isn't even necessary in order for the analogy to work. I can simply say that I have an invisible dragon right here, and its next next to us as we speak.
Quote:
NOTE: I have marked my changes in red

"A fire-breathing dragon lives with me"

"Show me," you say. I point to my right but you see no dragon.

"Where's the dragon?" you ask.

"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."

You propose spreading flour on the floor to capture the dragon's footprints.

"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."

Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.

"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."

You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.

"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work
.

'No garage - still works
Well said. You nailed it,

The dragon just like the creator hypothesis is unfalsifiable. We cannot even begin to argue something built upon special pleading and unfalsifiable claims.
__________________
Just because I'm paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get to me.
.

Last edited by acbytesla; 13th March 2020 at 12:01 PM.
acbytesla 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, 12:01 PM   #236
Deadie
Scholar
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Posts: 70
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
But none of that proves it doesn't exist.
And since it is impossible to prove a negative assertion of any kind, what is your point?
Deadie 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, 12:29 PM   #237
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
 
JayUtah's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,378
Originally Posted by Deadie View Post
And since it is impossible to prove a negative assertion of any kind, what is your point?
I gather it's that he thinks this is what atheists claim to have done. Or alternatively that the atheist position cannot be considered rational until it has done it. The invisible garage dragon analogy is meant to show that there is nothing special in the theist's position that demands such a preferential obligation. Gods present no more special a problem in contingent existence than anything else. It's just that some people's hackles rise if the existence of their gods is denied.
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, 12:36 PM   #238
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 90,430
Originally Posted by JayUtah View Post
I gather it's that he thinks this is what atheists claim to have done. Or alternatively that the atheist position cannot be considered rational until it has done it. The invisible garage dragon analogy is meant to show that there is nothing special in the theist's position that demands such a preferential obligation. Gods present no more special a problem in contingent existence than anything else. It's just that some people's hackles rise if the existence of their gods is denied.
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. Which again I may have mentioned once or twice before raises the question of why even use the word god to describe this entity?

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!
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 12:53 PM   #239
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
You are assuming that my claim is that "gods exist". (It isn't).

Something that is scientifically untestable or evidently unobservable can indeed be dismissed. There may be no point in even considering it. But none of that proves it doesn't exist.
Hey, hey. That's off topic, man!
__________________
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 13th March 2020, 12:55 PM   #240
Belz...
Fiend God
 
Belz...'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: In the details
Posts: 88,910
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Don't start. We know what your claim "isn't" you just won't say what it is.
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.
__________________
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
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 02:15 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.