Theist lay out your evidence.

robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Theist lay out your evidence.

I'm actually sick of trying to debate christians, it's boring and it always comes down to faith or "I just want to believe it" in the end. I do however have an interest in folks who say things like "a series of events occured that made me go to jesus". What events? Any theists care to share this "evidence"? I can only assume they take it as evidence because it seems to make them believe this stuff and for me it would take real evidence.

So what exactly happened in your life that made you believe? I'm hoping to hear something that can't actually be attributed to chance or hard work but I imagine this little thread will die off quickly.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Gauche
atheist
Gauche's picture
Posts: 1565
Joined: 2007-01-18
User is offlineOffline
People only responded in the

People only responded in the first place because he pretended to care about evidence and reason. Had he said from the beginning what that means to him is evidence that something doesn't work is irrelevant when you base the belief it did on the assumption that it can, I doubt anyone would have bothered.

There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote: The

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

The only open minded theist is the deconverted theist, right?

I became a theist because as a preacher's kid that was the template of reality I grew up with. And what a wretched reality it was. There are other fundy raised kids here who deconverted and they may have had different experiences but I must say that the entire focus of the christian faith is richly deserved torture and death and trying to escape from this much considered fate.

It's an odd thing, I know, but when you're pumped full of end times stories and jesus on the cross dying so your disgusting worthless self won't be tortured from the age of 5 or 6, it's impossible not to be fixated on death and on punishment. We know what the message of calvary is after all. Jesus is murdered in order to save us from being tortured eternally by a god who 'loves' us but hates us exercising independent thought.

So as a theist you are presented with a picture of death and torture which you deserve to suffer because you are the scum of the earth. It's like boot camp for brains. Destroy a child's sense of self worth and just when they are about to commit suicide with self hatred present them with jesus, who loves them so much he was prepared to be murdered so they don't need to spend eternity in Auschwitz. The psychology is fairly basic if you think about it. I can recall after being harangued with this evil doctrine at christian camps that whole groups of kids would come to the front to be saved, all crying.

The cognitive dissonance created by wanting to be saved blots out the fact jesus is the one who also wants to kill you. By the time of conversion your head is so full of your own vileness and so in awe that some one would be prepared to be murdered for such a worthless person as you (who secretly still feels like the centre of their own universe) that you'll be prepared to say and do pretty much anything to get to heaven. You'll even sing rounds of "We are Climbing Jacob's Ladder" without wondering whether the ladder was an A frame, resting on the lip of heaven's porch or just a bunch of complete bullshit.

So there you go. I believe most people come to christ through having their sense of worth annihilated. Once mentally paralysed by self hatred they are offered a rescue package by the good cop jesus and they seize on this for all they are worth. If they fell prey to christianity early, this core breach in their self esteem is never rebuilt. They simply cannot be worth anything without jesus. 

I think it's for this reason that people who have a frail or challenged sense of self esteem are particularly vulnerable to christian doctrine. It's not that christianity rebuilds their self esteem but that christianity completely destroys what's left of it, confirming their own biases against themselves and leaving them emotionally reliant on their abusive new best friend and lover, jesus.

Personally, I find a self esteem harmed by early exposure to christianity the hardest thing for me to recover as an atheist. There's no doubt in my mind that the central tenets of christianity do constitute child abuse and have a measurable deletorious effect for the course of the victim's life. Nevertheless, exercising personal integrity is still better than being a christian.

 

This bears repetition.

Great post AE.

 

The points about self esteem are the main 'bullet points', as far as the mechanisms by which most religions affect the minds of people.

The masochistic nature of religious people boggles my mind, as well as the militant ad hominem mentality towards 'non religion X' members, which is beyond perverse. Which is why I feel no remorse for being verbally abusive to them.

They're haters. And they feel like it's their duty, and their role in life, is to be agents of hate.

That's totally fucked up.

Ask them why 'x' is wrong, and you get as an answer 'because, it is!'.

If that's not a mindless automaton, I don't know what is.

And they use Hitler's Germany as a criticism of atheists...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Screw it.

butterbattle wrote:

Screw it. I'll follow Gauche's lead. I'm done here too. You don't have to reply. It's not like you'll ever admit that you're wrong about anything.

Like you'd ever admit your wrong either? I've tried to answer 5 people at once giving replies to objections being made -- is this not the content of debates? If you're tired of it, stop positing. I won't think any lesser of you or anyone else on the forum who gives thought and wants to engage on discussion. But to right it off on other means because I'm a "typical theist" is a genetic fallacy. I have no reason to apologize for being who I am.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:The

Atheistextremist wrote:

The only open minded theist is the deconverted theist, right?

I suppose I could say the same for an atheist... Open mindedness has nothing to do with the content of one's beliefs, but rather how one believes them. To suggest I'm brainwashed is a circumstantial ad hominem.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:Actually, a

ctressle wrote:

Actually, a tautology is valid, in the sense that yes indeed the conclusion follows from the premises. If you have A, then A follows. It's just useless in making an argument of whether or not A is true. That doesn't make it not valid.

A tautology is something that is always true, but a tautology does not have to conclude the initial premise. The classic categorical syllogism is a tautology: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal" One cannot conclude that "All men are mortal" from "Socrates is mortal", which is what I think you are saying I'm doing. I'm saying that possibility does not imply necessity. I cannot say from "it is possible that God healed my grandmother" that my grandmother was actually healed or a general statement about the possibility that God heals.

ctressle wrote:

"it is possible that x" and "y" therefore "it is possible that x contains/subsumes/includes the definite y". Which if you read carefully, is tautologous.

Even if it is a tautology, it does not invalidate it.

ctressle wrote:

No, I would not posit teapots and unicorns as causes. However, I'm not convinced that 'god' and 'natural cause' are the only options. My inability to imagine what others could be doesn't make them less so. Besides that, if you were born only a mere 500 years ago, you'd more often attribute god to what we now know as natural cause. More for this in my next response (so if you want to respond to both of these, as I'm making them into one point and also to condense the dialogueSmiling

I'm precluding other possibilities. One could imagine unicorns and teapots that heal... I'm not suggesting these things are possible. This is somewhat an appeal to novelty, but same sort of inferences were being made then for the same reason. The probabilities natural causes for healing are mitigated such that one made and inference to God. But this only strengthens my inference if that in light of more modern medicine, the inference to God is stronger because the better explanations have been mitigated.

ctressle wrote:

If a natural cause is unknowable or not prone to research for a given phenomenon, that alone doesn't make it less likely.

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

ctressle wrote:

If a rare event occurs among a huge sample, that alone doesn't make it less likely to be caused naturally.

It means the event happened against a greater confidence for what one could be considered normal.

ctressle wrote:

If you practice your religion in the context of a rare event, that alone doesn't make it less likely to be caused naturally.

Some people default to religion when other options run out, but that's not the case here. I'm a practicing Christian, living it day in and day out through obidience to the Great Commandments and Great Commission. I do not think that practicing religion is light of rare events is the issue. The inference is not from prayer, but from the possibility that God can heal.

ctressle wrote:

More specifically, even if 'god' and nature are the only two options, saying 'god did it' is actually a non-explanation, in that you could say 'god did it' to anything, in the sense you could not test your hypothesis or more importantly test mechanisms or make predictions or falsify. The only decent reason to suggest nature to anything, is not to throw in a catch-all phrase reminiscent of 'god did it', but again b/c of a track record. And how easy human brains are capable of fooling themselves especially in light of a lack of understanding of the power of demonstration in a competetive market of ideas as the scientific enterprise. And b/c a mechanism can be proposed and tested against.

ButterBattle raised a similar objection about mechanisms. If the causal agent is established, that alone is enough. You're asking for the fine details here. Using my cat example: I have a cat. I have a jar of pennies on shelf. One day, I come home and the jar of pennies is smashed on the floor. I have reason to believe my cat did it because I know my cat can climb on furniture and knock items off of furniture. Asking me for the causal mechanism is like asking me what appendage and what time of day the cat did the deed.

I'm not trying to say "god did it" as a catch all. I granted the possibility that there is a natural cause to explain it -- this means I could be wrong. I believe that the inference to God is the one that best fits the given facts.

ctressle wrote:

No one can recreate the circumstances of a particular lightning strike, and even if we can't predict it, we could still make inferences of its nature and test hypothetical mechanisms. For example, given the ubiquity of electrical equipment, we can still measure electromagnetic effects of a lightning strike. You're not necessarily expected to recreate particular circumstances, but at least observe or if possible recreate similar circumstances. In the cases of astronomy or sickness, as examples, you have observations of circumstances. And from those observations other effects may be measured that could add confidence to a given model, or falsify another.

Miracles are particular... that is they are unique events, like the Battle of Waterloo or the Challenger Disaster. Even if you could recreate similar circumstances, it does not have the same sort of controls good repeatable tests do.

ctressle wrote:

If you have a vague model such as, 'god did it', then what can you infer or predict from such a model? How could you go about falsifying it in 'the field', where studies have been done? If you can't even hypothesize a mechanism or link from 'untangible supreme intelligence', to 'my relative healed up from a sickness she wasn't likely to live from', then that is considered not having evidence. That in conjunction with prayer is nothing to make any statistical inference from.

Another reason why I don't think miracles fit in the realm of science is because they are not necessarily predictable... far from it really. I have no idea when God will act or if he will act. The only think I think you could surmise with any accuracy is that God rarely acts. Some extend this an say that God does not act from statistics, but when an anomaly does occur, one cannot simply ignore it. The abnormality of the event is why people recognize it as a miracle.

ctressle wrote:

That doctors and medical researchers can't research a given phenomenon is not a form of evidence. If anything, it is a lack thereof.

That you have a rare event among a sample, is nothing more than one piece of data, and is only evidence of that event, not of anything you would like to hypothesize or infer from it.

Looking for something and not finding it mitigates the possibility that it can be found. I lose my keys all the time... I search each room of the house looking for them, and by eliminating each room, I narrow the possibilities of their location. But even so, this does not mean that I might have missed something. I very well could have. The same is true for looking for a cause and not finding one.

ctressle wrote:

That you prayed, and coincidentally your relative was no longer sick, is not evidence that prayer helped her but is one data point.

You do not have evidence to support the claim that your god healed anybody, you only have one data of circumstance.

At the very least, what do you think of the study in Gauche's link? How do their findings jive with your particular conviction of your circumstance? (unless you're willing to dish out $31, there are only a few paragraphs to read).

I looked a Gauche's link, and responded that my inference is not from prayer, but from the possibility that God can heal.

I granted it was circumstantial evidence. Being that it is one case is not a problem, per se, if the evidence is weighty evidence. It is indeed weighty evidence for my grandmother and our family, but the further removed one gets, the less weighty it becomes. The resurrection of Jesus is but one miracle, but it's weightiness is of epic proportions. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a fluke.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:When no

Wowzers1 wrote:

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

Two can play that game, asshole...

When no supernatural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found. 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Wowzers1

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

Two can play that game, asshole...

When no supernatural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found. 

 

That is a frickin' 3 pointer dude.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It seems you are indulging in a

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

The only open minded theist is the deconverted theist, right?

I suppose I could say the same for an atheist... Open mindedness has nothing to do with the content of one's beliefs, but rather how one believes them. To suggest I'm brainwashed is a circumstantial ad hominem.

 

tu cocque fallacy, Whirlwind.

As a physicalist/materialist I believe the functions of the world are the result of natural process that we can detect and observe. I don't hold to any absolute truth. Was RNA and chemical evolution the precurser to biological evolution? Maybe - but if some one comes up with another theory with good evidence then I might change my mind. At no time am I going to drop anchor over an opinion for which no clear evidence exists just because the bible makes some threats.

Comparatively, the fundamentals of your belief system - creation by god, original sin, the appearance of jesus, calvary and so forth, are very much concrete. You are not in a position to be open minded. Your entire belief system demands dogmaticism. As for whether you are brainwashed, who knows. My personal experience outlined above is my personal experience.

But you have been saved, haven't you? Saved from what? From the assertion that if you don't have faith in an invisible god then he will torture you forever and ever and ever. To have life you must believe something devoid of clear evidence.

Now, from the point of view of coherent argument god's threats are a fallacy from force, aren't they Whirlwind? Why does god need to make threats?

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:Now,

Atheistextremist wrote:

Now, from the point of view of coherent argument god's threats are a fallacy from force, aren't they Whirlwind? Why does god need to make threats?

 

Oh AE, don't you see, he threatens you because he loves you.  And if you loved him too you would understand that.  He condemns you to eternal torture because of his unconditional love for you.  What?  You don't get it? Well DIE then, you'll burn forever bwahahahahahahahaha, unless you pucker up, then he'll love you again.  Seriously though god is love, join us.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:tu

Atheistextremist wrote:


tu cocque fallacy, Whirlwind.

Tu coque? No... my replay was not tu coque as I never criticized you as being such -- the I was suggesting it is not unique theism and fallacy of irrelevance.

Atheistextremist wrote:

As a physicalist/materialist I believe the functions of the world are the result of natural process that we can detect and observe. I don't hold to any absolute truth. Was RNA and chemical evolution the precurser to biological evolution? Maybe - but if some one comes up with another theory with good evidence then I might change my mind. At no time am I going to drop anchor over an opinion for which no clear evidence exists just because the bible makes some threats.

I don't hold my beliefs as absolute. Other theists may, but I don't. I grant evolution is true as the evidence points that way.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Comparatively, the fundamentals of your belief system - creation by god, original sin, the appearance of jesus, calvary and so forth, are very much concrete. You are not in a position to be open minded. Your entire belief system demands dogmaticism. As for whether you are brainwashed, who knows. My personal experience outlined above is my personal experience.

You assume to much. Whoever said that I adhered to orignal sin? And what about creation? And dogma requires a unquestioning view -- of which I have said over and over, I do not have. My views are my own. If some else agrees with me, then great.

My beliefs in Christianity are based on the facts surrounding the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. If this isn't true, then Christianity is a fluke.

Atheistextremist wrote:

But you have been saved, haven't you? Saved from what? From the assertion that if you don't have faith in an invisible god then he will torture you forever and ever and ever. To have life you must believe something devoid of clear evidence.

Belief that God can save me from what I duly deserve -- that's the faith I have. Believing that God exists is not enough.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Now, from the point of view of coherent argument god's threats are a fallacy from force, aren't they Whirlwind? Why does god need to make threats?

The argument from threat? It's not a threat -- If one knows there is a law and its consequences, then breaks the law, then that person is responsible for his crimes. God's desire to save is compelled by love, not threats.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:redneF

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

Two can play that game, asshole...

When no supernatural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found. 

That is a frickin' 3 pointer dude.

I grant that natural experience is normal experience. Are you going to suggest it should be the other way around when looking for causes for miracles? Inherent to theism is that natural experience is as much natural as it is supernatural. I don't expect this to fly with atheists though. When the two do not overlap, the experience is purely supernatural and this is described as a miracle. And when a purely supernatural cause is found, makes it all the more weightier.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Here lies the material point

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

Belief that God can save me from what I duly deserve -- that's the faith I have. Believing that God exists is not enough.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Now, from the point of view of coherent argument god's threats are a fallacy from force, aren't they Whirlwind? Why does god need to make threats?

The argument from threat? It's not a threat -- If one knows there is a law and its consequences, then breaks the law, then that person is responsible for his crimes. God's desire to save is compelled by love, not threats.

 

As I said earlier. The core of christianity is the destruction of an individual's personal sense of worth. Once they accept they are a worm who deserves eternal torture (seriously Wowser, I'm sure your catalogue of sins is as pathetic as mine is and scarcely deserving of eternal torture) then enter jesus stage left, to save them from their 'crimes'.

Everything you are saying here underscores my central points, Wows,even if I have wrongly mistaken you for a classic OT fundamentalist - an error for which I apologise. I mistook you for Whirlwind. In any case, the bible has threatened you with death for your sins and in the absence of incontrovertible evidence you believe the threat against you is justified.

Eternal punishment for a few tawdry sins is a threat, whitewash it how you will.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
I know, Crazy

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

Now, from the point of view of coherent argument god's threats are a fallacy from force, aren't they Whirlwind? Why does god need to make threats?

 

Oh AE, don't you see, he threatens you because he loves you.  And if you loved him too you would understand that.  He condemns you to eternal torture because of his unconditional love for you.  What?  You don't get it? Well DIE then, you'll burn forever bwahahahahahahahaha, unless you pucker up, then he'll love you again.  Seriously though god is love, join us.

 

I want to walk the wide, easy path that leads to the luncheon table in the church hall with all those pickles on sticks and the fairy bread but I just can't stop climbing the narrow, winding path to debatable truth. Even tho' jesus keeps texting my brambled heart telling me he loves me and I'd better love him back or else, I just can't let go of the realisation that godliness is next to blindedness. It's a drear dilemma.

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Join us...

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:

Seriously though god is love, join us.

 

Evil Dead, right?

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:As I

Atheistextremist wrote:

As I said earlier. The core of christianity is the destruction of an individual's personal sense of worth. Once they accept they are a worm who deserves eternal torture (seriously Wowser, I'm sure your catalogue of sins is as pathetic as mine is and scarcely deserving of eternal torture) then enter jesus stage left, to save them from their 'crimes'.

Christianity is about redeeming one's worth -- particularly to God. Christianity teaches that sin is categorical, in that the category is what condemns one. No matter how miniscule the sin may seem, it is proportionally offensive to the holiness of God.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Everything you are saying here underscores my central points, Wows,even if I have wrongly mistaken you for a classic OT fundamentalist - an error for which I apologise. I mistook you for Whirlwind. In any case, the bible has threatened you with death for your sins and in the absence of incontrovertible evidence you believe the threat against you is justified.

THe Bible does not threaten me any more than the laws of  the land do. If I abide by them, I'm not under threats. If I break them, I'm under the consequences. Do you live under the threat of the law?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Eternal punishment for a few tawdry sins is a threat, whitewash it how you will.

I don' feel threatened -- I'm sorry if you do.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

Two can play that game, asshole...

When no supernatural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found. 

That is a frickin' 3 pointer dude.

I grant that natural experience is normal experience.

Awwww, well listen to you...

You're such a fucking saint.

You'll grant that natural experience, is a normal experience.

IOW, reality.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 Are you going to suggest it should be the other way around when looking for causes for miracles?

No, I'm going to suggest that you people STFU when you haven't got anything more of a proof of miracles than a proof that saying abracadabra made your grandma healed and that magic could have been the cause, because the evidence is 'weighty' that a unicorn couldn't have been responsible because you mitigated the probablity that unicorns can heal sick grandmas, due to your BS reductio ad absurdum navel gazing.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 Inherent to theism is that...

Inherent to desperate people, are desperate hopes.

Read up on placebo effect, and confirmation bias.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 natural experience is as much natural as it is supernatural.

Supernatural is a euphemism for 'imaginative'.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 I don't expect this to fly with atheists though.

Call us skeptics, instead, and we'll just call you mystics.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 When the two do not overlap, the experience is purely supernatural

You mean 'imaginative'.

Wowzers1 wrote:
 And when a purely supernatural cause is found, makes it all the more weightier.

Ooooo, ya, that'll convince people....'weightier' .

Saying abracadabra in advance is 'weighty' evidence that magic is 'real'...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

redneF wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

Two can play that game, asshole...

When no supernatural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found. 

That is a frickin' 3 pointer dude.

I grant that natural experience is normal experience. Are you going to suggest it should be the other way around when looking for causes for miracles? Inherent to theism is that natural experience is as much natural as it is supernatural. I don't expect this to fly with atheists though. When the two do not overlap, the experience is purely supernatural and this is described as a miracle. And when a purely supernatural cause is found, makes it all the more weightier.

Actually I loved the symmetry of the statement.  But I must agree that humans are cause seeking creatures and have sought the supernatural in rocks and trees ( some New Agers/Thought) still do. I do understand where you are coming from.  I think to be fare to someone who does not believe that there has to be some evidence of a supernatural.  For example we are conscious creatures. I am studying consciousness at the moment. But we are a long way from understanding or knowing what consciousness is.  To give it a supernatural tag  because we don't is premature. But unfortunately that is what we tend to do as cause finding mammals. We did this with an idea of a life force before understanding evolution. We have with astrophysics the big bang instead of Genesis. Science works and theological beliefs always seep into the gaps of that which we do not know. But the fact is that there are but a few gaps left. So I think the post is great. It indicates that when we look for supernatural causes we mostly find natural ones or nothing at all. This long history of looking and our progress makes it less  and less likely that there will be one found.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

As I said earlier. The core of christianity is the destruction of an individual's personal sense of worth. Once they accept they are a worm who deserves eternal torture (seriously Wowser, I'm sure your catalogue of sins is as pathetic as mine is and scarcely deserving of eternal torture) then enter jesus stage left, to save them from their 'crimes'.

Christianity is about redeeming one's worth -- particularly to God. Christianity teaches that sin is categorical, in that the category is what condemns one. No matter how miniscule the sin may seem, it is proportionally offensive to the holiness of God.

 

A quote from bible.org:

"Let no man ever think that he comes anywhere near the standard set by God. God has demanded absolute perfection, and no matter how one measures himself, he falls far short."

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:"Let no man

robj101 wrote:

"Let no man ever think that he comes anywhere near the standard set by God. God has demanded absolute perfection, and no matter how one measures himself, he falls far short."

Are you agree with me? I think this is consistent with what I said concerning sin....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote:Actually I

TGBaker wrote:
Actually I loved the symmetry of the statement.  But I must agree that humans are cause seeking creatures and have sought the supernatural in rocks and trees ( some New Agers/Thought) still do. I do understand where you are coming from.  I think to be fare to someone who does not believe that there has to be some evidence of a supernatural.  For example we are conscious creatures. I am studying consciousness at the moment. But we are a long way from understanding or knowing what consciousness is.  To give it a supernatural tag  because we don't is premature. But unfortunately that is what we tend to do as cause finding mammals. We did this with an idea of a life force before understanding evolution. We have with astrophysics the big bang instead of Genesis. Science works and theological beliefs always seep into the gaps of that which we do not know. But the fact is that there are but a few gaps left. So I think the post is great. It indicates that when we look for supernatural causes we mostly find natural ones or nothing at all. This long history of looking and our progress makes it less  and less likely that there will be one found.

My inference was not because a natural cause was not possible, but rather that the probability of natural causes was mitigated. I grant that it could be explained in natural terms.

I do not see religion and science as being two competing spheres as some suggest they are... I for one do think evolution explains many things, and astrophysics does as well to explain how the universe got here. I don't think either one of these things is contradictory to anything that I believe per se. (They may be contradictory to some people who have a particular hermeneutic they want to prop up -- as I think that's the real issue for YEC.).

Gaps are gaps... I'm not filling them with God. I'm open to whatever explanation science has to offer.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

"Let no man ever think that he comes anywhere near the standard set by God. God has demanded absolute perfection, and no matter how one measures himself, he falls far short."

Are you agree with me? I think this is consistent with what I said concerning sin....

I don't really want to debate* with you anymore. But I'll note I do not agree with you and I was merely pointing out that the bible has you believeing that you are never going to be "good enough" for what you believe in. It's a "I'm so terrible I will never meet god's standards so I must scrape and bow for any scrap my master might toss my way" way of thinking. It propogates self loathing.

It seemed relevant to the quote from your post but you excluded it here and I'm not taking the time to scroll back. Your repetition is a bore.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:
Actually I loved the symmetry of the statement.  But I must agree that humans are cause seeking creatures and have sought the supernatural in rocks and trees ( some New Agers/Thought) still do. I do understand where you are coming from.  I think to be fare to someone who does not believe that there has to be some evidence of a supernatural.  For example we are conscious creatures. I am studying consciousness at the moment. But we are a long way from understanding or knowing what consciousness is.  To give it a supernatural tag  because we don't is premature. But unfortunately that is what we tend to do as cause finding mammals. We did this with an idea of a life force before understanding evolution. We have with astrophysics the big bang instead of Genesis. Science works and theological beliefs always seep into the gaps of that which we do not know. But the fact is that there are but a few gaps left. So I think the post is great. It indicates that when we look for supernatural causes we mostly find natural ones or nothing at all. This long history of looking and our progress makes it less  and less likely that there will be one found.

My inference was not because a natural cause was not possible, but rather that the probability of natural causes was mitigated. I grant that it could be explained in natural terms.

I do not see religion and science as being two competing spheres as some suggest they are... I for one do think evolution explains many things, and astrophysics does as well to explain how the universe got here. I don't think either one of these things is contradictory to anything that I believe per se. (They may be contradictory to some people who have a particular hermeneutic they want to prop up -- as I think that's the real issue for YEC.).

Gaps are gaps... I'm not filling them with God. I'm open to whatever explanation science has to offer.

No I did not mean to state that you were filling the gaps. I mean as a species when our supernatural ponderings always find those gaps. For example Penrose and Hameroff of late proposed a quantum consciousness .  Consciousness IS one gap.  Then you can go with common view of the two slit experiment which posits consciousness collapses the wave function a la gap 2. Then you start looking and think well they are both quantum states.  Are they connected and so on. Obviously I use to believe as you do that science and god go hand in hand.  But  when you look at evolution you conclude there is no need for a designer because complexes naturally form.  I have found no evidence that prayer does anything.  So if there is a god is he a deistic god since he seems to have started the ball of history rolling without a need of coming along. A deistic god might be something like a field of all mathematical and logical probabilities or a false vacuum wherein virtual particles interact (virtually) until one actualizes. One could go with a panetheism where the boundless is a potentiality field that self-references resulting in the actualization of the universe as a singularity. Then as some suggest that god would be in everything and beyond as boundless potentiality with time-space expanding into the boundless.  With this view I see no reason to think of god as a person. Perhaps boundless consciousness or mind.

 

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:I don't really

robj101 wrote:
I don't really want to debate* with you anymore. But I'll note I do not agree with you and I was merely pointing out that the bible has you believeing that you are never going to be "good enough" for what you believe in. It's a "I'm so terrible I will never meet god's standards so I must scrape and bow for any scrap my master might toss my way" way of thinking. It propogates self loathing.

It seemed relevant to the quote from your post but you excluded it here and I'm not taking the time to scroll back. Your repetition is a bore.

I don't loath, I rejoice -- I'm a prince in the family of God. What's so bad about that?

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
TGBaker wrote: No I did not

TGBaker wrote:

No I did not mean to state that you were filling the gaps. I mean as a species when our supernatural ponderings always find those gaps. For example Penrose and Hameroff of late proposed a quantum consciousness .  Consciousness IS one gap.  Then you can go with common view of the two slit experiment which posits consciousness collapses the wave function a la gap 2. Then you start looking and think well they are both quantum states.  Are they connected and so on. Obviously I use to believe as you do that science and god go hand in hand.  But  when you look at evolution you conclude there is no need for a designer because complexes naturally form.  I have found no evidence that prayer does anything.  So if there is a god is he a deistic god since he seems to have started the ball of history rolling without a need of coming along. A deistic god might be something like a field of all mathematical and logical probabilities or a false vacuum wherein virtual particles interact (virtually) until one actualizes. One could go with a panetheism where the boundless is a potentiality field that self-references resulting in the actualization of the universe as a singularity. Then as some suggest that god would be in everything and beyond as boundless potentiality with time-space expanding into the boundless.  With this view I see no reason to think of god as a person. Perhaps boundless consciousness or mind.

That sounds like Spinoza's "god". I'd be more satisfied not to call such a thing "god" to avoid confusion.

Design (more broadly, teleology) is another issue. I'm willing to talk about this, but I think it would be best for another thread. A few people have already got burnt out with this thread....

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:
I don't really want to debate* with you anymore. But I'll note I do not agree with you and I was merely pointing out that the bible has you believeing that you are never going to be "good enough" for what you believe in. It's a "I'm so terrible I will never meet god's standards so I must scrape and bow for any scrap my master might toss my way" way of thinking. It propogates self loathing.

It seemed relevant to the quote from your post but you excluded it here and I'm not taking the time to scroll back. Your repetition is a bore.

I don't loath, I rejoice -- I'm a prince in the family of God. What's so bad about that?

You rejoice because? God hates you but he loves you and has promised to redeem you from the sinful nature he gave you? Well isn't that awesome, and quite handy too /insert circle here ( )

You are quickly degenerating into a fonzie.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:TGBaker

Wowzers1 wrote:

TGBaker wrote:

No I did not mean to state that you were filling the gaps. I mean as a species when our supernatural ponderings always find those gaps. For example Penrose and Hameroff of late proposed a quantum consciousness .  Consciousness IS one gap.  Then you can go with common view of the two slit experiment which posits consciousness collapses the wave function a la gap 2. Then you start looking and think well they are both quantum states.  Are they connected and so on. Obviously I use to believe as you do that science and god go hand in hand.  But  when you look at evolution you conclude there is no need for a designer because complexes naturally form.  I have found no evidence that prayer does anything.  So if there is a god is he a deistic god since he seems to have started the ball of history rolling without a need of coming along. A deistic god might be something like a field of all mathematical and logical probabilities or a false vacuum wherein virtual particles interact (virtually) until one actualizes. One could go with a panetheism where the boundless is a potentiality field that self-references resulting in the actualization of the universe as a singularity. Then as some suggest that god would be in everything and beyond as boundless potentiality with time-space expanding into the boundless.  With this view I see no reason to think of god as a person. Perhaps boundless consciousness or mind.

That sounds like Spinoza's "god". I'd be more satisfied not to call such a thing "god" to avoid confusion.

Design (more broadly, teleology) is another issue. I'm willing to talk about this, but I think it would be best for another thread. A few people have already got burnt out with this thread....

How bout God is futurity which is ontologically prior to every past and present moment??????????????

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


NoMoreCrazyPeople
atheistSuperfan
NoMoreCrazyPeople's picture
Posts: 969
Joined: 2009-10-14
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:The argument

Wowzers1 wrote:

The argument from threat? It's not a threat -- If one knows there is a law and its consequences, then breaks the law, then that person is responsible for his crimes. God's desire to save is compelled by love, not threats.

Oh boy, this is so ass backwards I don't know how theists convince themselves of this garbage. "Love not threats???"  So like when a father tells his son "You can choose to live your life however you want, but if you don't live it the way I want you to, I will beat you with this baseball bat every day forever, but I love you,that is why I gave you a choice!"  This type of thinking is truly disturbing.  Watch these NonStampCollector videos about freewill, choice, and gods love, they are very well done, and capture this kind of twisted thinking well:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUtSM2oVy_E
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nv9IvCpiHxA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H0wSjJAsrAk&feature=relmfu
 

Theists say crap like "well you have a choice, just like you have a choice to or not to jump out of a plane without a parachute."  Rrrrright... That makes sense.  That is exactly the same as me not thinking gays are an abomonation, or not agreeing with some teachings of christianity, NOT!!!  My thorough research and upbringing into your bunk religion and critical thinking on the issue has led me to not agree with many things tought by your particular gods.  Because of this I choose to live the way I feel is "right"  by not adhearing to silly primitive myths and dogmas, to allow my internal morality to guide me instead of some book that is demonstrably garbage and full of horrible outdated philosophies.  Because of my choice I deserve to burn, it is just the fair consequence of my free choice???  Hmmm, yup that sounds exactly the same as choosing to jump out of plane without a parachute.    


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Gauche wrote:People only

Gauche wrote:
People only responded in the first place because he pretended to care about evidence and reason. Had he said from the beginning what that means to him is evidence that something doesn't work is irrelevant when you base the belief it did on the assumption that it can, I doubt anyone would have bothered.

Sigh, I've been having these kinds of discussions a long time now. Why do I still get duped like this? I want my time back.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
It's not just breaking the law that's a threat

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

As I said earlier. The core of christianity is the destruction of an individual's personal sense of worth. Once they accept they are a worm who deserves eternal torture (seriously Wowser, I'm sure your catalogue of sins is as pathetic as mine is and scarcely deserving of eternal torture) then enter jesus stage left, to save them from their 'crimes'.

Christianity is about redeeming one's worth -- particularly to God. Christianity teaches that sin is categorical, in that the category is what condemns one. No matter how miniscule the sin may seem, it is proportionally offensive to the holiness of God.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Everything you are saying here underscores my central points, Wows,even if I have wrongly mistaken you for a classic OT fundamentalist - an error for which I apologise. I mistook you for Whirlwind. In any case, the bible has threatened you with death for your sins and in the absence of incontrovertible evidence you believe the threat against you is justified.

THe Bible does not threaten me any more than the laws of  the land do. If I abide by them, I'm not under threats. If I break them, I'm under the consequences. Do you live under the threat of the law?

Atheistextremist wrote:

Eternal punishment for a few tawdry sins is a threat, whitewash it how you will.

I don' feel threatened -- I'm sorry if you do.

 

It's the fact not believing there's a god is a crime punishable by eternal torture. You must believe these assertions or you will be tortured. No pressure. 

 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: Christianity

Wowzers1 wrote:
Christianity is about redeeming one's worth -- particularly to God.

No.

Stop spin doctoring.

Christianity is about justifying it's reasons for contempt of the liberty of individuals. It preaches that people should be slaves to a master.

Wowzers1 wrote:
Christianity teaches that sin is categorical, in that the category is what condemns one.

Nice apologist word salad, there.

Why take 13 words of obfuscation to communicate "sinners are condemned" ?

Wowzers1 wrote:
THe Bible does not threaten me any more than the laws of  the land do.

And the KKK doesn't threaten white supremacists. But, much like the KKK, Christians are a militant group of bigots.

We have civil liberties that your scriptures would wish to punish people or put them to death for, and then wish for an afterlife of eternal suffering for them, after their death.

 

That's the problem with cults and sects like yours. And why humanity is steadily evolving away from such dogma.

The focus isn't on individuals like you, who are so off the deep end. You'll die off soon enough.

The focus is on the moderates, and the ones who haven't been completely brainwashed by this insidious agenda of bigoted, fascist, totalitarianism.

 

You all desperately project a 'unified front', but you're not, actually.

Your different 'divisions' are in conflict amongst yourselves over morals and ethics, because people like to cherry pick, what resonates with them, and reject what doesn't, which undermines the whole 'crusade' against the ones who can live together in a mostly civil fashion, without living out a 2000 yr old comic book fantasy. 

You people never were, and never will be the pinnacle of moral development. That cat's been out of the bag for millenia.

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:
I don't really want to debate* with you anymore. But I'll note I do not agree with you and I was merely pointing out that the bible has you believeing that you are never going to be "good enough" for what you believe in. It's a "I'm so terrible I will never meet god's standards so I must scrape and bow for any scrap my master might toss my way" way of thinking. It propogates self loathing.

It seemed relevant to the quote from your post but you excluded it here and I'm not taking the time to scroll back. Your repetition is a bore.

I don't loath, I rejoice -- I'm a prince in the family of God. What's so bad about that?

Who are your subjects? God have another kid? Oh I get it you are jc.

http://peebles.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/acts-531-niv-prince-and-saviour/

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
robj101 wrote:Who are your

robj101 wrote:

Who are your subjects? God have another kid? Oh I get it you are jc.

http://peebles.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/acts-531-niv-prince-and-saviour/

Christians are joint heirs with Christ by adoption. We cry out "Abba", which is like saying "Daddy" in English. (Romans 8:15-18)

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:Gauche

butterbattle wrote:

Gauche wrote:
People only responded in the first place because he pretended to care about evidence and reason. Had he said from the beginning what that means to him is evidence that something doesn't work is irrelevant when you base the belief it did on the assumption that it can, I doubt anyone would have bothered.

Sigh, I've been having these kinds of discussions a long time now. Why do I still get duped like this? I want my time back.

"Pretended" Okay...so you are using ad hominems... I really don't care what you think about me, as I never expected to be accepted by atheists on an atheist's board. You failed to show me a reason what I should believe otherwise. And writing me off because I'm a "typical theist" or because you think I'm "pretending" to care about evidence still gives me no reason to think otherwise.

 

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Wows, What evidence

Wowzers1 wrote:

Christians are joint heirs with Christ by adoption. We cry out "Abba", which is like saying "Daddy" in English. (Romans 8:15-18)

 

do you have for believing the assertion outlined above? It's in an old book and you accept it as an undeniable truth about reality? You can imagine how improbable it sounds. The master of the universe is your daddy. I really don't know what to say.

Personally, I prefer to be a direct descendant of the first RNA threads on the planet, a creature who's ancestry includes chemical as well as biological antecedents. My history, Wows, is firmly anchored to this planet and the history of life on earth.

Meanwhile, your assertions, utterly devoid of proof as they are, make no conceivable headway.  

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote: You failed

Wowzers1 wrote:
You failed to show me a reason what I should believe otherwise.

Nanana BooBoo

I doubt any of us are going to lose sleep over any of your opinions...

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:do

Atheistextremist wrote:

do you have for believing the assertion outlined above? It's in an old book and you accept it as an undeniable truth about reality? You can imagine how improbable it sounds. The master of the universe is your daddy. I really don't know what to say.

Who said anything about undeniable other than you? I didn't... And I base my beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Personally, I prefer to be a direct descendant of the first RNA threads on the planet, a creature who's ancestry includes chemical as well as biological antecedents. My history, Wows, is firmly anchored to this planet and the history of life on earth.

Okay...If you prefer that, that's fine and I don't deny my "biological antecedents" either.

Atheistextremist wrote:

Meanwhile, your assertions, utterly devoid of proof as they are, make no conceivable headway.  

The "proof" is in the person of Jesus.

 

 

I feel this thread has died because no one (including me) is posting per the OP anymore... It's devolved so something else. So unless someone wants to post something of substance related to the OP, I think I'm going to let this rest.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:robj101

Wowzers1 wrote:

robj101 wrote:

Who are your subjects? God have another kid? Oh I get it you are jc.

http://peebles.wordpress.com/2011/03/30/acts-531-niv-prince-and-saviour/

Christians are joint heirs with Christ by adoption. We cry out "Abba", which is like saying "Daddy" in English. (Romans 8:15-18)

You just be as special as you need to make you feel good. /pat on head

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
Wowzers1 wrote:butterbattle

Wowzers1 wrote:

butterbattle wrote:

Gauche wrote:
People only responded in the first place because he pretended to care about evidence and reason. Had he said from the beginning what that means to him is evidence that something doesn't work is irrelevant when you base the belief it did on the assumption that it can, I doubt anyone would have bothered.

Sigh, I've been having these kinds of discussions a long time now. Why do I still get duped like this? I want my time back.

"Pretended" Okay...so you are using ad hominems... I really don't care what you think about me, as I never expected to be accepted by atheists on an atheist's board. You failed to show me a reason what I should believe otherwise. And writing me off because I'm a "typical theist" or because you think I'm "pretending" to care about evidence still gives me no reason to think otherwise.

 

You pretend like the options are a or b. Option a or the default position of not knowing and or having certainty about the biblical god  is more rational. You have to stretch to make this whole god thing work by adding suppositions and all. I mean look at yourself having to argue with "want" "believe" "hope" etc. You hold the wacky position.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


robj101
atheist
robj101's picture
Posts: 2481
Joined: 2010-02-20
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Hello Wowzers1

RatDog wrote:

Hello Wowzers1 and Redemption.  I was wondering if you can tell me if you agree with the following.

 

An unlikely event saves the life of. . . . . . . . . 

A believer because god is blessing them.

An unbeliever because god is giving them a chance to change their ways.  

 

An unlikely event harms . . . . . . .

A believer because god is testing them.  

An unbeliever because god is punishing them.  

 

An unlikely event takes the life of. . . . . . 

A believer because it was their time. 

An unbeliever because god is punishing them. 

 

An unlikely event benefits. . . . . . 

A believer because god is blessing them.  

An unbeliever because god is testing the faith of the believers.   

 

That's about it, they interpret things to suit their beliefs.

An unlikely event saves the life of ....

A believer through chance

An unbeliever through chance

 

You have to ADD the whole god thing to make it silly.

Faith is the word but next to that snugged up closely "lie's" the want.
"By simple common sense I don't believe in god, in none."-Charlie Chaplin


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
Yea I'll give this one more

Yea I'll give this one more go myself:


Wowzers1 wrote:

A tautology is something that is always true, but a tautology does not have to conclude the initial premise.

A tautology is 'always true', in that all its rows in its truth table are true. A statement is valid, if when the premises are true, then so is the conclusion (and false otherwise). Since both 'true ⇒ true' and 'false ⇒ false' has in all its rows 'true', then all tautologies are valid.

Wowzers1 wrote:

The classic categorical syllogism is a tautology: "All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Socrates is mortal" One cannot conclude that "All men are mortal" from "Socrates is mortal", which is what I think you are saying I'm doing. I'm saying that possibility does not imply necessity. I cannot say from "it is possible that God healed my grandmother" that my grandmother was actually healed or a general statement about the possibility that God heals.

And for one, I'm saying, within your second, conclusive possibility you are simply restating the necessity that is your 2nd premise. You must have missed one of my earlier rebuttals:

ctressle wrote:

Wowzers1 wrote:

If I use your form,

[(It is possible that Advil stops pain.) ^ (My headache stopped.)] ⇒ [It is possible that Advil stopped my headache]

But also:

[It is possible that Advil stopped my headache] ⇒ [(My headache stopped.) ^ (It is possible that Advil stops pain.)]

"It is possible that Advil stopped my headache" does not necessarily imply that "my headache stopped" any more than "It is possible that God healed my grandmother" neccessarily imply that "my grandmother was healed" because in either case one would be affirming the consequence, so they do not imply one another.

...you said, "...stopped my headache", "... healed my grandmother"; the grammar implies those things did indeed happen...

In other words, if your headache never stopped, would you ever say to someone, "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache."...?

Let me try one more time: supposing you never told us merely that your grandmother was healed, but instead out of the clear blue the first and only thing you said to us instead was, "It's possible God healed my grandmother", or "It's possible Advil stopped my headache". Even if I don't believe in a god, much less one that heals, am I supposed to take from what you said, that your grandmother didn't heal, and your headache didn't stop? If you knew your grammar, you'd know you don't distribute the quantifier 'possible' across your sentence like that. You ARE saying those things happened.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I cannot say from "it is possible that God healed my grandmother" ... a general statement about the possibility that God heals.

Secondly, I realize you cannot generalize a particular, no. But we are talking about a hypothetical sentient being with capabilities, right? Then if there is a being who is capable of healing one, then that being should in general be capable of healing many, yes?

But I have 2 other problems: you're using the word possible. Which is why the following seems to work:

If it's possible that god healed one person, it's possible god heals, in general. Which leads me to my other problem, way below:

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

"it is possible that x" and "y" therefore "it is possible that x contains/subsumes/includes the definite y". Which if you read carefully, is tautologous.

Even if it is a tautology, it does not invalidate it.

Which is what I've been saying. Your tautology is valid, but useless. Again, I'll explain way below:

Wowzers1 wrote:

I'm precluding other possibilities.

Again, I apologize for my lack of research. I mean, I believe you when you say that you find options T (teapot) and U (unicorn) too unlikely to posit, hell much less F (flying sp. monster), but G (god) and N (nature) as worthy considerations. I just didn't realize you had eliminated options A, B, C, D, ..., A2, A3, ... etc.... already, as you say you 'precluded' these others, right?

How/why did you preclude other possibilities? On what grounds? (Btw, teapot and unicorns are already "mitigated", no need to bring those up again).

Wowzers1 wrote:

The probabilities natural causes for healing are mitigated such that one made and inference to God. But this only strengthens my inference if that in light of more modern medicine, the inference to God is stronger because the better explanations have been mitigated.

I'm having trouble reading this, are you saying that b/c modern medicine is usually so useful and 'awesome' that if there is one instance it hasn't worked or given our understanding of modern medicine we weren't able to see a natural cause, then it must most likely be something else i.e. god? Disregarding the false dichotomy, all this means is that our knowledge thus far i.e. modern medicine of nature wasn't able to work in this instance. Nothing more.

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

If a natural cause is unknowable or not prone to research for a given phenomenon, that alone doesn't make it less likely.

When no natural cause is found, then it makes it more unlikely that one will be found.

If by 'found' you mean, the opportunity to have found a natural cause had been passed up b/c the cancer/disease or whatever has already passed, in this one instance, then yes you are correct, it's unlikely to be found for this one instance.

That doesn't mean the cause was less likely to be natural, and if other rare events like that are found to have been caused naturally in the future, then parsimoniously natural cause was the most likely in this instance.

Until then, you either have 'I don't know' or the only possibility that has worked best thus far, is a natural cause. Remember, track record.

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

If a rare event occurs among a huge sample, that alone doesn't make it less likely to be caused naturally.

It means the event happened against a greater confidence for what one could be considered normal.

No, it means you have a confident model that explains a large sample of circumstances, but not the outlier circumstance (which is why, in science, models are never 'absolutely true' anyway - there's always a possibility it's wrong, even slightly, for some reason; why we can only be confident). The outlier should then be prone to further investigation, not "x did it" with no regard to an intent on investigation or being open to others' investigation of it. Nothing was 'mitigated'. It's just an open question, nothing more.

Good example: Newton's theory of gravity had a lot of confidence backing it up, b/c when applied to the world it worked... until applied to the orbit of mercury, an outlier in this case. Many considered Newton's theory 'normal', up until then and even afterward. Mercury didn't 'happen against a greater confidence' - that would be absurd. It means there is clearly doubt in what one considers normal, or there should be such doubt unless you're ignorant or uneducated.

Then, Einstein came along: his General theory of Relativity, a model of gravity, accurately predicts Mercury's orbit. See how further investigation yields its rewards?

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

If you practice your religion in the context of a rare event, that alone doesn't make it less likely to be caused naturally.

...I do not think that practicing religion [in] light of rare events is the issue. The inference is not from prayer, but from the possibility that God can heal.

Oh, so 'practicing your religion in light of rare events' is not one of your "mitigating" factors? OK, I was mistaken.

Tell me, do you believe rare events happen naturally at all? If so, what's the difference when you can't tell?

Remember when far up above, I twice said 'explain way below'? Keep going:

Wowzers1 wrote:

ButterBattle raised a similar objection about mechanisms. If the causal agent is established, that alone is enough. You're asking for the fine details here.

No, I'm not:

Wowzers1 wrote:

Using my cat example: I have a cat. I have a jar of pennies on shelf. One day, I come home and the jar of pennies is smashed on the floor. I have reason to believe my cat did it because I know my cat can climb on furniture and knock items off of furniture. Asking me for the causal mechanism is like asking me what appendage and what time of day the cat did the deed.

Asking for the causal mechanism for how the jar fell, is different from asking for the causal mechanism for how the cat knocked the jar off the shelf. I don't need to know the anatomy of a cat, to know how the jar ended up on the floor.

The good thing about science: is answered questions lead to more questions. What you're confusing, either unintentionally or intentionally to obfuscate the thread, is the research based on prior research i.e. jumping the gun. Again, you fail to understand scientific concepts.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I'm not trying to say "god did it" as a catch all. I granted the possibility that there is a natural cause to explain it -- this means I could be wrong. I believe that the inference to God is the one that best fits the given facts.

ctressle wrote:

No one can recreate the circumstances of a particular lightning strike,...

Miracles are particular... that is they are unique events, like the Battle of Waterloo or the Challenger Disaster. Even if you could recreate similar circumstances, it does not have the same sort of controls good repeatable tests do.

You again fail on science. First off, I don't know if you're being disingenuous or just didn't think of it, but 'miraculous cures' happen, allegedly, all the time. People from all over the world, even in developed countries, claim cancer and other problems, were miraculously cured. There is enough variation and distribution throughout the world to investigate these events as an observational science.

Second of all, what makes complex, particular circumstances prone to investigation, is their relation to many repeatable phenomena. Your examples can be 'reverse engineered', if you will, due to how we understand how they were built up. Battle of Waterloo, through the time and social events occurring. The Challenger disaster, due to how we build shuttles. (Which is why your two examples are crappy analogies, but I digress).

Even if the entire event itself is not so similar to other situations due to its complexity, the 'pieces' making it up, usually are. They're prone to investigation. You don't need all the 'controls good repeatable tests [have]' to investigate historical/particular events.

Battles and explosions, in general, are prone to cursory investigation anyway, so why wouldn't miracles be in general?

Wowzers1 wrote:

Another reason why I don't think miracles fit in the realm of science is because they are not necessarily predictable... far from it really.

Never said they were. There's a lot we still can't predict, but can investigate scientifically.

Wowzers1 wrote:

I have no idea when God will act or if he will act. The only think I think you could surmise with any accuracy is that God rarely acts. Some extend this an say that God does not act from statistics, but when an anomaly does occur, one cannot simply ignore it. The abnormality of the event is why people recognize it as a miracle.

And it is normally the case that people have an abnormal misunderstanding of science, too. I doubt rare events are ever 'recognized' as miracles, but are supposed to be. Again, what's the difference, between a genuinely rare event and a miracle?

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

That doctors and medical researchers can't research a given phenomenon is not a form of evidence. If anything, it is a lack thereof.

That you have a rare event among a sample, is nothing more than one piece of data, and is only evidence of that event, not of anything you would like to hypothesize or infer from it.

Looking for something and not finding it mitigates the possibility that it can be found.

Yes, but again, not finding it doesn't mean it wasn't there. So what? Just going to shrug your shoulders and be like, 'thor did it!' when the lightning strikes?

Wowzers1 wrote:

I lose my keys all the time... I search each room of the house looking for them, and by eliminating each room, I narrow the possibilities of their location. But even so, this does not mean that I might have missed something. I very well could have. The same is true for looking for a cause and not finding one.

OK we are in agreement... just b/c you didn't find it, doesn't mean it wasn't there right? And that doesn't mean you must insert an arbitrary hypothesis, right? No? Oh ok:

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

That you prayed, and coincidentally your relative was no longer sick, is not evidence that prayer helped her but is one data point.

You do not have evidence to support the claim that your god healed anybody, you only have one data of circumstance.

At the very least, what do you think of the study in Gauche's link? How do their findings jive with your particular conviction of your circumstance? ...

I looked a Gauche's link, and responded that my inference is not from prayer, but from the possibility that God can heal.

I granted it was circumstantial evidence. Being that it is one case is not a problem, per se, if the evidence is weighty evidence. It is indeed weighty evidence for my grandmother and our family, but the further removed one gets, the less weighty it becomes. The resurrection of Jesus is but one miracle, but it's weightiness is of epic proportions. If Jesus did not rise from the dead, then Christianity is a fluke.

With all due respect, both events are only 'weighty' toward religion, to you and your family, most likely due to a lack of understanding of science and the necessity of peer reviewed, repeatable demonstration. But here is the punchline, the problem I see, that I've been putting off: you keep saying it's possible god heals. As if that means anything. This is, in some sense, why your syllogism is virtuously tautologous: it's b/c you haven't demonstrated either possibility, much less your premise. Yes, it's possible god heals: evidence? Yes, it's possible god was involved in your grandmother's healing: evidence? Yes, anything is possible: so what?

And as for your jesus claims: damn it all I didn't see this sooner.

Again, granting there was a man in Palestine about 2000 years ago who actually rose from the dead, so what? Let's say this jesus creature is a historically real person, verified; what evidence is there for this god of yours that heals? That it was god in this instance? For all we know, it was another outlier. Again I'm not arguing with you the historicity of jesus. It's just irrelevant to this god hypothesis, who allegedly heals. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, then much of Christianity may still be a fluke. Or any amount of it may.

You need evidence to connect the dots of all the myriad claims of christianity, much less, "jesus, who rose from the dead, was real "and "it's possible god can heal". Or in general, for that matter. Even if this jesus character was 'healed' in being raised from the dead, that still does not suggest a god who can heal.


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:Yea I'll give

ctressle wrote:

Yea I'll give this one more go myself:

Good stuff. I'll answer this in a couple of days. I'm going on a trip and won't have time. Your annoying neighborhood theist will return...

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


ex-minister
atheistHigh Level ModeratorSilver Member
ex-minister's picture
Posts: 1708
Joined: 2010-01-29
User is offlineOffline
Redemption wrote: What the

Redemption wrote:

 What the fact that I was an atheist in days is to show that I have been in the same situation as all of you I have just done it in reverse. I chose to listen to things being put on the table and decided it was enough to try. The all loving thing goes back to what I was saying about a mother and her child. She loves the child through everything, but if the child breaks something on purpose she has to punish him or he will go rampant. This is the same scenario with God. The mother never hates the child but has run out of options and has to punish him.

You were surrounded by many people putting Jesus stuff in your head and therefore would be suseptible to explaning events in your life to this religion. If you were in chanai, you might honor a Hindu god. I have read just such stories. The other part of this after the accident you started looking for things to attribute to your god. People have a sixth sense about others. We evolved that way. We pick up clues from others and can tell them stuff they are impressed by. I have had it done to me and also done it to others and not in a religious context. You have to believe first is just falling into self-fulfilling prophecy, extremely common for humans.

Religion Kills !!!

Numbers 31:17-18 - Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man.

http://jesus-needs-money.blogspot.com/


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
ex-minister wrote:Redemption

ex-minister wrote:

Redemption wrote:

 What the fact that I was an atheist in days is to show that I have been in the same situation as all of you I have just done it in reverse. I chose to listen to things being put on the table and decided it was enough to try. The all loving thing goes back to what I was saying about a mother and her child. She loves the child through everything, but if the child breaks something on purpose she has to punish him or he will go rampant. This is the same scenario with God. The mother never hates the child but has run out of options and has to punish him.

You were surrounded by many people putting Jesus stuff in your head and therefore would be suseptible to explaning events in your life to this religion. If you were in chanai, you might honor a Hindu god.

This is the scientific proof that your personal god is not real.

And never was.

They're all just myths.

All the different religions conclusively prove that it's powers of suggestion, and placebo. History confirms this, unequivocally.

Religion is taught as 'factual'.

It's not demonstrated that it is factual.

Which is why it relies on blind 'faith'.

 

Religion always boils down to an appeal to emotions.

Always.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
But Wows, if the proof of jesus depends

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

do you have for believing the assertion outlined above? It's in an old book and you accept it as an undeniable truth about reality? You can imagine how improbable it sounds. The master of the universe is your daddy. I really don't know what to say.

Who said anything about undeniable other than you? I didn't... And I base my beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus. The "proof" is in the person of Jesus.

 

on the literary historical method (aka, the bible) then my original point still stands? jesus is true, you clearly believe. You could direct me to non-biblical sources that reveal him?

Have a safe trip, btw. 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


TGBaker
atheist
TGBaker's picture
Posts: 1367
Joined: 2011-02-06
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Wowzers1 wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

do you have for believing the assertion outlined above? It's in an old book and you accept it as an undeniable truth about reality? You can imagine how improbable it sounds. The master of the universe is your daddy. I really don't know what to say.

Who said anything about undeniable other than you? I didn't... And I base my beliefs on the resurrection of Jesus. The "proof" is in the person of Jesus.

 

on the literary historical method (aka, the bible) then my original point still stands? jesus is true, you clearly believe. You could direct me to non-biblical sources that reveal him?

Have a safe trip, btw. 

With the historical method it is easier to disprove Jesus than to prove him.  Thr Jesus of Mark preaches practical things and is  quite human. In John he Jesus is very boastful , stating things like, "I and the Father are one", "I am the way the rruth and the life".  In John Jesus is a divine and was at the beginning  of creation. Matthew's  Jesus is authoritative and a greater prophet than Moses. Luke has Jesus seem like a Greek demi-god.

"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whip cream."--Frank Zappa

http://atheisticgod.blogspot.com/ Books on atheism


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:A tautology

ctressle wrote:

A tautology is 'always true', in that all its rows in its truth table are true. A statement is valid, if when the premises are true, then so is the conclusion (and false otherwise). Since both 'true ⇒ true' and 'false ⇒ false' has in all its rows 'true', then all tautologies are valid.

Circular arguments are not valid, even if they are tauta

ctressle wrote:

In other words, if your headache never stopped, would you ever say to someone, "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache."...?

Let me try one more time: supposing you never told us merely that your grandmother was healed, but instead out of the clear blue the first and only thing you said to us instead was, "It's possible God healed my grandmother", or "It's possible Advil stopped my headache". Even if I don't believe in a god, much less one that heals, am I supposed to take from what you said, that your grandmother didn't heal, and your headache didn't stop? If you knew your grammar, you'd know you don't distribute the quantifier 'possible' across your sentence like that. You ARE saying those things happened.

I cannot infer a general possibility from a necessary particular. "My grandmother was healed" does not imply "it is possible that God heals". The facts are that my headache stopped and that my grandmother was healed. The possibility of whatever general belief is  being stated is formulated independently, prior to the the particular case of my headache and my grandmother's healing. "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache" is not the same as "Advil stopped my headache". "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache." is stated as a conclusion from the two aforementioned premises after the events take place. Of course you wouldn't say it it, but reasoning is from the general belief to a particular. To me, this is really kind of a moot point, because it seems to be trivializing the the inference. Even if the only thing ever stated was the conclusion, the conclusion follows the pattern of a categorical syllogism.

ctressle wrote:

Secondly, I realize you cannot generalize a particular, no. But we are talking about a hypothetical sentient being with capabilities, right? Then if there is a being who is capable of healing one, then that being should in general be capable of healing many, yes?

But I have 2 other problems: you're using the word possible. Which is why the following seems to work:

If it's possible that god healed one person, it's possible god heals, in general. Which leads me to my other problem, way below:

A particular is still not enough to make the general statement... You'd need more than that to formulate a more general belief with any kind of confidence.

ctressle wrote:

"it is possible that x" and "y" therefore "it is possible that x contains/subsumes/includes the definite y". Which if you read carefully, is tautologous.

Again, I apologize for my lack of research. I mean, I believe you when you say that you find options T (teapot) and U (unicorn) too unlikely to posit, hell much less F (flying sp. monster), but G (god) and N (nature) as worthy considerations. I just didn't realize you had eliminated options A, B, C, D, ..., A2, A3, ... etc.... already, as you say you 'precluded' these others, right?

How/why did you preclude other possibilities? On what grounds? (Btw, teapot and unicorns are already "mitigated", no need to bring those up again).

The causal connection was established by praying to the Christian God. The inference from this God. If there is another god healing on the Christian God's behalf, then it creates a Gettier Problem. And unless you want to propose that there is some other causal agent involved, then by all means propose it as a genuine option.

ctressle wrote:

I'm having trouble reading this, are you saying that b/c modern medicine is usually so useful and 'awesome' that if there is one instance it hasn't worked or given our understanding of modern medicine we weren't able to see a natural cause, then it must most likely be something else i.e. god? Disregarding the false dichotomy, all this means is that our knowledge thus far i.e. modern medicine of nature wasn't able to work in this instance. Nothing more.

False dichotomy? There's the natural option, and there is the supernatural option... Do you have another? If one wanted to suppose that God worked through natural means, then I don't think there would be any reason to infer God then because the cause is natural.

Modern medicine has more knowledge as to what natural causes there are. Given this, it makes the inference to God less likely because the probability for finding a natural cause is higher. That's all.

ctressle wrote:

If by 'found' you mean, the opportunity to have found a natural cause had been passed up b/c the cancer/disease or whatever has already passed, in this one instance, then yes you are correct, it's unlikely to be found for this one instance.

That doesn't mean the cause was less likely to be natural, and if other rare events like that are found to have been caused naturally in the future, then parsimoniously natural cause was the most likely in this instance.

But "this one instance" is the matter at hand. I'm not trying to make a general belief, but a particular belief about a particular event. If there is a natural cause is found in other instances in the future, then one would need to search for patience of a previously similar states to look for the same natural cause. In that case, I'd be more than willing to recant that it was possible that God healed her.

ctressle wrote:

Until then, you either have 'I don't know' or the only possibility that has worked best thus far, is a natural cause. Remember, track record.

"I don't know" does not fit the facts though. It requires a revision or reinterpretation of the the facts to make the "I don't know" compatible. I think any such attempts are likely to result in circumstantial ad hominem fallacies though.

ctressle wrote:

No, it means you have a confident model that explains a large sample of circumstances, but not the outlier circumstance (which is why, in science, models are never 'absolutely true' anyway - there's always a possibility it's wrong, even slightly, for some reason; why we can only be confident). The outlier should then be prone to further investigation, not "x did it" with no regard to an intent on investigation or being open to others' investigation of it. Nothing was 'mitigated'. It's just an open question, nothing more.

Good example: Newton's theory of gravity had a lot of confidence backing it up, b/c when applied to the world it worked... until applied to the orbit of mercury, an outlier in this case. Many considered Newton's theory 'normal', up until then and even afterward. Mercury didn't 'happen against a greater confidence' - that would be absurd. It means there is clearly doubt in what one considers normal, or there should be such doubt unless you're ignorant or uneducated.

Then, Einstein came along: his General theory of Relativity, a model of gravity, accurately predicts Mercury's orbit. See how further investigation yields its rewards?

Open questions are fine when one is doing scientific investigation using reproducible tests and creating predictable models. Outliers (the precession of Mercury, etc) in these tests are either affirmed as error or something of an anomaly that requires further investigation. I'm willing to grant the possibility of a natural cause and leaving the question open. But "I don't know" is not a valid inference given the rest of the facts though.

ctressle wrote:

Oh, so 'practicing your religion in light of rare events' is not one of your "mitigating" factors? OK, I was mistaken.

Tell me, do you believe rare events happen naturally at all? If so, what's the difference when you can't tell?

Rare events do happen naturally. But I'm not inferring they are miracles either.

ctressle wrote:

Asking for the causal mechanism for how the jar fell, is different from asking for the causal mechanism for how the cat knocked the jar off the shelf. I don't need to know the anatomy of a cat, to know how the jar ended up on the floor.

The good thing about science: is answered questions lead to more questions. What you're confusing, either unintentionally or intentionally to obfuscate the thread, is the research based on prior research i.e. jumping the gun. Again, you fail to understand scientific concepts.

But that's precisely what was being said...that is, without a plausible mechanism, the explanation is not valid even if the inference to the cause is. I think what's happening is you and others are attempting to use science were science does not tread, which is an abuse of science.

ctressle wrote:

You again fail on science. First off, I don't know if you're being disingenuous or just didn't think of it, but 'miraculous cures' happen, allegedly, all the time. People from all over the world, even in developed countries, claim cancer and other problems, were miraculously cured. There is enough variation and distribution throughout the world to investigate these events as an observational science.

I'd agree, there's a lot of alleging going around. I don't know that I'd would consider miracles, even alleged miracles, to be observational science as there does not seem to be anything scientific about miracles. At the end of the day, what kind of predictions could be made about such things? What kind of testable models could be constructed? I don't know of any such things.... The most research that has been done has been on the effects of prayer on healing, but even this I don't think is that relevant to miracles.

But my concern is not with other alleged miracles, but the one at hand, and I'm staying open to the possibility of a natural explanation. I do not know the circumstances of other miracles, and as I said earlier, the further one is removed from it, the less weighty it becomes to that person. A personal healing such as the one with my grandmother is very compelling to those closest to her, but to ones that don't believe in God or don't even know her, it probably carries no weight at all.

ctressle wrote:

Second of all, what makes complex, particular circumstances prone to investigation, is their relation to many repeatable phenomena. Your examples can be 'reverse engineered', if you will, due to how we understand how they were built up. Battle of Waterloo, through the time and social events occurring. The Challenger disaster, due to how we build shuttles. (Which is why your two examples are crappy analogies, but I digress).

Even if the entire event itself is not so similar to other situations due to its complexity, the 'pieces' making it up, usually are. They're prone to investigation. You don't need all the 'controls good repeatable tests [have]' to investigate historical/particular events.

Battles and explosions, in general, are prone to cursory investigation anyway, so why wouldn't miracles be in general?

"Reverse engineering" is what I'm talking about: ascertaining the facts of the matter and making to best inference from the facts. But given this, testable models about explosions might explain how it blew up, but they themselves are not the explosion. Ascertaining the events leading up to a battle would be no different. Miracles better fit this model in that one looks for the pieces and infers the best explanation from them.

ctressle wrote:

Never said they were. There's a lot we still can't predict, but can investigate scientifically.

Investigating things scientifically is to ascertain facts to support a hypothesis and the like. I think it is the difference between finding the remains of a dinosaur to support the general theory of evolution verses the particulars of that dinosaurs life. History would be the latter, while science would be the former.

ctressle wrote:

And it is normally the case that people have an abnormal misunderstanding of science, too. I doubt rare events are ever 'recognized' as miracles, but are supposed to be. Again, what's the difference, between a genuinely rare event and a miracle?

The difference is the circumstances surrounding it. In the case of my grandmother, there was people praying for her healing because they believed God could heal, then she was healed. A rare event very well could be a miracle, but it is likely that it would go unrecognized as one.

ctressle wrote:

That doctors and medical researchers can't research a given phenomenon is not a form of evidence. If anything, it is a lack thereof.

That you have a rare event among a sample, is nothing more than one piece of data, and is only evidence of that event, not of anything you would like to hypothesize or infer from it.

But you're trying to turn into some thing of science, which is where I think you are erring...

ctressle wrote:

Yes, but again, not finding it doesn't mean it wasn't there. So what? Just going to shrug your shoulders and be like, 'thor did it!' when the lightning strikes?

I grant that... I'm open to the possibility there was a natural explanation. I've said that numerous times...

I have reasons to believe that Thor didn't do it... I understand how lightning works and others.

ctressle wrote:

OK we are in agreement... just b/c you didn't find it, doesn't mean it wasn't there right? And that doesn't mean you must insert an arbitrary hypothesis, right? No? Oh ok:

I think we agree. I'm not trying to insert an arbitrary hypothesis. I'm trying to ascertain the best explanation for the facts.

ctressle wrote:

With all due respect, both events are only 'weighty' toward religion, to you and your family, most likely due to a lack of understanding of science and the necessity of peer reviewed, repeatable demonstration. But here is the punchline, the problem I see, that I've been putting off: you keep saying it's possible god heals. As if that means anything. This is, in some sense, why your syllogism is virtuously tautologous: it's b/c you haven't demonstrated either possibility, much less your premise. Yes, it's possible god heals: evidence? Yes, it's possible god was involved in your grandmother's healing: evidence? Yes, anything is possible: so what?

I was mitigating the probability that it was natural. I think the best inference in that case is to God given the facts. As I said, the weightiness of such things is only to those closest to. My problem with statements like "most likely due to a lack of understanding of science and the necessity of peer reviewed, repeatable demonstration." is that such things are circumstantial ad hominems and what I think to be an abuse of science rather than a use of science.

ctressle wrote:

Again, granting there was a man in Palestine about 2000 years ago who actually rose from the dead, so what? Let's say this jesus creature is a historically real person, verified; what evidence is there for this god of yours that heals? That it was god in this instance? For all we know, it was another outlier. Again I'm not arguing with you the historicity of jesus. It's just irrelevant to this god hypothesis, who allegedly heals. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, then much of Christianity may still be a fluke. Or any amount of it may.

You need evidence to connect the dots of all the myriad claims of christianity, much less, "jesus, who rose from the dead, was real "and "it's possible god can heal". Or in general, for that matter. Even if this jesus character was 'healed' in being raised from the dead, that still does not suggest a god who can heal.

Among many other things, I don't find the Christian claims to be a "myriad". I think they are enumerable, but not something that is reducible to sound bytes. But you're not going to find such things in scientific journals. You'll have to read historical research on Jesus' resurrection -- and there is plenty of it too.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist wrote:on

Atheistextremist wrote:

on the literary historical method (aka, the bible) then my original point still stands? jesus is true, you clearly believe. You could direct me to non-biblical sources that reveal him?

Have a safe trip, btw. 

Had a good trip...

This may sound silly, but how about the Bible as non-biblical? I do not think the authors of the New Testament thought they were writing what would one day would become the Bible when they were writing it. Arguably, that which was included as Scripture because it was considered by the early church to be trustworthy material.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal


ctressle
Posts: 122
Joined: 2007-08-28
User is offlineOffline
More

Glad you had a good, safe trip.

Not that I'll eventually have any option in the coming days anyway as I'll no longer have access to internet, but I can't see myself posting too many more replies unless substantial progress is made. I just figured it was possible you would get my argument based on truth tables, but I guess I shouldn't take possibilities too seriously.

Wowzers1 wrote:

Circular arguments are not valid, even if they are tauta[logous.]

I believe, that what you're saying is invalid, is not what you probably think is invalid. When you say circular arguments are invalid, you're actually referring to something else - the use of a circular argument - as invalid. I'll explain:

Would you call 'P' = "A ⇒ A" a circular argument?

How about, 'Q' = "(A ⇒ A) ⇒ A"?

Before proceeding, may I suggest you fill out a truth table on paper to both of these well formed formulas (wff).

In fact, don't even skim my reply yet, just do the tables before moving on.

Now, don't look at the answer.

The answer will be posted below.

I think you should fill their truth tables out, before seeing the answer.

Here is the answer:

P should be filled with 1's (or T's, or whatever symbol you use for truth)

Q should be T where A is, and F otherwise.

P is: a tautology, valid, a circular argument. P is just an argument, a statement, perhaps in an attempt to argue something.

Q is: not a tautology, invalid, circular reasoning. As an attempt to convince others that A is true, Q is an invalid argument. But as far as wff's go, P is certainly a valid statement. It's valid, b/c the conclusion is not false when the premise is. Because they are the same.

Circular reasoning is fallacious, b/c it's use in an essay is technically of the form, Q.

P, all by itself however, is ok, just useless.

In case you don't like symbolic logic: circular reasoning, such as Q, is where the implication of a statement from itself, implies itself; which is fallacious and invalid.

A circular argument, such as P, is where a statement merely implies itself, which is actually valid. It's just a reiteration, bland in my example but usually and confusingly not as such in others' failed arguments, which on its own doesn't 'hurt' anything.

And btw, just so we're clear, I'm not saying what you said was invalid. I know you're not saying anything like Q, you're not using your whole argument to express anything further.

Get it now?

And I know you'll disagree with me that your statement was circular, but possibly more on that some other time.

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

In other words, if your headache never stopped, would you ever say to someone, "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache."...?

...

I cannot infer a general possibility from a necessary particular.

I never did either. Why was this brought up?

Wowzers1 wrote:

"My grandmother was healed" does not imply "it is possible that God heals".

No one ever said that, no one ever said anything about one premise implying the other. Why was this brought up?

Wowzers1 wrote:

The facts are ... "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache" is not the same as "Advil stopped my headache".

No one said they were the same. Why was this brought up?

Wowzers1 wrote:

"It's possible that ... Of course you wouldn't say it it, but reasoning is from the general belief to a particular.

Particular examples of a general statement, are implied i.e. reasoned, by the general statement. There I said it, and I never disagreed with this to begin with.

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

In other words, if your headache never stopped, would you ever say to someone, "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache."...?

...

I cannot infer ...To me, this is really kind of a moot point, because it seems to be trivializing the the inference. Even if the only thing ever stated was the conclusion, the conclusion follows the pattern of a categorical syllogism.

In regards to what you're specifically responding to above:

Hey everyone (who's still reading any of this, if you are kudos then as per the above complaints from others):

I want to conduct a little test here at the forum, one that surveys others' ability to translate a given sentence into a more concrete, explicit, drawn out form. Hey maybe I don't understand grammar myself, and I'll retract the statement with which I first engaged with you, Wowzers1!

1) It's possible the ice caused me to fall.

   A) It's definitely the case I fell, and it's possible ice could have been the cause.

   B) It's possible I fell, and it's possible ice could have been the cause.

2) It's possible the faucet dripping was the noise I heard last night.

   A) It's definitely the case I heard a noise, and it's possible water dripping was the originator.

   B) It's possible I heard a noise, and it's possible water dripping could have been the originator.

3) It's possible the storm shut the computer and lights down.

   A) The electricity definitely went out, and it's possible the storm caused it to happen.

   B) It's possible the electricity went out, and it's possible the storm could have caused it to happen.

Here are my answers:

1) A

2) A

3) A

Guys, what are yours?

Wowzers1 wrote:

ctressle wrote:

Secondly, I realize you cannot generalize a particular, no. But we are talking about a hypothetical sentient being with capabilities, right? Then if there is a being who is capable of healing one, then that being should in general be capable of healing many, yes?

But I have 2 other problems: you're using the word possible. Which is why the following seems to work:

If it's possible that god healed one person, it's possible god heals, in general. Which leads me to my other problem, way below:

A particular is still not enough to make the general statement...

OK, I understand it may look to you like I made such a claim, but I didn't quite say such:

Wowzers1 wrote:

You'd need more than that to formulate a more general belief with any kind of confidence.

And what I'm telling you, is that you did bring more to formulate. You're the one throwing around possibilities like they mean anything. Saying something is possible, is meaningless as something substantial. It might be an indicator for a hypothesis, but nothing evident. This is pretty much why, a possibly true generality is inferred from a possibly true particular. B/c it's all possible.

What I just said, is not actually equivalent to, in general, 'generalities being implied by particulars'. And neither is equivalent to, 'possible generalities being implied by necessary particulars'. I'm saying these 3 statements are not equivalent.

Get it now?


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3716
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
1) A 2) A 3) AIt looks like

1) A

2) A

3) A

It looks like you're a lot more knowledgeable regarding philosophy and logic than I am. But, regardless of how knowledgeable you are, the result of your discussion will be the same as mine. Lol.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Wowzers1
Theist
Wowzers1's picture
Posts: 312
Joined: 2011-04-03
User is offlineOffline
ctressle wrote:I believe,

ctressle wrote:

I believe, that what you're saying is invalid, is not what you probably think is invalid. When you say circular arguments are invalid, you're actually referring to something else - the use of a circular argument - as invalid. I'll explain:

Would you call 'P' = "A ⇒ A" a circular argument?

How about, 'Q' = "(A ⇒ A) ⇒ A"?

 

I think A -> A would be circular if one was arguing using something like this... i.e. If God Exists, then God Exists. This is a tautology and the conclusion is assuming the original position.

ctressle wrote:

Before proceeding, may I suggest you fill out a truth table on paper to both of these well formed formulas (wff). The formulation I'm using looks like this:

Here's the formulation in symbolic notation.

1) <>(G -> H)

2) (H| F ∈ H)

3) <>(G -> F)

 

<> is "possibly" or "it is possible"

H is set of healings

F is a particular healing, and in this case, my grandmother's

G is God.

I did the truth table... And most of the cases were trivial for my purposes....

 

ctressle wrote:

In fact, don't even skim my reply yet, just do the tables before moving on.

Now, don't look at the answer.

The answer will be posted below.

I think you should fill their truth tables out, before seeing the answer.

Here is the answer:

P should be filled with 1's (or T's, or whatever symbol you use for truth)

Q should be T where A is, and F otherwise.

P is: a tautology, valid, a circular argument. P is just an argument, a statement, perhaps in an attempt to argue something.

Q is: not a tautology, invalid, circular reasoning. As an attempt to convince others that A is true, Q is an invalid argument. But as far as wff's go, P is certainly a valid statement. It's valid, b/c the conclusion is not false when the premise is. Because they are the same.

Circular reasoning is fallacious, b/c it's use in an essay is technically of the form, Q.

P, all by itself however, is ok, just useless.

In case you don't like symbolic logic: circular reasoning, such as Q, is where the implication of a statement from itself, implies itself; which is fallacious and invalid.

A circular argument, such as P, is where a statement merely implies itself, which is actually valid. It's just a reiteration, bland in my example but usually and confusingly not as such in others' failed arguments, which on its own doesn't 'hurt' anything.

And btw, just so we're clear, I'm not saying what you said was invalid. I know you're not saying anything like Q, you're not using your whole argument to express anything further.

Get it now?

And I know you'll disagree with me that your statement was circular, but possibly more on that some other time.

I think I'm being very consistent in my application of the argument.... I think you're trying to apply terms in ways they cannot be applied....

ctressle wrote:

In other words, if your headache never stopped, would you ever say to someone, "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache."...?

It seems to me your concern is with semantics, not the logic. I'm not making a semantic case here -- I'm showing the logic used to come to the conclusion in which I did. No, I wouldn't "It's possible that Advil stopped my headache." If I never had a headache, but nor would I if I never had a belief in the first place that it was possible that Advil caused headaches to go away. I've made it abundantly clear that I'm using a categorical syllogism, so the point you a making, I think, is either trivial or you're trying to say I'm doing something I'm not.

ctressle wrote:

1) It's possible the ice caused me to fall.

   A) It's definitely the case I fell, and it's possible ice could have been the cause.

   B) It's possible I fell, and it's possible ice could have been the cause.

2) It's possible the faucet dripping was the noise I heard last night.

   A) It's definitely the case I heard a noise, and it's possible water dripping was the originator.

   B) It's possible I heard a noise, and it's possible water dripping could have been the originator.

3) It's possible the storm shut the computer and lights down.

   A) The electricity definitely went out, and it's possible the storm caused it to happen.

   B) It's possible the electricity went out, and it's possible the storm could have caused it to happen.

The formulation is deductive from a general belief to a conclusion about a particular.

1) It's possible that people slip on ice.

2) I slipped

3) It is possible I slipped on ice.

or

1) It is possible that leaky faucets make dripping noises

2) Last night, I heard a dripping noise

3) It is possible that I heard a leaky faucet.

or

1) It's possible that storms shut the computer and lights down.

2)  My computer and lights were down

3) It is possible a storm shut down the lights and computer

ctressle wrote:

Secondly, I realize you cannot generalize a particular, no. But we are talking about a hypothetical sentient being with capabilities, right? Then if there is a being who is capable of healing one, then that being should in general be capable of healing many, yes?

But I have 2 other problems: you're using the word possible. Which is why the following seems to work:

If it's possible that god healed one person, it's possible god heals, in general. Which leads me to my other problem, way below:

No... I'm not the sort to think that because God heals one that he can heal many... That's bad induction. One would need more than one instance to make a general conclusion on the matter.

ctressle wrote:

And what I'm telling you, is that you did bring more to formulate. You're the one throwing around possibilities like they mean anything. Saying something is possible, is meaningless as something substantial. It might be an indicator for a hypothesis, but nothing evident. This is pretty much why, a possibly true generality is inferred from a possibly true particular. B/c it's all possible.

What I just said, is not actually equivalent to, in general, 'generalities being implied by particulars'. And neither is equivalent to, 'possible generalities being implied by necessary particulars'. I'm saying these 3 statements are not equivalent.

The substantiation comes from the facts... The confidence of possibilities is determined by their probabilities. That is, one is more confident something is the case of the probability for that case is high. Necessary entities have a probability of 1, possible entities have a probability 0 < x <= 1. Impossibilities have a probability of 0 -- this is the reason I use "possible" because I'm not certain that the probability of such things is 0 or 1. If one were to say that the probability of G -> H is 0 then my argument is void.

It is incomprehensible that God should exist, and it is incomprehensible that he should not exist. -Blaise Pascal