+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 143
Jokes/Interweb Things Thread, Sagan brilliance in Fun Stuff; @ Localzuk : You didn't take those examples far enough. You can gather statistical information but how does that relate ...
  1. #46
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    @ Localzuk :
    You didn't take those examples far enough. You can gather statistical information but how does that relate to the facts? Your conclusions could be completely wrong for a miriad of reasons. Lots of things are untestable using the scientific method, and need different reasoning to reach conclusions.

  2. #47
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Your argument still seems to hinge around 'it's true because it doesn't require evidence - and in fact rejects evidence as being possible'.
    My argument in defence of the dismissal of something on the grounds of inapplicable method.

    if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    There is an invisible space teapot in orbit between us and the sun. There is no way to detect it. This is essentially the same as your argument. The difference is that if I believe in the invisible space teapot it will have no impact, and no authority over my life - I am still free willed and not bound by a higher authority.
    You conveniently fail to recognise the rationalisation for faith, ergo you raise to equal importance a ludicrous substitute. The only reason to consider faith is because of the prior rationalisation.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Why would you willingly give up your rational judgment of a statement? Doing so is not healthy in any situation.
    You misunderstood. It's you who suspends your capacity to consider a problem by limiting your considerations to empirical evidence. This is clearly demonstrable.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    No, you can't use both methods, as mine and yours are mutually exclusive. My method relies on evidence, analysis and preferably proof (where available, although evidence and judgment are fine in the short term for less important matters). Your method relies on faith. If you claim that you can use my method, which demands evidence, then you are making a false claim as you have already demonstrated your willingness to believe in something with no evidence.
    I'm sorry I said that wrong. I meant I can use either method independently, where you limit yourself to a single method for all problems (which is a lie, because you're simply denying the fact that you do it).

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    Whether you were or not is irrelevant. You stated that your religion is more developed, more coherent. You even suggest it is more logically consistent than a rational worldview, despite it's fundamental basis requiring an absence of proof.
    And I also qualified that every time I said it by saying you yourself have to believe your own ideas to hold them. You are being disingenuous in your efforts to dismiss my opinion.

    Do you believe what you think is the most correct summation of your understanding of the world around you to the best of your abilities? Or do you believe what someone else tells you without thinking about it? If the answer is the former, then you're exactly as guilty as me of holding an opinion. It seems you'll need to chastise yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    And here you are again, claiming that your religion is 'better'. The statement didn't really need to be refuted as it was somewhat laughable to begin with.
    So my belief is laughable? Yet you fail to make a point stand as to how and why. Is it me that is dismissing other peoples opinions or you??

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    No. You've demonstrated quite effectively that you have confused beliefs in conflicting theories. You also do not understand rationalism, believe your worldview to be better than anyone else's, and demand that there be no proof for your view. I do not have a confused view of the components involved I'm afraid. I am going in circles, simply because your argument purely consists of the same statements repeated over and over, ignoring any suggestions that you should consider evidence or a rational, scientific approach.
    Your opinion is biographical and doesn't address my world view, which you fail to successfully challenge. You also fail to defend against the fallacies you commit in dismissing my world view. I repeat my statements purely because you fail to acknowledge them by reconstructing them inconsistently.

    Quote Originally Posted by jamesb View Post
    There really is no point arguing with you. You're a believer. What you believe in is pretty much irrelevant, as I have had similar conversations with people of many religions. So far you have said nothing new or interesting, and I very much doubt you're going to having seen your arguments to date.
    If you managed to challenged my refutation then we'd have a discussion. As you fail to do so, then I have nothing to work with, and your proposition is lost.

    Thankyou for your participation.

  3. #48

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    @ Localzuk :
    You didn't take those examples far enough. You can gather statistical information but how does that relate to the facts? Your conclusions could be completely wrong for a miriad of reasons. Lots of things are untestable using the scientific method, and need different reasoning to reach conclusions.
    But that's the thing - science isn't just an ending for something - its an ongoing process. Who says any question must have an answer now? We never used to be able to give an answer to questions such as 'what is the surface of the moon made from?' - we didn't have the technologies to answer them. What's to say that in 100, 200, or even 1000 years all those questions would have easy answers via technological improvements?

    Your response seems to indicate that things that we can't give a clean cut answer to, right here and right now, are unanswerable unless we start including theological arguments. My answer to that is simply 'wait'.

    Also, you have not given any responses to the 'invisible floating teapot' argument - no matter how silly it sounds, it is a legitimate argument.

  4. #49

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Surburbia
    Posts
    2,178
    Thank Post
    74
    Thanked 307 Times in 243 Posts
    Rep Power
    115
    Way I see it with a bit of perspective science often seems indistinguishable from religion: there are large doses of faith in both .. and entertainingly one of the bits that still bugs me in that regard, Big bang theory (so who left that [primeval atom|singularity|whatever] lying around in the first place then?), was first proposed by a Catholic priest.

  5. #50

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,160
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 318 Times in 260 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    My argument in defence of the dismissal of something on the grounds of inapplicable method.
    But you present no alternative method other than unthinking faith. Thereby dismissing everything else, whether or not any evidence is provided alongside.

    if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles.
    As you've said, your deity is dependent purely on faith and the mere fact that you believe is enough for you - regardless of any evidence either way. You then suggest that my desire for evidence somehow makes me short-sighted and gullible.

    You conveniently fail to recognise the rationalisation for faith, ergo you raise to equal importance a ludicrous substitute. The only reason to consider faith is because of the prior rationalisation.
    You have presented no rationalisation for faith whatsoever, simply repeated that you believe, therefore it's true. Not much of a rationalisation.

    You misunderstood. It's you who suspends your capacity to consider a problem by limiting your considerations to empirical evidence. This is clearly demonstrable.
    So because I consider any problem from the basis of evidence, I'm suspending my capacity to consider it? Did you think that through?

    I'm sorry I said that wrong. I meant I can use either method independently, where you limit yourself to a single method for all problems (which is a lie, because you're simply denying the fact that you do it).
    Which doesn't prevent the methods from being mutually exclusive. One relies on evidence, the other relies on a lack of evidence, claiming that you can use both independently is foolish - either one is valid, or the other is. Trying to claim you can consider both of them to be valid means that you fail to understand the implications of either.

    And I also qualified that every time I said it by saying you yourself have to believe your own ideas to hold them. You are being disingenuous in your efforts to dismiss my opinion.
    Granted - I will admit that I believe the evidence of my own eyes and experiences. I also will look at the available evidence on either side of a question and make my own decision. If there is no evidence for one argument of two, then I will discount it in favour of the side which has evidence backing it.

    Do you believe what you think is the most correct summation of your understanding of the world around you to the best of your abilities? Or do you believe what someone else tells you without thinking about it? If the answer is the former, then you're exactly as guilty as me of holding an opinion. It seems you'll need to chastise yourself.
    I follow the best summation of my experience of the world around me - and will revise that according to any new evidence which comes to light. I will not believe something simply because I am told it, which is one of the fundamentals of organised religion.

    So my belief is laughable? Yet you fail to make a point stand as to how and why. Is it me that is dismissing other peoples opinions or you??
    No. Your claims that your belief is somehow more valid, more developed or in any way better than any other belief is laughable. Will you please try and actually read what I'm saying?

    Your opinion is biographical and doesn't address my world view, which you fail to successfully challenge. You also fail to defend against the fallacies you commit in dismissing my world view. I repeat my statements purely because you fail to acknowledge them by reconstructing them inconsistently.
    There is no need to challenge your world view, as self-admittedly you have no evidence whatsoever for them, and fundamentally cannot present or find evidence for your basic view.

    f you managed to challenged my refutation then we'd have a discussion. As you fail to do so, then I have nothing to work with, and your proposition is lost.
    All I've seen so far is you claiming that evidence is irrelevant, because you believe otherwise. Not much of a refutation there. A better one might be to present some sort of evidence, rather than just stating that your view is more valid because you have no evidence. Oh, wait, your view relies on a lack of evidence. Never mind then.

  6. #51

    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Surburbia
    Posts
    2,178
    Thank Post
    74
    Thanked 307 Times in 243 Posts
    Rep Power
    115
    Even more entertaining, well relatively, is that Sagan bloke mentioned in the thread subject (remember that?) is apparently famously known for "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

  7. #52

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by PiqueABoo View Post
    Even more entertaining, well relatively, is that Sagan bloke mentioned in the thread subject (remember that?) is apparently famously known for "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
    Yup. 'God of the gaps'. Science puts 'we don't know yet' in a gap, religion puts God.

    In its most basic level my question to all religious people is 'why should I believe in a diety?'

  8. #53
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    @ localzuk :
    No you misunderstand completely. It would be impossible in very many situations for you to gather adequate information to draw an accurate conclusion. Of course science is an ongoing process, as is religious interpretation.

  9. #54
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    @ jamesb :
    You seem to be putting your fingers in your ears and singing loudly.

    Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 7, 9 & 10 : Never have I said that I believe via faith without evidence. Quite the opposite. Don't let that worry you though. I understand your need to deny facts.

    Point 3 : "You have presented no rationalisation for faith whatsoever, simply repeated that you believe, therefore it's true. Not much of a rationalisation."
    I will repeat for the 3rd time in this thread what Christian Faith is :

    Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

    Now please don't repeat your comment again ignoring this statement.

    Point 8 : "No. Your claims that your belief is somehow more valid, more developed or in any way better than any other belief is laughable. Will you please try and actually read what I'm saying?"

    1. I said that Christianity is more developed and I gave my reasoning for that.
    2. My personal world view is what I rationalise to be true for me, just as your world view is what you rationalise to be true for you. What is laughable is your arrogance in suggesting that only you can be rational. Please get down off your high horse. It's a fantasy too.

  10. #55

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,160
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 318 Times in 260 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    @ jamesb :
    You seem to be putting your fingers in your ears and singing loudly.

    Points 1, 2, 4, 5, 6 7, 9 & 10 : Never have I said that I believe via faith without evidence. Quite the opposite. Don't let that worry you though. I understand your need to deny facts.
    Then why do you not present your evidence? Leave the faith out of it for now, and just give me your evidence for not only a deity, but Christianity as the single correct religion.

    Point 3 : "You have presented no rationalisation for faith whatsoever, simply repeated that you believe, therefore it's true. Not much of a rationalisation."
    I will repeat for the 3rd time in this thread what Christian Faith is :

    Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.
    Again, what information? Where is the evidence that Christ died for your sins?

    Now please don't repeat your comment again ignoring this statement.
    Please don't present your argument again without including your evidence.

    Point 8 : "No. Your claims that your belief is somehow more valid, more developed or in any way better than any other belief is laughable. Will you please try and actually read what I'm saying?"

    1. I said that Christianity is more developed and I gave my reasoning for that.
    2. My personal world view is what I rationalise to be true for me, just as your world view is what you rationalise to be true for you. What is laughable is your arrogance in suggesting that only you can be rational. Please get down off your high horse. It's a fantasy too.
    Your reasoning for Christianity being more developed is fairly weak. There are many, many religions out there which are just as internally coherent as Christianity. Belief in the FSM is logically consistent, if you accept to start with the existence of the deity concerned. There is nothing unique or special about Christianity over any other religion. And you accuse me of arrogance.
    Last edited by jamesb; 4th August 2010 at 08:53 AM.

  11. #56

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    @ localzuk :
    No you misunderstand completely. It would be impossible in very many situations for you to gather adequate information to draw an accurate conclusion. Of course science is an ongoing process, as is religious interpretation.
    No, I understand completely what you're trying to say - but I disagree with it. You state that there are situations where it would be impossible to draw a conclusion due to lack of evidence, and so far, to me, have not shown me such a situation.

    Sure, you've given me some difficult situations to find answers to, and some which we woudln't be able to using current technology but that's the thing - the answer to those situations to a scientist is simply 'we don't know' rather than having to off and start philosophising or including theology.

    The problem I am seeing with this discussion (and not just on this forum) seems to stem from the fact that religious people don't seem to accept that simple answer. Instead, they include God to fill in the gaps.

  12. #57
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    @ jamesb :
    1. You ignore the fallacy in your reasoning that I point out. There's no point in continuing if you're not going to address that point.

    "if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles."

    2. I said I presented my reasoning as to why I thought Christianity was more developed. It wasn't an empty assertion and therefore was not arrogant. You say it's weak, but only because you say so.

  13. #58
    mark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Posts
    3,958
    Thank Post
    248
    Thanked 49 Times in 45 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    No, I understand completely what you're trying to say - but I disagree with it. You state that there are situations where it would be impossible to draw a conclusion due to lack of evidence, and so far, to me, have not shown me such a situation.
    I showed you an article full of examples that were applicable. Scientists use the terms empirical evidence and non empirical evidence. Some science is not evidential. String theory may be wrong... it's a conclusion based on assumptions. In metaphysics it's all assumptions. In both a process of logic is involved in drawing conclusions. where God is involved, I would suggest that there never will be empirical evidence, as that would contradict the logical model.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Sure, you've given me some difficult situations to find answers to, and some which we woudln't be able to using current technology but that's the thing - the answer to those situations to a scientist is simply 'we don't know' rather than having to off and start philosophising or including theology.
    This is the get out for science philosophy. Everything must be potentially empirically provable, where that is an illogical conclusion given the above. Science philosophy is a lot weaker than Christianity in coherence.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    The problem I am seeing with this discussion (and not just on this forum) seems to stem from the fact that religious people don't seem to accept that simple answer. Instead, they include God to fill in the gaps.
    Wrong for me. I accept completely everything in science as you do. What I don't accept is that science applies to religion like you do. Religion is a different subject and isn't applicable as demonstrated by simple logical proof as above. Your question begging is fallacial.

  14. #59

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Surrey
    Posts
    2,160
    Thank Post
    98
    Thanked 318 Times in 260 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4
    Rep Power
    111
    Quote Originally Posted by mark View Post
    @ jamesb :
    1. You ignore the fallacy in your reasoning that I point out. There's no point in continuing if you're not going to address that point.

    "if you ask for scientific evidence for God according to the principles of the scientific method, you are commiting the fallacy of question-begging, for God is not within the scope of investigation of the scientific method, according to it's own principles."
    I still don't see why religion should be an exception. A scientific method is a way of looking at and understanding the world. Not simply parts of it, but the whole thing. Certainly there are things we don't yet understand, which doesn't mean we never will, but why should religion be exempt from the tests that are applied to everything else?

    2. I said I presented my reasoning as to why I thought Christianity was more developed. It wasn't an empty assertion and therefore was not arrogant. You say it's weak, but only because you say so.
    I could apply the same argument to your saying that it is a strong assertion. I still see no evidence for Christianity being more developed, nor more correct, than any other religion.

    In metaphysics it's all assumptions. In both a process of logic is involved in drawing conclusions. where God is involved, I would suggest that there never will be empirical evidence, as that would contradict the logical model.
    Any theory which is put forward by a scientific approach is open to testing. Whether or not we are capable of those tests at the moment is another matter. String theory makes certain predictions. If those predictions are found to be accurate then we will be able to add weight to the theory. If they are found to be wrong then it's a case of going back to the drawing board.

    What testable predictions does religion make?

    This is the get out for science philosophy. Everything must be potentially empirically provable, where that is an illogical conclusion given the above. Science philosophy is a lot weaker than Christianity in coherence.
    A coherent philosophy is not necessarily a correct one. The simplest answer, despite Occam's razor, is not always right. Internal coherency in a system is easy to build if you fir the system to any principles you happen to choose, and ignore all other evidence.

    As an example - do you reject the theory of evolution and subscribe to creationism? Some time ago doing so would have violated the coherency of the Christian religion. Now the interpretation has been loosened so that it is acceptable for someone who believes in evolution to count themselves as a Christian.

    Wrong for me. I accept completely everything in science as you do. What I don't accept is that science applies to religion like you do. Religion is a different subject and isn't applicable as demonstrated by simple logical proof as above. Your question begging is fallacial.
    This is the fundamental point where we disagree. I do not see any reason that religion should be exempt from testing. I can understand that, were I to accept a religion, the various warnings against testing $deity would give a reason. Since I do not accept a religion though this prohibition on testing should not apply to me. So what, exactly, other than your religion itself places religion as being outside the bounds of scientific testing.

  15. #60

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,529
    Thank Post
    513
    Thanked 2,406 Times in 1,862 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    822
    Ok, WHY doesn't science apply to religion? Can you answer me that?

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. [Video] New higher quailty version of "The Pale Blue Dot" By Carl Sagan
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 1st March 2010, 11:54 AM
  2. [Video] Carl Sagan sings through auto tune
    By mattx in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 21st October 2009, 04:03 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •