|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
 Posted - 12/20/2005 : 17:30:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
...I think that we would all agree that there are some things which are impossible according to the laws of physics,
And therefore, those things do not occur or exist. quote:
such as a snap-pop firecracker providing enough liftoff to get the space shuttle into orbit. But if you saw just that happen, wouldn't you agree that it seems impossible?
But we didn't see it happen.quote:
Of course, we cannot use argument from incredulity to prove a thing, but if a thing really does seem impossible, wouldn't it be logical to include the possibility that we are dealing with forces that we do not understand?
We deal with lots of forces we don't understand, but we have some general idea such forces are ultimately understandable without any "god of the gaps" explanation.
quote:
... A while ago we concluded a thread on Biblical contradictions and the few that I found were really insignificant.
Only because you ignored the facts
quote:
...the Bible isn't really concerned directly with most other sciences. So while I would use the Bible to say that some superior intelligence may be messing with us, I wouldn't use it to determine the mechanical process which is forming these hailstones.
The Bible is not evidence for anything except for the history that some people wrote it.
quote:
Would you all like to discuss:
1) Methods for determining that there is a supernatural being,
2) The possibility that the hailstones are natural, or
3) The origins of religous belief.
Please vote on one, and we'll stick with that.
You started the thread and the above components in the thread. What is your point here?
quote:
quote:
I made the statement that you began this thread with a complete misunderstanding of science and supernatural.
Even if this was true, it still has nothing to do with the argument.
Hippy
What argument? Since you seem to think the board members here have re-directed your thread, just what argument are you referring to now?
I have the impression this whole thread is you, HFC, attempting to present a logical basis that there is evidence for God out there somewhere. I don't see any. Why beat around the bush? Why not say you think there's a god and present the evidence? |
 |
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 19:14:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You started the thread and the above components in the thread. What is your point here?
Seems clear to me that Hippy wasn't making any headway with the "science rejects the supernatural a priori" argument, and now wishes to discuss something else.
Of course, that part of the thread disintegrated (with Hippy's help) pages ago. His complaint about science was basically that it isn't inclusive of all ideas, but neither is any other field of study, scientific or otherwise.
For example, by Hippy's reasoning, poetry "rejects" sculpture. Most sculptures can't be analyzed in terms of meter, rhyme scheme, etc., but why should we expect that of them? Millions, perhaps even billions, of people have made sculptures. I do not know of one ancient culture which completely rejected the idea of sculpture. I think that it is presumptive and arrogant to dismiss every single sculpture out of hand, as poetry seems to.
Of course, if you found some sculpture which could be considered poetry, poets would be interested. Just like if you found some supernatural occurence which was amenable to the scientific method, scientists would be interested (not that there aren't plenty of scientists already investigating the supernatural - as believers).
It's clear this argument can go nowhere. Hippy was upset that science can't prove God (because God won't play by science's rules), and went on to fabricate his own "God-science" which can, with or without God even being present.
So, now Hippy seems more willing to discuss big hailstones, God himself, or the origins of religion. Whether or not he'll attempt to use "God-science" in such discussions has yet to be seen. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/20/2005 : 22:13:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...quote:
Originally posted by me...
You claim to allow for the possibility of such a conclusion because 1) you don't know enough about hailstones to hold an opinion based on science. It seems impossible to you (argument from incredulity).
It also seems impossible to Charles Knight.
Charles Knight said, "Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen, but oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this." That means he doesn't have the brainpower or imagination to understand or interpret the material assembled by other scientists regarding the cause of those hailstones. Or maybe he hasn't even read the paperwork. I bet you haven't either. A lack of knowledge because of ignorance, stupidity, or mental illness is not evidence in support of your god.
So you've quoted one person who seems to be in the minority opinion on the issue. And all he says is he doesn't understand it. He makes no claims of anything supernatural. Obviously there are scientific papers that venture to explain the hailstones as the result of some natural, albeit unusual cause. Apparently there isn't a large body of scientists who take issue with those papers. One guy who doesn't understand (or two guys if you count yourself) does not a miracle make. Get over it.quote:
Now let's examine this 'argument from incredulity'. I think that we would all agree that there are some things which are impossible according to the laws of physics, such as a snap-pop firecracker providing enough liftoff to get the space shuttle into orbit. But if you saw just that happen, wouldn't you agree that it seems impossible?
Would we all agree that there are some things which are impossible according to the laws of physics? Yes. And as beskeptigal said, since those things are impossible, they aren't happening.
Let me remind you again, the notion that there are events, occurrences, or phenomenon which are impossible according to the laws of physics, and still occur, is a component of your personal delusion. The fact that you don't understand something is only evidence that you are too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, or mentally ill to understand it. It is not evidence in any way, shape, or form that god did it.quote:
Of course, we cannot use argument from incredulity to prove a thing, but if a thing really does seem impossible, wouldn't it be logical to include the possibility that we are dealing with forces that we do not understand?
It may be logical to include the possibility that we are dealing with forces that we do not yet understand. It wouldn't be logical at all to include the possibility that one of those forces is your imaginary pal. We have no evidence that your imaginary buddy has ever been that force, or even that he/she/it exists.
You keep trying to use logic and science to prove that your god exists. Across several pages of this thread and in several pages on a few other threads you have failed to do that, time after time after time. So far all you have is the simple fact that you are too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, unaware, or mentally ill to understand some things, therefore you believe your god is a reasonable explanation.
Since the beginning of time a lack of understanding plus simple belief is all anyone has ever had to support the existence of their millions of gods. You've got no more to go on than any of those other people. You don't understand some things, so you believe your god did it, and that's all you've got.
|
|
|
|
dv82matt
SFN Regular
760 Posts |
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2005 : 11:52:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Of course, that part of the thread disintegrated (with Hippy's help) pages ago.
Ah, you're right. With that in mind I think I'll conclude this thread and start new ones on the subjects that I listed. But first...
To all:
quote:
Qouted from Mack:
Charles Knight said, "Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen, but oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this." That means he doesn't have the brainpower or imagination to understand or interpret the material assembled by other scientists regarding the cause of those hailstones. Or maybe he hasn't even read the paperwork.
quote:
Knight said he has reviewed scientific papers published on megacryometeors, and thinks the explanation, which involves unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming, is wrong.
Do you realize that you are declaring a credited scientist to be stupid because he disagrees with another scientist's unproven hypothesis?
quote:
The fact that you don't understand something is only evidence that you are too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, or mentally ill to understand it.
You have stopped discussing the issues and have stooped to name-calling. Have I ever treated any of you like this? I could go on long tirades, and I have been very tempted to lower myself to your standards, but I refrain. Let's try to keep this civil.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2005 : 12:14:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
quote:
Qouted from Mack:
Charles Knight said, "Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen, but oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this." That means he doesn't have the brainpower or imagination to understand or interpret the material assembled by other scientists regarding the cause of those hailstones. Or maybe he hasn't even read the paperwork.
quote:
Knight said he has reviewed scientific papers published on megacryometeors, and thinks the explanation, which involves unusual atmospheric conditions possibly linked to global warming, is wrong.
Do you realize that you are declaring a credited scientist to be stupid because he disagrees with another scientist's unproven hypothesis?
I think he's declaring him stupid because he just states that he thinks the explaination is wrong without citing why it's wrong or provide and falsifying evidence.
He is also saying that a more accurate depiction of Knight's state of mind should be that he does not understand the papers, not that he thinks the papers are wrong. That Knight makes a claim that the information is wrong and he doesn't understand it is stupid.
But even if the explaination of the formation of macrocryometeors IS wrong, it still does not immediately revert back to a supernatural event. It is still a natural event which there is not an adequate explaination for. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2005 : 12:42:35 [Permalink]
|
| Yes, HFC.....change the subject when you run short on legitimate debate. |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2005 : 12:49:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ...
Do you realize that you are declaring a credited scientist to be stupid because he disagrees with another scientist's unproven hypothesis?
No, you've completely misunderstood me, again, as is a pretty consistent habit with you. I'm suggesting that you're claiming support for the existence of your favorite mythical being by quoting one scientist who claims to not know the answer. I'm not calling anyone stupid. You have an obvious lack of ability to understand what I've written.quote:
You have stopped discussing the issues and have stooped to name-calling. Have I ever treated any of you like this? I could go on long tirades, and I have been very tempted to lower myself to your standards, but I refrain. Let's try to keep this civil.
I was being thorough by suggesting you appear to be too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, or mentally ill to understand the causes of some things. And you use that lack of understanding to support your notion that your imaginary friend's magical powers are the cause. I've suggested several possibilities as to why you might be resistant to, or unable to grasp what is being said by myself and the other participants in this discussion. If you have some more possibilities for being so incapable of understanding, reasons besides those I've listed, those for which you continue to provide evidence, you are more than welcome to describe them here.
My standard in this case is to be thorough. Being thorough is an integral element of critical thinking. You continue to be less than thorough, which seems to be a great part of why you don't understand. But please feel free to raise yourself to that level of thoroughness. You would likely become enlightened to some things you are obviously currently missing. You might actually find a bigger, better, more exciting world out there if you learn to apply some critical thinking.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 12/23/2005 : 23:39:26 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by hippy4christ
With that in mind I think I'll conclude this thread and start new ones on the subjects that I listed. But first...
But first, I'd like to hear what you think of my poetry/sculpture analogy to your original post. There's no reason to avoid bringing the discussion back on topic, is there? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2005 : 08:51:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
No, you've completely misunderstood me, again, as is a pretty consistent habit with you. I'm suggesting that you're claiming support for the existence of your favorite mythical being by quoting one scientist who claims to not know the answer. I'm not calling anyone stupid. You have an obvious lack of ability to understand what I've written.
He does it all the time GM. Basically he has reached the point where its not really worth the time to respond to him.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2005 : 19:11:48 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Mack said:
I'm not calling anyone stupid.
after saying:
Charles Knight said, ... That means he doesn't have the brainpower or imagination to understand or interpret the material assembled by other scientists regarding the cause of those hailstones.
quote:
I was being thorough by suggesting you appear to be too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, or mentally ill to understand the causes of some things.
after saying:
So far all you have is the simple fact that you are too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, unaware, or mentally ill to understand some things, therefore you believe your god is a reasonable explanation.
quote:
No, you've completely misunderstood me, again, as is a pretty consistent habit with you.
Please help me out in understanding how I misunderstood you. I think that both sides of this debate (me and you guys) have a mutually consistent habit of misunderstanding each other. So let's try to be a little more patient and use a little less inflammatory language and stick to the raw facts. Maybe we'll actually get something accomplished.
I have to go now, please excuse the unfinished post.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
GeeMack
SFN Regular
USA
1093 Posts |
Posted - 12/24/2005 : 22:29:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by me...
Charles Knight said, "Scientists are naturally reluctant to say something never can happen, but oh, dear. I would be tempted to say 'never' on this." That means he doesn't have the brainpower or imagination to understand or interpret the material assembled by other scientists regarding the cause of those hailstones. Or maybe he hasn't even read the paperwork. I bet you haven't either. A lack of knowledge because of ignorance, stupidity, or mental illness is not evidence in support of your god.
Okay, you got me. I called him stupid. Or rather I placed his being stupid on the list of possibilities as to why he might make such a seemingly stupid comment. Giant hailstones fell. It happened. It really did. Mr. Knight would be tempted to say it could never happen. Now how intelligent would you consider him when he is aware that something did indeed happen yet might be tempted to say it could never happen? Maybe he was exaggerating? Maybe I was?
Your point seemed to be that he considers it impossible for the hailstones to have occurred by natural means, when in fact he didn't say that. You were using his "expert" testimony to support your proposal that we should accept the supernatural as a possible cause for events that are difficult to understand. You claimed that his remark, plus a mention of such an event in a book of myths, supports the possibility that your imaginary friend magically brewed up those hailstones and hurled them Earthward.
Most people in Charles Knight's position are actually fairly accessible to us common folk. Why don't you write him and see if he actually meant to imply there might be supernatural causes behind the hailstone phenomenon? You seem to think that was his implication. I doubt if most people would interpret his comment that way.quote:
Originally posted by me...
I was being thorough by suggesting you appear to be too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, or mentally ill to understand the causes of some things.
[...]
So far all you have is the simple fact that you are too naive, stupid, ignorant, deluded, gullible, unaware, or mentally ill to understand some things, therefore you believe your god is a reasonable explanation.
We can all accept that there was a cause for those hailstones because, after all, they did fall from the sky. But you don't know how they came into being, and there is a reason for your not knowing. That reason may be naivety or ignorance (simply not being fully informed), or it may be stupidity or mental illness (a lack of ability to effectively process the available data). You may be assuming supernatural causes because you're delusional (holding a false belief as truth), or because you're gullible (you're willing to believe something you've been told without concern for support of evidence).
Again, there is a reason for your not knowing the cause of the giant hailstones. I can't be sure what that reason is, but I itemized several of the possibilities. There may be other reasons for your lack of knowledge, but I feel I've presented a fairly thorough list. You shouldn't be embarrassed for not knowing, or offended by someone mentioning the possible reasons for it.
Now maybe you can understand the gist of many of my previous comments, and the gist of some other contributors, too, for that matter. Your (or anyone's) lack of understanding the cause of an event is not evidence to support the possibility that it has a supernatural cause.
Get it?
|
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 12/25/2005 : 12:37:18 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by GeeMack
Your point seemed to be that he considers it impossible for the hailstones to have occurred by natural means, when in fact he didn't say that.
I don't think Hippy wants us to conclude the hailstones were supernatural, just that this is one phenomenon that we should keep an open mind about having a possible supernatural cause. He was trying to trap us. He wanted to see if we would reject even the possibility that the hailstones have a supernatural cause despite there not being a generally agreed-upon natural explanation. This would reinforce Hippy's conceit that skeptics are just close-minded or "blind" when it comes to evidence for the supernatural.
But of course Hippy admitted that god can work even through scientifically explainable events, making the fact that we lack a scientific explanation for this event entirely irrelevant. For instance, hurricanes can form naturally or god can make one. But since science doesn't deal with supernatural events that are by their nature untestable, there is no reason for scientists to ever seriously consider his explanation. I suppose whether or not any of us seriously consider the possibility that god is hurling the hailstones depends upon our personal temperments. I find the possibility so low as to merit no consideration, although many would consider the supernatural a possibility so long as a natural explanation isn't forthcoming, and others might consider the supernatural a possibility so long as nothing rules it out (which is virtually impossible).
All of this is only a measure of one's credulity, however, and not a standard by which one can objectively weigh evidence for the supernatural, which I believe is what Hippy was hoping for. Arguments from incredulity will never count as evidence of anything. I think Hippy feels it should, since he personally finds it very persuasive. Sorry, Hippy, it just doesn't work that way. A bottle rocket propelling the space shuttle into orbit would be very strange indeed, but a lack of a convincing natural explanation could never be evidence that something supernatural was the cause.
Fortunately for those of us who don't believe in the supernatural, things as strange as this never happen. Merely odd things, like overly large hail stones, simply keep the search for scientific knowledge interesting and active.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2005 : 16:57:11 [Permalink]
|
Dave:
quote:
His complaint about science was basically that it isn't inclusive of all ideas, but neither is any other field of study, scientific or otherwise.
For example, by Hippy's reasoning, poetry "rejects" sculpture. Most sculptures can't be analyzed in terms of meter, rhyme scheme, etc., but why should we expect that of them? Millions, perhaps even billions, of people have made sculptures. I do not know of one ancient culture which completely rejected the idea of sculpture. I think that it is presumptive and arrogant to dismiss every single sculpture out of hand, as poetry seems to.
My complaint is not against science itself, but against what many people call science. That's why in my OP I had science in quotation marks, I should have been clearer. When science is properly used it doesn't reject the supernatural out of hand. According to physics, there is no known physical way which the earth could have been created in six days. I have no problem with this. I have a problem with the people who say "We know that the earth wasn't created in six days because there is no known physical way that it could have happened." It is in this way that science (or pseudoscience) rejects the supernatural out of hand. If poets rejected sculptures as meaningful forms of art because they didn't conform to poetry, I would also criticize them.
Humbert:
quote:
I don't think Hippy wants us to conclude the hailstones were supernatural, just that this is one phenomenon that we should keep an open mind about having a possible supernatural cause. He was trying to trap us. He wanted to see if we would reject even the possibility that the hailstones have a supernatural cause despite there not being a generally agreed-upon natural explanation. This would reinforce Hippy's conceit that skeptics are just close-minded or "blind" when it comes to evidence for the supernatural.
Correct.
I'll be back in a bit.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
|
hippy4christ
Skeptic Friend
193 Posts |
Posted - 12/27/2005 : 17:23:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
... a lack of a convincing natural explanation could never be evidence that something supernatural was the cause.
At this point I'll give a tentative agreement. I don't specifically remember calling a 'lack of an explanation' evidence, but I might have. What I originally said was that I was inclined to believe that the megacryometeors were supernatural partly because there was a lack of an explanation.
Now, the lack of a natural explanation would still be reason to investigate the possibility that an intelligence is at work. For instance, one of the first possible causes of the megacryometeors investigated was the possibility of a hoax. In my opinion, that remains a possibility, although the prankster would have to have some really expensive technology.
Hippy |
Faith is believing what you are told, whether it's by a priest or a scientist. A person's scientific beliefs are ones based on personal observation and experimentation.
Lists of Logical Fallacies |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
