|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13477 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2004 : 07:39:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
ConsequentAtheist:
You cannot believe that all things are possible without entertaining such a world. You cannot entertain such a world and simultaneously believe that all things are possible. The assertion that all things are possible is irrational.
I agree. I do not live in a world where all things are possible. I live in a world where all conclusions are tentative.
"We should leave our minds open but not so open that our brains fall out." - Alan Ross Anderson.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
 |
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 09:45:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky However, I seriously doubt that dinosaur bones could explain dragons as this claim came way before the discovery of any kind of skeleton. It even came way before people started to look into the Earth to find things.
Things come out of the earth even when people aren't looking for them, whether through sudden upheavals, or erosion by rain and wind, or both. It isn't hard to imagine a primitive person stumbling upon a sauropod's femur or the canine of a T-rex while washing clothes in the river. Nor is it difficult to see how myths of powerful dragons could arise from such a find.
You need to to keep in mind that ancient people spent a great deal more time outdoors than we do today. 
|
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/18/2004 10:06:30 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 09:58:54 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by Ricky However, I seriously doubt that dinosaur bones could explain dragons as this claim came way before the discovery of any kind of skeleton. It even came way before people started to look into the Earth to find things.
Things come out of the earth even when people aren't looking for them, whether through sudden upheavals, or erosion by rain and wind, or both. It isn't had to imagine a primitive person stumbling upon a sauropod's femur or the canine of a T-rex while washing clothes in the river. Nor is it difficult to see how myths of powerful dragons could arise from such a find.
I was actually watching a History Channel show last night called "Ancient Monster Hunters". It indicated that when the graves of heroes and the reported finds of bones of a particular monster was reported over 2000 years ago by the Greeks was overlaid with major fossil beds in the same areas, they correlated 1 to 1. There was quite a bit of evidence (bones present at temple sites and bones given a hero's burial) which indicates that such dinosaur bones were actively sought out by ancient Greeks and gathered.
They even had a suggestion that the skelliton of a Protoceratops was the basis for the Griffin myth. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 10:05:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You would be paraphrasing me correctly except for one thing.
As for those who choose the path of everything should remain in the realm of possible, I don't think you are wrong. I just prefer to operate on a more practical level.
No, I agree. The steps above are a "in a perfect world" scenario. Obviously some claims fall into the realm of the absurd and can be dismissed out of hand.
Then again, some absurd claims are believed by a great many people, and at times it may become necessary to treat a preposterous claim seriously in order to soundly refute it. (I'm thinking about things like quack medecine, healing crytals, etc.)
Anyhow, my basic belief on debunked evidence is similar to what I wrote above. I wasn't so much trying to understand your position as I was trying to work out my own. (Or maybe a bit of both.)
|
"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 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 22:09:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You would be paraphrasing me correctly except for one thing.
As for those who choose the path of everything should remain in the realm of possible, I don't think you are wrong. I just prefer to operate on a more practical level.
No, I agree. The steps above are a "in a perfect world" scenario. Obviously some claims fall into the realm of the absurd and can be dismissed out of hand.
Then again, some absurd claims are believed by a great many people, and at times it may become necessary to treat a preposterous claim seriously in order to soundly refute it. (I'm thinking about things like quack medecine, healing crytals, etc.)
Anyhow, my basic belief on debunked evidence is similar to what I wrote above. I wasn't so much trying to understand your position as I was trying to work out my own. (Or maybe a bit of both.)
You don't see the problem. Guess I'll have to be more direct.
BeskeptiGAL
Try re-reading my reply as two separate comments. |
| Edited by - beskeptigal on 08/18/2004 22:10:41 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 06:04:30 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
Originally posted by beskeptigal
You would be paraphrasing me correctly except for one thing.
As for those who choose the path of everything should remain in the realm of possible, I don't think you are wrong. I just prefer to operate on a more practical level.
No, I agree. The steps above are a "in a perfect world" scenario. Obviously some claims fall into the realm of the absurd and can be dismissed out of hand.
Then again, some absurd claims are believed by a great many people, and at times it may become necessary to treat a preposterous claim seriously in order to soundly refute it. (I'm thinking about things like quack medecine, healing crytals, etc.)
Anyhow, my basic belief on debunked evidence is similar to what I wrote above. I wasn't so much trying to understand your position as I was trying to work out my own. (Or maybe a bit of both.)
The one thing beskeptigal is referring to was that she is female.
She originally was posting here and BABB as beskeptical. She was referred to as male so many times that now she's back as beskeptigal. Evidentally, subtlety isn't working for her.
She agrees that you are correctly paraphrasing her position. She's just lightly correcting gender. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
N C More
Skeptic Friend
53 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 07:12:52 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Valiant Dancer
The one thing beskeptigal is referring to was that she is female.
She originally was posting here and BABB as beskeptical. She was referred to as male so many times that now she's back as beskeptigal. Evidentally, subtlety isn't working for her.
Hmm...how odd I always knew that beskeptical (at BABB) was female. Then again, maybe it has something to do with my being female!
Anyway, back to the question of agnosticism. It really doesn't have anything to do with believing in or not believing in the existence of God but rather suspending belief altogether! One also has to throw into the mix exactly what one would define as God. I mean, does God have to be the personna described in the Bible or can it be something else altogether? I have no problem with answering the question, "Does God exist?" with, "I don't know.". Hey, it works for me!
|
"An open mind is like an open window...without a good screen you'll get some really weird bugs!" |
|
|
|
SciFi Chick
Skeptic Friend
USA
99 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 07:32:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by N C More
Hmm...how odd I always knew that beskeptical (at BABB) was female. Then again, maybe it has something to do with my being female!
I always knew she was female as well. I used to have the same problem, which is why I've opted for such an obvious moniker. |
"There is no 'I' in TEAM, but there is an 'M' and an 'E'." -Carson
"Rather fail with honor than succeed by fraud."
-Sophocles |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 10:00:02 [Permalink]
|
quote:
You don't see the problem. Guess I'll have to be more direct.
BeskeptiGAL.
Oh, I get it. You're a woman. I'm sorry. I didn't even realize I used the pronoun "he" the first time. I apologize if you were offended. |
"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 |
| Edited by - H. Humbert on 08/19/2004 12:47:44 |
|
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 13:58:41 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by H. Humbert
quote:
You don't see the problem. Guess I'll have to be more direct.
BeskeptiGAL.
Oh, I get it. You're a woman. I'm sorry. I didn't even realize I used the pronoun "he" the first time. I apologize if you were offended.
I wasn't offended. I just want women to get credit where credit is due. |
|
|
|
Ricky
SFN Die Hard
USA
4907 Posts |
|
|
beskeptigal
SFN Die Hard
USA
3834 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2004 : 22:44:57 [Permalink]
|
Appeal to Ignorance
quote:
Another type of reasoning is called "auto-epistemic" ("self-knowing") because it involves reasoning from premises about what one knows and what one would know if something were true. The form of such reasoning is:
If p were true, then I would know that p.
I don't know that p.
Therefore, p is false.
For instance, one might reason:
If I were adopted, then I would know about it by now.
I don't know that I'm adopted.
Therefore, I wasn't adopted.
Similarly, when extensive investigation has been undertaken, it is often reasonable to infer that something is false based upon a lack of positive evidence for it. For instance, if a drug has been subjected to lengthy testing for harmful effects and none has been discovered, it is then reasonable to conclude that it is safe. Another example is:
If there really were a large and unusual type of animal in Loch Ness, then we would have undeniable evidence of it by now.
We don't have undeniable evidence of a large, unfamiliar animal in Loch Ness.
Therefore, there is no such animal.
As with reasoning using the closed world assumption, auto-epistemic reasoning does not commit the fallacy of Argument from Ignorance.
I understand the argument that absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. It is certainly true for things like is there life on other planets.
But that isn't what testing a god theory entails. We can't test for life on other planets currently because we have no access to them. But we have access to test for a god, because a god, by definition must have had influence on humans. And we can test for that.
If you wanted to use the hypothesis that a god made the Universe and then never interacted with it again, you probably could use the absence of evidence argument. If you do that though, you don't have a definition of any god(s) that humans have described, since all gods are described as interacting with humans.
So now we can construct a working hypothesis.
If there were gods, (as defined by humans) they would have interacted with humans.
If gods interacted with humans, the interaction should be detectable.
Criteria can be established that would be measurable and that would indicate an interaction had occurred.
The criteria must then be validated to confirm it would detect interaction.
Then the criteria can be looked for.
If none can be found, you have very strong evidence that the god theory is not a correct theory.
If one wants to argue semantics of 'very strong' or 'overwhelming' evidence vs. 'proof' or 'absolute proof', then you really have a different argument. Lots of science uses overwhelming evidence to draw conclusions.
|
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 02:18:18 [Permalink]
|
beskeptigal wrote:quote:
If there were gods, (as defined by humans) they would have interacted with humans.
If gods interacted with humans, the interaction should be detectable.
I have a problem with this combination of premises.
Given the vast number of people who have lived before me, and the vast number living now, I simply cannot be the only one to imagine (and please note the emphasis) a god which set up the universe as we know it, and only interacts with us upon our death (telling us, at least, whether we lived up to its expectations - a "good life" - or not).
In other words, I think the idea that there might be a god which interacts with humans solely in ways which are undetectable by living humans is something which cannot be ignored in discussions like this one (though the idea can be ignored entirely when dealing with the non-specualtive). It is a "definition" of divinity which your working hypothesis fails to take into account, and so I think your hypothesis fails on its premises, by being too specific.
Yes, if every human being imagined a god which spent time here in the dirt, you argument would stand. Since at least one human does not, your argument fails to get off the blocks. There's no need to argue the semantics of the phrase "very strong" when what goes before it has not been agreed to by all.
Let me try to put this another way.
There is near-universal agreement amonst those people who believe in one god or another that their deity(ies) are much more pwoerful than we mere mortals. There is near-universal agreement amongst those people who believe in a "soul" or "reincarnation" or what-have-you that after one's life here on Earth is over, the "rules" about one's possible interaction(s) with god(s) change. If (and please again note the emphasis) some sort of god exists, then the idea that it or they must be constrained by your rule that it (or they) must interact with humans in a detectable fashion by living humans is nothing more than a conceit.
When Einstein made his famous "God does not play dice" comment, Bohr reportedly replied, "stop telling God what to do." beskeptigal, your working hypothesis is only valid so long as whatever god might exist decides to play by your rules. Can you give me a good reason for why it should? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
ConsequentAtheist
SFN Regular
641 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 06:50:24 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.
When Einstein made his famous "God does not play dice" comment, Bohr reportedly replied, "stop telling God what to do." beskeptigal, your working hypothesis is only valid so long as whatever god might exist decides to play by your rules. Can you give me a good reason for why it should?
Precisely. Once you posit the supernatural, 'knowability' goes out the window and detectability is subject to 'the grace of God.
|
For the philosophical naturalist, the rejection of supernaturalism is a case of "death by a thousand cuts." -- Barbara Forrest, Ph.D. |
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/22/2004 : 14:12:10 [Permalink]
|
I apologize for my delay in responding: my computer is still under the whether (whether it will be repaired or scrapped).
This is my first time back on a computer (at an internet cafe down the street).
Each time I read a post in this thread that needs a good response, I merely scroll down and find a better response than I could have formulated. Usually the response is from Ricky, but Kil, Dave W., and ConsequentAtheist have also on occasion taken the words from my fingers.
I will, instead, summarize my position:
I do not believe that god exists. This is because I have not found sufficient evidence of such a creature.
I do not believe that no god exists. This is because I have not found sufficient argument for disproof.
I do believe it is highly unlikely for a god to exist. This is because there has been a glaring lack of evidence in human history for a god's existence.
Regarding the question of disproof: It is possible to prove something doesn't exist. This happens in Mathematics all the time. You simply assume it does exist and find a contradiction. Unfortunately, with the god question, you only end up proving that a god cannot have certain properties, and even that proof is subject to argument.
You cannot say that god does not exist because the bible is untrue; god would exist outside the bible. You cannot say that god does not exist because it does not interact with humans; what makes you sure of that?
Finally, on the question of atheism/agnosticism: An atheist is one without a belief in a god. An agnostic is one who does not have knowledge (with specific reference to the possibility of god). Therefore, and agnostic, who has no proof for the existence of a god, and thus no belief in a god, is also an atheist. There is the form of atheism where one believes there is no god (referred to as "strong" atheism by some), and there is agnosticism (referred to as "weak" atheism by some). |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
