This should be interesting.... Well, I hope so, anyway.
Before I even get started I figure that it might be worthwhile to provide an outline of some aspects of philosophical logic. Basically, there are typically two forms of 'reason' which are used in the presentation of philosophical arguments: first, deductive reasoning, which focuses on the idea of essentially black and white arguments where you are either right or wrong (this seems to be what the greater majority of your arguments have been based on); second, inductive reasoning, which is focused on the idea of the 'inductive strength' of an argument which could be expressed in terms of a percentage measure of the accuracy of the statement. This distinction is important because some of you seem to be using the different forms interchangeably despite the fact that they really need to be kept separate as much as possible. For example, a deductive statement, 'god does not exist', can't really be backed up with inductive evidence, 'the 95% reliability of our current scientific theories'. The reason why this doesn't work is simply because of the possibility of hiding in that 5% (for example, the 'God in the Gaps' argument may be a source of annoyance, but it is also a legitimate defense against any argument based on the inductive strength of science).
Another important point is the fallacy of trying to base an argument against the existence of god on inconsistencies which can be found in organized religion. Assuming for the moment that there is some form of creator out there, then religion is nothing more then an attempt to understand and interpret his existence. From this point of view, religion should be allowed to change and evolve in much the same way that science is allowed to change and evolve - using old fashioned religious traditions and belief which have, or at least should be, abandoned would be the same as me using old and outdated scientific theories as proof against the reliability of our current ones.
Now... onward to the actual discussion.
The argument of"there are unexplained things, therefore god exists to explain them" is a terrible form of intellectual laziness and a pathetic, illogical argument. It assumes the "therefore" in X, therefore Y. It makes an extraordinary claim.
This is, indeed, a terrible argument... so terrible in fact that I don't believe that any theistic philosopher would ever consider using it.
Just to reiterate Alex's point. Let's look at the question of what happened before the big bang on a more human scale. Let's say I walk down the street and find a sealed and unmarked box. For the sake of argument, we have no way of collecting evidence from the box. We don't know the weight of the box. We can't shake it to hear what is inside. For some reason, we can't even figure out the size of the box. We know nothing.
Any rational person can only say that we have no idea what is in the box. They would assume nothing about the box's contents until evidence were collected.
A theist would say that because we have yet to collect evidence about what is inside the box, it must contain an omnipotent and omniscient deity who created the entire universe and still haunts us today.
Which one of those two do you believe?
So... why can't the box be touched, exactly? Is it magical? Honestly... if I came across a box that I couldn't touch even though it were right in front of me, and someone told me that there might be something magical inside the box, I'd be inclined to believe them.
Seriously... the assumptions you make in a thought experiment are intended to establish the ‘reality’, for lack of a better word, of the situation presented in the thought experiment. This thought experiment seems to suggest that a magic box can’t contain God, despite the fact that a theist would, apparently, claim that it does. There is absolutely no sense to the assumptions you’re making here – in fact, your assumption that a theist would see this ‘magic’ box of yours and declare that god must be inside it is pretty damn close to an insult to the intelligence of theists (if this isn’t a problem for you then you need to look into Ad Hominem fallacies pretty damn quick)
A truly intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something.
You’ve said things like this quite a bit during this discussion. You’re actually committing a pretty serious logical fallacy of your own. Ad Hominem (Latin: ‘to the man’) is a logical fallacy where the content of the opposing argument is ignored in favour of an attack on the person making the argument. For example, rather then responding to an argument in favour of the existence of god with a genuine counter-argument, you simply respond with a statement declaring everyone who believes in god to be irrational and delusional. Ad Hominem arguments rarely, if ever, do more then annoy their target – they are usually used as a simple why to win over an undecided audience.
Anyway... there's more I could write, but it's morning here and I haven't had any breakfast yet. I might put up the rest of my stuff later.
Oh... since YouTube links seem to be popular, I'll put up one of my own, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg. (Disclaimer: this link is for entertainment purposes only, it in no way represents my views of anyone on this forum.)
So... why can't the box be touched, exactly? Is it magical? Honestly... if I came across a box that I couldn't touch even though it were right in front of me, and someone told me that there might be something magical inside the box, I'd be inclined to believe them.
Seriously... the assumptions you make in a thought experiment are intended to establish the ‘reality’, for lack of a better word, of the situation presented in the thought experiment. This thought experiment seems to suggest that a magic box can’t contain God, despite the fact that a theist would, apparently, claim that it does. There is absolutely no sense to the assumptions you’re making here – in fact, your assumption that a theist would see this ‘magic’ box of yours and declare that god must be inside it is pretty damn close to an insult to the intelligence of theists (if this isn’t a problem for you then you need to look into Ad Hominem fallacies pretty damn quick)
Dude, it's called a metaphor. The impossibility of collecting evidence about the contents of the box is analagous to our current inability to acquire evidence about the beginning of the universe.
Dude, it's called a metaphor. The impossibility of collecting evidence about the contents of the box is analagous to our current inability to acquire evidence about the beginning of the universe.
Alright... so it was intended as an analogy... I got that. But my comments still stand - for an analogy to have any validity in a discussion like this it would still need to maintain its own internal logic. For example, when you said that the people who observed the box couldn't touch it 'for some reason' you effectively ruined the analogy - which is kind of a shame, because I got the point you were trying to make. Maybe an analogy focusing on what is behind a locked door that can't be opened (because the key has been lost) would get the point across better.
Dude, it's called a metaphor. The impossibility of collecting evidence about the contents of the box is analagous to our current inability to acquire evidence about the beginning of the universe.
Alright... so it was intended as an analogy... I got that. But my comments still stand - for an analogy to have any validity in a discussion like this it would still need to maintain its own internal logic. For example, when you said that the people who observed the box couldn't touch it 'for some reason' you effectively ruined the analogy - which is kind of a shame, because I got the point you were trying to make. Maybe an analogy focusing on what is behind a locked door that can't be opened (because the key has been lost) would get the point across better.
Wow. You are just wrong. An analogy is a tool to help someone understand something complex by replacing the complicated ideas with something more familiar. It's just a tool to demonstrate a point. If my analogy doesn't make perfect sense that doesn't mean anything. What matters is that the contents of the box are analagous to the beginning of the universe. We can't know much about it. To assume that something you have little to no evidence about must be magical in some way is ludicrous. End of story.
If all you've got left is to attack a metaphor for not being perfect, you might as well give up.
A truly intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something.
You’ve said things like this quite a bit during this discussion. You’re actually committing a pretty serious logical fallacy of your own. Ad Hominem (Latin: ‘to the man’) is a logical fallacy where the content of the opposing argument is ignored in favour of an attack on the person making the argument.
This is actually a combination dicto simpliciter "No true Scotsman" argument. For those of you out there who haven't taken any formal rhetorical training, please visit this sitefor an explanation of logic terms. If you're going to argue logic, then do it correctly.
A truly intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something.
You’ve said things like this quite a bit during this discussion. You’re actually committing a pretty serious logical fallacy of your own. Ad Hominem (Latin: ‘to the man’) is a logical fallacy where the content of the opposing argument is ignored in favour of an attack on the person making the argument.
This is actually a combination dicto simpliciter "No true Scotsman" argument. For those of you out there who haven't taken any formal rhetorical training, please visitthis sitefor an explanation of logic terms. If you're going to argue logic, then do it correctly.
I know it seems like it is indeed a fallacious "No true Scotsman" argument, but it is not. For example, one could argue that no true Scotsman is born in China from two Chinese parents. You would be correct, because being born in China from Chinese parents directly contradicts the definition of being Scottish. Arguing that any intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something is true. If you lack the ability to accept you do not know something, you are clearly not rational because by all logic and reason there are things which humans can not, at the present time, know.
This is actually a combination dicto simpliciter "No true Scotsman" argument. For those of you out there who haven't taken any formal rhetorical training, please visitthis sitefor an explanation of logic terms. If you're going to argue logic, then do it correctly.
No... it isn't. I'll admit that the particular quote I chose to use makes it look more like a 'no true Scotsman' style argument - but, all that means is that I should have picked a better example. In the 'no true Scotsman' fallacy the problem is that the person making the argument attempts to move from an objective statement, 'no Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge', to a subjective value judgment, 'no TRUE Scotsman would put sugar on his porridge'. In an Ad Hominem fallacy, the problem is, essentially, that the person committing it is already operating with a a negative opinion of a particular group, 'everyone who believes in god is irrational' - in this example, the negative value judgment is then applied to anyone who attempts to present an argument in favour of god's existence, meaning that their argument is dismissed before they even begin.
I know it seems like it is indeed a fallacious "No true Scotsman" argument, but it is not. For example, one could argue that no true Scotsman is born in China from two Chinese parents. You would be correct, because being born in China from Chinese parents directly contradicts the definition of being Scottish. Arguing that any intelligent and rational person can accept that they don't know something is true. If you lack the ability to accept you do not know something, you are clearly not rational because by all logic and reason there are things which humans can not, at the present time, know.
Do you mean like whether or not god actually exists? Or, do you know that god doesn't exist, and you just mean that you don't know how to prove it? How did you get to rationality from the 'Chinese Scotsman', anyway? In the 'new true Scotsman' fallacy, the problem is trying to replace an objective statement with a value judgment - in your example it would be more correct to say that 'no Scotsman can be born in China from two Chinese parents'. The issue of whether or not he could be a TRUE Scotsman from a subjective point of view wouldn't even come into it. Looking at the same idea from a different point of view, I was once declared to be an honourary Irishman because I enjoy Irish beer - does that make me a TRUE Irishman even though I'm not objectively Irish? And would it even mean anything if it did?
The main problem here is that rationality is not an objective state, it's not something that can be objectively true or false - declaring someone to be irrational is a value judgment at best and an insult at worst.
Wow. You are just wrong. An analogy is a tool to help someone understand something complex by replacing the complicated ideas with something more familiar. It's just a tool to demonstrate a point. If my analogy doesn't make perfect sense that doesn't mean anything. What matters is that the contents of the box are analagous to the beginning of the universe. We can't know much about it. To assume that something you have little to no evidence about must be magical in some way is ludicrous. End of story.
If all you've got left is to attack a metaphor for not being perfect, you might as well give up.
It's not a matter of your analogy not making 'perfect sense'... it doesn't make any sense. You're right about what an analogy is supposed to do - but there is still the possibility for an analogy to be good or bad, and this is a bad one. Honestly... I don't know why you're so determined to hold onto it.
And with that... I think that I've officially lost interest in this discussion. Please, feel free to take any future silence on my part as an implied victory.
“Now it is such a bizarrely improbable coincidence that anything so mind-bog-gglingly useful could have evolved purely by chance that some thinkers have chosen to see it as the final and clinching proof of the non-existence of God. The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.' `But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.' `Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic. `Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets himself killed on the next zebra crossing.â€
And with that... I think that I've officially lost interest in this discussion. Please, feel free to take any future silence on my part as an implied victory.
I meant an implied victory on your part - or, on the part of whoever responds. Basically, I want to get out of this discussion as quickly and easily as possible.
Oh, so you are removing yourself from the discussion by not posting. Fair enough. As long as you find it ok for someone to disagree with you without any rebuttal, which you have already stated is true.
Scott, can you take this one? I'm sick of trying to explain the concept of the logical fallacy of "begging the question" to people. It makes me tired when I have to repeat simple things.
The mathematical evidence is there. It basically proves that it is impossible for a human to have created the bible. Hence, a more superior being must have. Christians believe that the bible was created by god working through humans. In addition, no one has ever been able to prove it wrong. The article was written in 1940.
It basically proves that it is impossible for a human to of created the bible.
Having not had the time to read this article, I would like to point out every-time someone says "Humans could never have created that" They were wrong. See Pyramids. Everyone's got to stop selling Humanity short.
It basically proves that it is impossible for a human to of created the bible.
Having not had the time to read this article, I would like to point out every-time someone says "Humans could never have created that" They were wrong. See Pyramids. Everyone's got to stop selling Humanity short.
OMG! I just read the article. It's numerology. If you believe numerology is in any way scientific, you are way wrong. Do a search on Google for numerology, you know what comes up? Psychic readings, astrology, etc. You know why? Numerology is just bullshit.
If you believe in numerology, then you must believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I could use the principles of numerology on any book in the library to "prove" to you that the FSM actually wrote that book and every word in it is true.
You're joking, right? Please, for the love of god, tell me you're joking. If you linked to this with sarcastic intent, please admit it. You'd better be pulling our collective leg, or else whatever respect you may have already had here is forfeit.
This "paper" isn't proof of anything. It's almost entirely fabricated. The premises beg the question, the conclusions beg the question, even the "analysis" within it begs the question.
Not only are the "findings" fabricated, but even if they are somehow not they still don't prove anything, as no claim there is logically or even statistically significant. It cites no credible sources. In fact, it sites no sources at all, not even for its dubious translations. It makes broad assumptive claims and excuses itself from clear rebuttal with fantastical loop-holes in logic.
I'm sorry, but you would have to be an idiot to view this "paper" as in any way legitimate.
A couple of months ago, my wife and I went to see an exhibit of sacred Christian texts at the Sackler Gallery here in D.C. Anyone can see for themselves that there are obvious scratched out bits and other types of edits in many of the documents.
Hiro, we don't have to prove God didn't write the bible. You have to prove He did.
The mathematical evidence is there. It basically proves that it is impossible for a human tohavecreated the bible. Hence,a more superior being must have.
Phui!
First, the article cited provides no such evidence, merely a list of extraordinary claims. Second, even if some of the claims were true, it would only be true that things that are quite improbable happen one in a while. Third, why do the scriptures even need the scientific seal of approval (which would come from man, not god).
This article, and many like it I have seen, shows me how many of the "faithful" have no faith. Alleged believers insisting that there is a scientific argument for god cheapen their faith. Reaching for a human-constructed method to corral god's existence shows the the lack of faith that -- among other things -- troubled Christ (who may or may not have been an actual person, divine or not).
The argument hiro expects us to believe is so full of fallacies (begging the question, appeal to authority, special pleading, appeal to consequences, to name a few), that I am surprised it can waddle along.
Christians believe that the bible was created by god working through humans. In addition, no one has ever been able to prove it wrong.
Nobody has to prove it wrong; the person making the claim must prove it correct. I -- the non-believer -- have no burden to prove this wrong, any more than others have to disprove the existence of the invisible furry pink dragon that lives in my garage.
Also, the article cited does not give enough information to test its claims. A few examples: how is anyone to know that the authors' versions of the scriptures were genuine and correct? Why -- other than not fitting the pattern the authors claim -- should the books in the Apocrypha be rejected? The composition of the christian scriptures has been a controversy since there have been christians. Why -- other than repeated assertion -- should the number seven have any significance whatever?
The authors' versions of the scriptures were genuine and correct, because this article was given to over 200 of the top universities in the world. Not one mathematician could prove it wrong. I do not believe the author should cite sources, because all he used was the bible and his brain. The books in the Apocrypha should be rejected because that is not the bible. The bible has 66 books. It may have had books taken out of it, but because those books were purely written by humans and incorrect. I only brought this up because I thought you guys would want "mathematical" evidence. May it be evidence or not, this is the closest thing I have. Similar studies have been done, and no other "religious" book can nearly compare results. I do not understand how this only provides extraordinary claims. The math is there, and correct. I do not need scientific evidence to prove my god. I just thought that's what you guys want me to try and find. "Extraordinary prove, for extraordinary claims". Claim or not, I am just trying to give what you guys are asking for. I am not a snot christian who thinks that "ooh atheist" he must be a real bad person. You are all great people, I am just trying to explain my points.
I think that an email to CFC (computers for Christ) should be written on this particular document. They can sure as hell explain it much better than I can.
Numerology is like cloud watching. What someone sees is a reflection of their own mind, not any properties of the object of study.
hiro: I see that your numeric user id on these forums is 252. Note that 5 is at the center of this number, obviously a place of great significance. Furthermore, we may rewrite that id as 2 (5-2), combining the two least significant digits to get 23, whose numerological digit sum is also 5. From this, it is clear that not only is Eris the true power of the universe, but that She led you to this place to be enlightened.
Hiro: Like an unsuccessful "American Idol" contestant, you sang a crappy song. Then, after you were told exactly why the song was crappy, you stood outside and told Ryan Seacrest that you were still great and the judges suck.
Hiro: Like an unsuccessful "American Idol" contestant, you sang a crappy song. Then, after you were told exactlywhythe song was crappy, you stood outside and told Ryan Seacrest that you were still great and the judges suck.
Comments
...I hope
I hardly believe that picking the stupidest people you can find proves that there are holes in evolutionary theory.
Before I even get started I figure that it might be worthwhile to provide an outline of some aspects of philosophical logic. Basically, there are typically two forms of 'reason' which are used in the presentation of philosophical arguments: first, deductive reasoning, which focuses on the idea of essentially black and white arguments where you are either right or wrong (this seems to be what the greater majority of your arguments have been based on); second, inductive reasoning, which is focused on the idea of the 'inductive strength' of an argument which could be expressed in terms of a percentage measure of the accuracy of the statement. This distinction is important because some of you seem to be using the different forms interchangeably despite the fact that they really need to be kept separate as much as possible. For example, a deductive statement, 'god does not exist', can't really be backed up with inductive evidence, 'the 95% reliability of our current scientific theories'. The reason why this doesn't work is simply because of the possibility of hiding in that 5% (for example, the 'God in the Gaps' argument may be a source of annoyance, but it is also a legitimate defense against any argument based on the inductive strength of science).
Another important point is the fallacy of trying to base an argument against the existence of god on inconsistencies which can be found in organized religion. Assuming for the moment that there is some form of creator out there, then religion is nothing more then an attempt to understand and interpret his existence. From this point of view, religion should be allowed to change and evolve in much the same way that science is allowed to change and evolve - using old fashioned religious traditions and belief which have, or at least should be, abandoned would be the same as me using old and outdated scientific theories as proof against the reliability of our current ones.
Now... onward to the actual discussion. This is, indeed, a terrible argument... so terrible in fact that I don't believe that any theistic philosopher would ever consider using it. So... why can't the box be touched, exactly? Is it magical? Honestly... if I came across a box that I couldn't touch even though it were right in front of me, and someone told me that there might be something magical inside the box, I'd be inclined to believe them.
Seriously... the assumptions you make in a thought experiment are intended to establish the ‘reality’, for lack of a better word, of the situation presented in the thought experiment. This thought experiment seems to suggest that a magic box can’t contain God, despite the fact that a theist would, apparently, claim that it does. There is absolutely no sense to the assumptions you’re making here – in fact, your assumption that a theist would see this ‘magic’ box of yours and declare that god must be inside it is pretty damn close to an insult to the intelligence of theists (if this isn’t a problem for you then you need to look into Ad Hominem fallacies pretty damn quick) You’ve said things like this quite a bit during this discussion. You’re actually committing a pretty serious logical fallacy of your own. Ad Hominem (Latin: ‘to the man’) is a logical fallacy where the content of the opposing argument is ignored in favour of an attack on the person making the argument. For example, rather then responding to an argument in favour of the existence of god with a genuine counter-argument, you simply respond with a statement declaring everyone who believes in god to be irrational and delusional. Ad Hominem arguments rarely, if ever, do more then annoy their target – they are usually used as a simple why to win over an undecided audience.
Anyway... there's more I could write, but it's morning here and I haven't had any breakfast yet. I might put up the rest of my stuff later.
Oh... since YouTube links seem to be popular, I'll put up one of my own, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg. (Disclaimer: this link is for entertainment purposes only, it in no way represents my views of anyone on this forum.)
If all you've got left is to attack a metaphor for not being perfect, you might as well give up.
The main problem here is that rationality is not an objective state, it's not something that can be objectively true or false - declaring someone to be irrational is a value judgment at best and an insult at worst. It's not a matter of your analogy not making 'perfect sense'... it doesn't make any sense. You're right about what an analogy is supposed to do - but there is still the possibility for an analogy to be good or bad, and this is a bad one. Honestly... I don't know why you're so determined to hold onto it.
And with that... I think that I've officially lost interest in this discussion. Please, feel free to take any future silence on my part as an implied victory.
The argument goes something like this: `I refuse to prove that I exist,' says God, `for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing.'
`But,' says Man, `The Babel fish is a dead giveaway, isn't it? It could not have evolved by chance. It proves you exist, and so therefore, by your own arguments, you don't. QED.'
`Oh dear,' says God, `I hadn't thought of that,' and promptly vanished in a puff of logic.
`Oh, that was easy,' says Man, and for an encore goes on to prove that black is white and gets
himself killed on the next zebra crossing.â€
- Douglas Adams
If only it was this easy ^_^
I meant an implied victory on your part - or, on the part of whoever responds. Basically, I want to get out of this discussion as quickly and easily as possible.
link to site to end this.
I dare any of you, to prove it wrong.
If you believe in numerology, then you must believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I could use the principles of numerology on any book in the library to "prove" to you that the FSM actually wrote that book and every word in it is true.
This "paper" isn't proof of anything. It's almost entirely fabricated. The premises beg the question, the conclusions beg the question, even the "analysis" within it begs the question.
Not only are the "findings" fabricated, but even if they are somehow not they still don't prove anything, as no claim there is logically or even statistically significant. It cites no credible sources. In fact, it sites no sources at all, not even for its dubious translations. It makes broad assumptive claims and excuses itself from clear rebuttal with fantastical loop-holes in logic.
I'm sorry, but you would have to be an idiot to view this "paper" as in any way legitimate.
Hiro, we don't have to prove God didn't write the bible. You have to prove He did.
First, the article cited provides no such evidence, merely a list of extraordinary claims. Second, even if some of the claims were true, it would only be true that things that are quite improbable happen one in a while. Third, why do the scriptures even need the scientific seal of approval (which would come from man, not god).
This article, and many like it I have seen, shows me how many of the "faithful" have no faith. Alleged believers insisting that there is a scientific argument for god cheapen their faith. Reaching for a human-constructed method to corral god's existence shows the the lack of faith that -- among other things -- troubled Christ (who may or may not have been an actual person, divine or not).
The argument hiro expects us to believe is so full of fallacies (begging the question, appeal to authority, special pleading, appeal to consequences, to name a few), that I am surprised it can waddle along. Nobody has to prove it wrong; the person making the claim must prove it correct. I -- the non-believer -- have no burden to prove this wrong, any more than others have to disprove the existence of the invisible furry pink dragon that lives in my garage.
Also, the article cited does not give enough information to test its claims. A few examples: how is anyone to know that the authors' versions of the scriptures were genuine and correct? Why -- other than not fitting the pattern the authors claim -- should the books in the Apocrypha be rejected? The composition of the christian scriptures has been a controversy since there have been christians. Why -- other than repeated assertion -- should the number seven have any significance whatever?
"Read it and weep", indeed.
Cheers,
Hank
I think that an email to CFC (computers for Christ) should be written on this particular document. They can sure as hell explain it much better than I can.
Thanks.
hiro: I see that your numeric user id on these forums is 252. Note that 5 is at the center of this number, obviously a place of great significance. Furthermore, we may rewrite that id as 2 (5-2), combining the two least significant digits to get 23, whose numerological digit sum is also 5. From this, it is clear that not only is Eris the true power of the universe, but that She led you to this place to be enlightened.
(Props to the Principia Discordia.)
Is Eris a "greek god"? Hence, is her special number 5?
*Sigh*
Any suggestions?(I am not being sarcastic).