Science and Theology, the sequel

02/25/2010 10:38:33 AM · #1576

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

while many people have dismissed the rumour of the white gumballs, others hold on to the belief because we have opened so few boxes and there ARE those boxes that just can't seem to be cracked. Could it be that these belong to the white gumball company and it has a different lock system?

You're back to the horses and unicorns thing. It's fine to speculate that there might be ANYTHING in the boxes when they're all unknown, but when a large body of knowledge has shown a single conclusion, and the initial speculation is unsupported, then the other option is riding on negative proof alone. Your attempts to load the initial premise in your favor remains flawed (STILL begging the question).

02/25/2010 10:48:48 AM · #1577

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Aren't you doing exactly the same? Why should we assume that all questions have an answer? Because we've answered some?

Nope. We have found LOTS of questions that have answers, therefore the idea that questions have answers is supported. The assumption that some questions don't have an answer is unsupported speculation on your part, and you're trying to use it as the initial premise of an argument. It's like asking how science would explain human levitation and using a negative proof fallacy to support the initial premise the humans can levitate. Fail!

02/25/2010 10:52:33 AM · #1578

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Aren't you doing exactly the same? Why should we assume that all questions have an answer? Because we've answered some?

Nope. We have found LOTS of questions that have answers, therefore the idea that questions have answers is supported. The assumption that some questions don't have an answer is unsupported speculation on your part, and you're trying to use it as the initial premise of an argument. It's like asking how science would explain human levitation and using a negative proof fallacy to support the initial premise the humans can levitate. Fail!

Sooooo frustrating. We've also found LOTS of questions that so far don't have an answer. You keep asking for the proof of the unanswerable question, but I keep asking you "what the hell would one look like?" If you can't tell me what you would accept as proof of such a critter, I cannot be expected to provide such proof.

SO...I ask again. What would an unanswerable question look like? How can I show you one?

02/25/2010 11:06:09 AM · #1579

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

We've also found LOTS of questions that so far don't have an answer. You keep asking for the proof of the unanswerable question, but I keep asking you "what the hell would one look like?" If you can't tell me what you would accept as proof of such a critter, I cannot be expected to provide such proof.

SO...I ask again. What would an unanswerable question look like? How can I show you one?

Jason shakes his cup harder... "Please, suh, may I beg the question?" Just because a question remains unanswered doesn't mean there ISN'T one.

We've found LOTS of humans that have never tried to levitate. You keep asking for proof that humans can levitate, but I keep asking you how science would explain it.
We haven't identified all the foals in the world, so there might still be unicorns out there. You keep asking for proof that unicorns exist, but I keep asking what their horns are made out of.
All questions haven't been answered, so we might find one that has no natural explanation. You keep asking for proof of the unanswerable question, but I keep asking you "what the hell would one look like?"

You're *STILL* begging the question. Yawn.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/25/2010 11:07:58 AM · #1580

You are being completely obtuse, which makes me *YAWN* as well. Why don't you go click on Jeb's link and Rickroll yourself...

The difference in our analogies is that we've experienced some huge % of foal births. Do you think we've answered such a high % of the questions of the world? Are you that arrogant? Are you going to make the same mistake Kelvin did? He looked like quite a fool just before the discovery of two of the most important physical theories ever.

Message edited by author 2010-02-25 11:11:49.

rossbilly

Nikon D200

02/25/2010 11:10:07 AM · #1581

maybe there is an easier example here (without so many analogies):

Is there ANY available example of religion proving to be true?
(no, despite millennia of assertion, it still hasn't occurred)

Is there ANY available example of science proving to be true?
(frikkin thousands upon thousands...)

Damn, did I just come back from Staples? That was easy!

(/sarcasm)

Jason, after seeing you do this for a few years, it seems your point is no longer to prove that you are right. It feels as though you just want to keep arguing for the sake of not 'giving in'. Especially after your mention of spending lots of time on atheist forums. With all due respect and sincerity, why do you hold so tenaciously to your opinion? Is it a matter of pride? Do you sometimes consider the 'what if I'm wrong (ie - pascal's wager being wrong, which was pointed out many times).

Again, no offense. You just seem so unwilling to let go of whatever it is that binds you to these beliefs. It really becomes an exercise in futility to have these discussions, when one realizes your unwillingness to possibly change stance. Please don't think I'm asking you to suddenly become atheist/whatever... I'm simply referring to issues such as gay marriage, etc. (small steps, you know)

ugh - not even sure what I'm asking (how to clarify the question)... but would appreciate hearing your thoughts anyway. thx

Message edited by author 2010-02-25 11:23:39.

02/25/2010 11:14:04 AM · #1582

Originally posted by rossbilly:

Is there ANY available example of religion proving to be true?
(no, despite millennia of assertion, it still hasn't occurred)

Up until the 20th century any creation story that had a beginning to the universe was religious. Up until the 20th century virtually (meaning I can't find an example against) all non-religious cosmology models had an eternal, static universe (from the Greeks to Newton to Einstein).

Whoops. Looks like the religious ideas were more inline with reality.

Looks like I got an Easy button too....

Message edited by author 2010-02-25 11:14:58.

02/25/2010 11:25:32 AM · #1583

Basically the last 20 posts tell me many atheists deed a large dose of humility. Carry on.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/25/2010 11:26:33 AM · #1584

It's frustrating when nobody buys a bogus argument, eh? Here, I'll break it down for you...

One side says everything has a natural explanation and so far everything has. The other side claims some things have supernatural explanations, and relies on a Negative Proof fallacy to counter the lack of a single example. So you ask this: "What would an unanswerable question look like?" You've inserted your own claim (that some things have no natural explanation) as a given premise of the argument. Of course the answer would look like something supernatural because that conclusion is assumed in the question. That's a textbook example of begging the question.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/25/2010 11:27:08 AM · #1585

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

You are being completely obtuse, which makes me *YAWN* as well.

Actually, he's right on the money. No clearer example of the fallacy you insist on promulgating could have been given (and it was kinda funny too).

I wonder why you mention Kelvin. It was his religious faith that undermined his scientific reasoning.

02/25/2010 11:28:43 AM · #1586

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Historian's Fallacy.

02/25/2010 11:30:39 AM · #1587

Originally posted by rossbilly:

Again, no offense. You just seem so unwilling to let go of whatever it is that binds you to these beliefs. It really becomes an exercise in futility to have these discussions, when one realizes your unwillingness to possibly change stance. Please don't think I'm asking you to suddenly become atheist/whatever... I'm simply referring to issues such as gay marriage, etc. (small steps, you know)

LOL, have you honestly seen anybody change their view on these threads? It takes two to dance and apparently we all suffer the same pathology (whatever that may be).

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

02/25/2010 11:31:04 AM · #1588

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Up until the 20th century any creation story that had a beginning to the universe was religious. Up until the 20th century virtually (meaning I can't find an example against) all non-religious cosmology models had an eternal, static universe (from the Greeks to Newton to Einstein)...

Historian's Fallacy.

Dork's Fallacy. :P

The historian's fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision. It is not to be confused with presentism, a mode of historical analysis in which present-day ideas (such as moral standards) are projected into the past.

So you are saying I'm not being fair to the non-religious theorists about the static universe because they didn't have the information we do now? Neither did the religious people, but they seemed to be closer to the truth.

Message edited by author 2010-02-25 11:33:23.

Louis

Nikon D800

02/25/2010 11:34:29 AM · #1589

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Basically the last 20 posts tell me many atheists deed a large dose of humility. Carry on.

It isn't pride that makes one refuse to accept an untenable proposition. You're asking for nothing less than for everyone here to argue on your terms, and to do that, we would need to first accept what is basically a common error in your reasoning. There's at least one guy here who could probably benefit from a more humble position... :/

rossbilly

Nikon D200

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.4D

02/25/2010 11:34:55 AM · #1590

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by rossbilly:
Is there ANY available example of religion proving to be true?
(no, despite millennia of assertion, it still hasn't occurred)

Up until the 20th century any creation story that had a beginning to the universe was religious. Up until the 20th century virtually (meaning I can't find an example against) all non-religious cosmology models had an eternal, static universe (from the Greeks to Newton to Einstein).

Whoops. Looks like the religious ideas were more inline with reality.

Looks like I got an Easy button too....

See, that is precisely the difference in viewpoint that is SO frustrating. You're stating that science was wrong? big deal, that is a given in science & not surprising. Science is not afraid to say 'we were wrong, but we've learned & improved'

Religion wants to fight tenaciously to prove that it is right, when it has absolutely NO leg to stand on. I am asking if religion has ever proven to be RIGHT about there being a supreme being... and it has not. Can you not simply accept that as truth?

I'll say it again, and please try to consider the point I'm making:

Is there ANY available example of religion proving to be true?
(no, despite millennia of assertion, it still hasn't occurred)

Is there ANY available example of science proving to be true?
(yes, countless times, and it continues to do so)

02/25/2010 11:35:29 AM · #1591

Sigh. I'll just quit for a while before I start going all Jeb on you guys.

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/25/2010 11:44:54 AM · #1592

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by scalvert:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Up until the 20th century any creation story that had a beginning to the universe was religious. Up until the 20th century virtually (meaning I can't find an example against) all non-religious cosmology models had an eternal, static universe (from the Greeks to Newton to Einstein)...

Historian's Fallacy.

The historian's fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when one assumes that decision makers of the past viewed events from the same perspective and having the same information as those subsequently analyzing the decision.

Yep, that's the one.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

02/25/2010 11:57:27 AM · #1593

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

It is no surprise that both religious and early secular conceptions of the universe would be similar to each other - they come from the same source, aka looking up in the sky and speculating. Given that - without the benefit of modern instruments - the "heavens" appeared to be static, it was logical to assume that they were. It was only through continued scientific inquiry that the falseness of that assumption was exposed and the idea of a static universe eventually overturned.

Message edited by author 2010-02-25 12:17:06.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/25/2010 12:13:32 PM · #1594

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Also, the warehouse is HUGE. The boxes number in the billions and so far we've opened ten thousand. Even more interestingly, every time a box is opened, often it contains 10 more boxes, each with their own combination.

I would argue with this part of your revision of my analogy. The truth is we don't know how big the warehouse is. You are are still begging the question by assuming that the amount of knowledge there is to acquire vastly exceeds the amount of knowledge that we have already acquired, and in doing so making the same type of mistake Kelvin was making when he stated that the vast majority of knowledge had already been discovered

Further, there are areas of human knowledge where we have a pretty complete picture. Historians and anthropologists have developed a fairly extensive knowledge of the development of religion and its progression from tribal poly-theistic faiths to the later mono-theistic myths. This is the key factor that tips the balance for me from being a deist to an atheist. We have tracked the development of religious belief in oral and recorded history; we can observe how earlier religious beliefs likely operated through the observation of modern tribal and/or polytheistic cultures and correlate what we observe with historical artifacts and records; and we are now beginning to uncover the mechanisms in the brain that appear to have given rise to our species inclination toward religious belief and the cultural processes by which those inclinations were cultivated.

To my mind, any honest appraisal of both current science and religious history presents an obvious conclusion that religious belief is a product of our biology and culture and not any sort of description of truth existing outside of our own creation.

"In the beginning, humanity made God in our own image. And it has been a mixed bag, frankly."

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

That's the way I see it at least. Perhaps we just have a different impression of what "increasingly improbably" represents.

Indeed, we do.

Message edited by author 2010-02-25 12:15:41.

shutterpuppy

Sony Alpha a7

Canon FD 70-210mm f/4.0 MF

02/25/2010 12:49:22 PM · #1595

Something to chew on:

The Origins of Religion: Evolutionary Adaptation or By-Product

I tend to favor the by-product theory, but don't necessarily think that they are mutually exclusive.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 28-300mm f3.5-5.6G ED VR

02/25/2010 01:01:29 PM · #1596

Originally posted by shutterpuppy:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Also, the warehouse is HUGE. The boxes number in the billions and so far we've opened ten thousand. Even more interestingly, every time a box is opened, often it contains 10 more boxes, each with their own combination.

I would argue with this part of your revision of my analogy. The truth is we don't know how big the warehouse is. You are are still begging the question by assuming that the amount of knowledge there is to acquire vastly exceeds the amount of knowledge that we have already acquired, and in doing so making the same type of mistake Kelvin was making when he stated that the vast majority of knowledge had already been discovered.

This is probably the exact difference between us. You are, of course, correct that it is impossible to know how much is unknown. So we guess. I guess it's really big and you guess it's less big. We both guess and those guesses lead to different conclusions.

NikonJeb

Nikon D850

02/25/2010 01:08:32 PM · #1597

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Sigh. I'll just quit for a while before I start going all Jeb on you guys.

No, I at least try to answer direct, reasonable questions before I get all snarky.

It's apparent that despite everyone else in this converstaion being willing to concede that there are unasnwerable questions, you still insist on hanging onto the idea that you can establish the veracity of the claims made by your faith.

It's not possible. You can't prove a thing. We don't have to disprove it.

It's funny, because there are even a few here that admit they believe in God, yet we also fully acknowledge the irrationality, and the personal nature of the beliefs.

So why can't you?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

02/25/2010 01:16:12 PM · #1598

Jeb,

Doc's NOT arguing Christian beliefs and the veracity of the Bible in this thread.

Are you really so caught up in yourself that you can't recognize that? He's making an argument for admitting the possibility of God. You, yourself, have acknowledged you think there is a God. So you have no argument with Doc in this thread, or at least not at this stage of it.

Why do you keep dragging this red herring in?

R.

yanko

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

02/25/2010 01:16:42 PM · #1599

Originally posted by scalvert:

I think it's safe to say that Jason rejects the notion that the Negative Proof argument is indeed a fallacy given how often he relies on it. Since we can't agree to let science decide and now logic appears to be out as well what else is there to rely on to continue this debate? Might as well just throw darts at each other.