| Topic: |
Religions > Bible |
| User: |
"Acme Diagnostics" |
| Date: |
31 Dec 2004 04:47:09 PM |
| Object: |
Re: God is just a theory |
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
No; I had to assume that to look at the evidence without bias;
but having done that, there's no reasonable doubt in my mind
that the 'parent' hypothesis is true - and therefore the 'fairy'
hypothesis isn't, since they're mutually exclusive.
Which (as I may have erred in not emphasizing) is exactly
where your god/fairy analogy breaks down. Believing that
something is not the case (whether god, the fairy, ET's,
whatever), requires evidence that something else is the
case, which requires evidence for that something else. In
the fairy's case, there is such evidence; in the case of a
creator of the universe, there isn't; only a number of
competing
hypotheses which also might be true.
Nice work!
I only meant to compliment George, not joing the discussion.
Sorry for interrupting. I'll make this one reply for continuity,
certainly being the lesser arguer in this area, and perhaps
George will continue if he likes.
Now to continue the analogy, but without bias. You accepted the "parent"
hypothesis as true because the evidence pointed that way. Although you
provided no clear logical proof that the tooth fairy did not exist.
I took the distinction to rest on a scientific standard, not a
logic standard, other than in the sense that logic (probability)
underlies science.
If you look at the Bible, you will find that the wind, the seasons, the
migration of birds, earthquakes, and the movement of the planets are all
attributed to God. You will find similar statements in all ancient
religions. Yet science has come up with explanations for all of these
phenomena which is at least equally as strong as your "parent" hypothesis.
God is not needed as an explanation for them, any more than the tooth fairy
is needed to explain the money under the pillow.
But this is talking about biblical things, for which there is
contrary evidence. I took George's distinction to apply to the
creator or maintainer God for which there is no contrary evidence.
What you are left with is a few gaps where science has not as of yet
supplied the answers.
But these "few gaps" are all the important ones. The unending
dogmatic religious "gaps" are of no consequence to a scientist or
logician.
But has religion been able provide answers?
Religious explanations are devoid of the logic which you hold so important.
We'd all agree to this, but I don't think it was the point. Being
scientifically or logically correct will sometimes promote
religion in some way. The former is deciding, not the latter.
Theologians claims that everything needs a cause, then they contradict
themselves by saying that God does not need a cause. Theologian insists
that design implies a designer, but then deny that God's perfection implies
a designer for God. Certainly this kind of contradictory logic cannot be
accepted as evidence for God.
I agree that it cannot be accepted as evidence. Science being
inadequate here, the logic tool remains. But I think logic breaks
down at this level of description so that there is no thinking
tool available to make such deductions. You can ask the questions
"What is outside of that?" or "What is inside of that?" enough
times and logic becomes insufficient, i.e. it a paradox. One can
answer the "What was before that?" question with some sort of
closed time loop or whatever, but you can still ask "What is
outside of that?" I.e. such questions can only be inconclusive,
and that's why I agree with you.
Your observations cannot prove the "parent" hypothesis for every case of
money under the table. You merely infer it. It is equally logical to infer
that science will come up with answers to fill those gaps. Your own logic
is against you.
Agree that science may eventually decide the "God" question, with
"eventually" being a dubious word at best, but for now, based on
zero scientific evidence and our inability to apply logic in this
area, the probability must be assumed as 50-50. The alternative
"tooth fairy" explanation is however much higher than that, i.e.
meets the scientific standard and many lesser standards, e.g.
common sense.
I highly respect your perspective about technological advance,
and how we are probably at the starting gate of that. But, again,
that only moves us to the 50-50 probability. It is really not
very decisive. All IMO of course.
Larry
.
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
01 Jan 2005 03:21:42 PM |
|
|
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
No; I had to assume that to look at the evidence without
bias; but having done that, there's no reasonable doubt
in my mind that the 'parent' hypothesis is true - and
therefore the 'fairy' hypothesis isn't, since they're mutually
exclusive.
Which (as I may have erred in not emphasizing) is exactly
where your god/fairy analogy breaks down. Believing that
something is not the case (whether god, the fairy, ET's,
whatever), requires evidence that something else is the
case, which requires evidence for that something else. In
the fairy's case, there is such evidence; in the case of a
creator of the universe, there isn't; only a number of
competing hypotheses which also might be true.
Nice work!
I only meant to compliment George, not joing the discussion.
Sorry for interrupting. I'll make this one reply for continuity,
certainly being the lesser arguer in this area, and perhaps
George will continue if he likes.
Now to continue the analogy, but without bias. You accepted
the "parent" hypothesis as true because the evidence pointed
that way. Although you provided no clear logical proof that
the tooth fairy did not exist.
I took the distinction to rest on a scientific standard, not a
logic standard, other than in the sense that logic (probability)
underlies science.
If you look at the Bible, you will find that the wind, the
seasons, the migration of birds, earthquakes, and the
movement of the planets are all attributed to God. You
will find similar statements in all ancient religions. Yet
science has come up with explanations for all of these
phenomena which is at least equally as strong as your
"parent" hypothesis. God is not needed as an explanation
for them, any more than the tooth fairy is needed to explain
the money under the pillow.
But this is talking about biblical things, for which there is
contrary evidence. I took George's distinction to apply to the
creator or maintainer God for which there is no contrary
evidence.
That is the "god of the gaps".
It is hard to imazine a God who creates the universe and then sits around
doing nothing. So just what does a "maintainer God" do? Why is it needed?
What you are left with is a few gaps where science has not
as of yet supplied the answers.
But these "few gaps" are all the important ones. The unending
dogmatic religious "gaps" are of no consequence to a scientist
or logician.
How are they important? They only get in the way when scientists try to
understand the universe.
But has religion been able provide answers?
Religious explanations are devoid of the logic which you
hold so important.
We'd all agree to this, but I don't think it was the point. Being
scientifically or logically correct will sometimes promote
religion in some way. The former is deciding, not the latter.
Just where does science or logic promote religion?
Theologians claims that everything needs a cause, then they
contradict themselves by saying that God does not need a
cause. Theologian insists that design implies a designer,
but then deny that God's perfection implies a designer for
God. Certainly this kind of contradictory logic cannot be
accepted as evidence for God.
I agree that it cannot be accepted as evidence. Science being
inadequate here, the logic tool remains. But I think logic breaks
down at this level of description so that there is no thinking
tool available to make such deductions. You can ask the
questions "What is outside of that?" or "What is inside of that?"
enough times and logic becomes insufficient, i.e. it a paradox.
One can answer the "What was before that?" question with
some sort of closed time loop or whatever, but you can still
ask "What is outside of that?" I.e. such questions can only
be inconclusive, and that's why I agree with you.
Your observations cannot prove the "parent" hypothesis
for every case of money under the table. You merely
infer it. It is equally logical to infer that science will come
up with answers to fill those gaps. Your own logic
is against you.
Agree that science may eventually decide the "God"
question, with "eventually" being a dubious word at best,
but for now, based on zero scientific evidence and our
inability to apply logic in this area, the probability must be
assumed as 50-50. The alternative "tooth fairy" explanation
is however much higher than that, i.e. meets the scientific
standard and many lesser standards, e.g. common sense.
I highly respect your perspective about technological advance,
and how we are probably at the starting gate of that. But, again,
that only moves us to the 50-50 probability. It is really not
very decisive. All IMO of course.
The British philosopher Antony Flew once invented a story about two
explorers who came across an oasis in the desert. I don't recall exactly
how the story went, but the idea is that one explorer insisted that there
had to be a gardener to maintain the oasis. The second explorer objected
and said that the oasis was natural. The two debated the issue and then
decided to put it to the test.
At first all the explorers did was wait around for several days to see if
the gardener shows up. After what seemed a sufficient amount of time, the
oasis still flourished. The second explorer stated that it was proven that
no gardener existed.
That was not good enough for the first explorer who insisted that they wait
longer. After an exceedingly long wait, even the first explorer had to
concede that the oasis was still as beautiful as before even though they had
seen no gardener, but he insisted that it was only because the gardener was
invisible.
As the story continues, a number of tests were employed. They brought in
dogs to detect the gardener's presence. Then electronic detection
equipment. The erected a fence around the oasis. The oasis showed no sign
of disrepair, but there was still no evidence for a gardener. The first
explorer always had an explanation: the gardener could not be detected by
dogs, the gardener could not be detected by electronic equipment, the
gardener could walk through walls and fences.
Finally the second explorer asked the important question:
What is the difference between your gardener, and no gardener at all?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
06 Jan 2005 01:01:39 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Which (as I may have erred in not emphasizing) is exactly
where your god/fairy analogy breaks down. Believing that
something is not the case (whether god, the fairy, ET's,
whatever), requires evidence that something else is the
case, which requires evidence for that something else. In
the fairy's case, there is such evidence; in the case of a
creator of the universe, there isn't; only a number of
competing hypotheses which also might be true.
Nice work!
I only meant to compliment George, not joing the discussion.
Sorry for interrupting. I'll make this one reply for continuity,
certainly being the lesser arguer in this area, and perhaps
George will continue if he likes.
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
But Larry said basically what I would have said, though probably better
and certainly more concisely 8)
Now to continue the analogy, but without bias. You accepted
the "parent" hypothesis as true because the evidence pointed
that way. Although you provided no clear logical proof that
the tooth fairy did not exist.
I took the distinction to rest on a scientific standard, not a
logic standard, other than in the sense that logic (probability)
underlies science.
If you look at the Bible, you will find that the wind, the
seasons, the migration of birds, earthquakes, and the
movement of the planets are all attributed to God. You
will find similar statements in all ancient religions. Yet
science has come up with explanations for all of these
phenomena which is at least equally as strong as your
"parent" hypothesis. God is not needed as an explanation
for them, any more than the tooth fairy is needed to explain
the money under the pillow.
But this is talking about biblical things, for which there is
contrary evidence. I took George's distinction to apply to the
creator or maintainer God for which there is no contrary
evidence.
That is the "god of the gaps".
It is hard to imazine a God who creates the universe and then sits
around
doing nothing. So just what does a "maintainer God" do? Why is it
needed?
How should I know? Some Christians have interpreted the Bible quote,
"By God all things are held together," as meaning that It exerts the
strong nuclear force. (which, I assume, is disproveable). But, like
Flew, I'm agnostic about a creator god, not a maintainer one - a
creator god could be dead, or could be off creating other universes, or
whatever.
What you are left with is a few gaps where science has not
as of yet supplied the answers.
But these "few gaps" are all the important ones. The unending
dogmatic religious "gaps" are of no consequence to a scientist
or logician.
How are they important? They only get in the way when scientists
try to
understand the universe.
Usually it's discounting hypotheses that prevents efforts to understand
the universe; the Catholic Church's treatment of Galileo, or (to use a
secular example) Lysenkoism.
But has religion been able provide answers?
Religious explanations are devoid of the logic which you
hold so important.
We'd all agree to this, but I don't think it was the point. Being
scientifically or logically correct will sometimes promote
religion in some way. The former is deciding, not the latter.
Just where does science or logic promote religion?
Actually, I think Larry meant 'might promote' rather than 'will
promote'. As an example: some people think that for science even to
look at the question of a creating intelligence promotes of religion,
and take sides on whether science should do that on that latter basis.
snip
Your observations cannot prove the "parent" hypothesis
for every case of money under the table. You merely
infer it.
No; but it's a reasonable inference, considering my own experience.
It is equally logical to infer that science will come
up with answers to fill those gaps. Your own logic
is against you.
Well, no, because I'm not relying on a 'gaps' argument in the fairy's
case. That would be: You have evidence in more than one case that
your parents were the source of your money; so it's reasonable to think
that they're the source when you don't know the source. I may have
relied on such reasoning in the past, when I actually stopped believing
in the fairy; but it's not a reason I don't believe in the fairy now.
Agree that science may eventually decide the "God"
question, with "eventually" being a dubious word at best,
but for now, based on zero scientific evidence and our
inability to apply logic in this area, the probability must be
assumed as 50-50. The alternative "tooth fairy" explanation
is however much higher than that, i.e. meets the scientific
standard and many lesser standards, e.g. common sense.
I highly respect your perspective about technological advance,
and how we are probably at the starting gate of that. But, again,
that only moves us to the 50-50 probability. It is really not
very decisive. All IMO of course.
The British philosopher Antony Flew once invented a story about two
explorers who came across an oasis in the desert. I don't recall
exactly
how the story went, but the idea is that one explorer insisted that
there
had to be a gardener to maintain the oasis.
Flew was was actually a story by John Wisdom. Here's the link:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/flew.html
As noted, the one explorer said something like, "There is someone who
planted and and tends this garden."
snip
As the story continues, a number of tests were employed. They
brought in
dogs to detect the gardener's presence. Then electronic detection
equipment. The erected a fence around the oasis. The oasis showed
no sign
of disrepair, but there was still no evidence for a gardener. The
first
explorer always had an explanation: the gardener could not be
detected by
dogs, the gardener could not be detected by electronic equipment, the
gardener could walk through walls and fences.
Finally the second explorer asked the important question:
What is the difference between your gardener, and no gardener at all?
Good question, regarding the explorer's second hypothesis: "There is
someone who tends this garden." Since he's talking a gardener that's
indistinguishable from no gardener, his statement that there is such a
thing is meaningless, which is good reason for the other explorer to
not believe it (hold it as true).
OTOH, note that the explorer's first hypothesis - "There is someone who
planted this garden" was not tested at all - just lost in the shuffle -
meaning that the second explorer has no reason or evidence to reject
it.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
07 Jan 2005 11:22:11 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > Weatherwax wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" wrote
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Which (as I may have erred in not emphasizing) is exactly
where your god/fairy analogy breaks down. Believing
that something is not the case (whether god, the fairy,
ET's, whatever), requires evidence that something else
is the case, which requires evidence for that something
else. In the fairy's case, there is such evidence; in the
case of a creator of the universe, there isn't; only a
number of competing hypotheses which also might be
true.
Nice work!
I only meant to compliment George, not joing the
discussion. Sorry for interrupting. I'll make this one
reply for continuity, certainly being the lesser arguer in
this area, and perhaps George will continue if he likes.
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy
being 'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent',
numbers. But Larry said basically what I would have said,
though probably better and certainly more concisely 8)
Now to continue the analogy, but without bias. You
accepted the "parent" hypothesis as true because the
evidence pointed that way. Although you provided
no clear logical proof that the tooth fairy did not exist.
I took the distinction to rest on a scientific standard, not a
logic standard, other than in the sense that logic (probability)
underlies science.
If you look at the Bible, you will find that the wind, the
seasons, the migration of birds, earthquakes, and the
movement of the planets are all attributed to God. You
will find similar statements in all ancient religions. Yet
science has come up with explanations for all of these
phenomena which is at least equally as strong as your
"parent" hypothesis. God is not needed as an explanation
for them, any more than the tooth fairy is needed to explain
the money under the pillow.
But this is talking about biblical things, for which there is
contrary evidence. I took George's distinction to apply to
the creator or maintainer God for which there is no
contrary evidence.
That is the "god of the gaps".
It is hard to imazine a God who creates the universe and
then sits around doing nothing. So just what does a
"maintainer God" do? Why is it needed?
How should I know? Some Christians have interpreted
the Bible quote, "By God all things are held together," as
meaning that It exerts the strong nuclear force. (which, I
assume, is disproveable). But, like Flew, I'm agnostic
about a creator god, not a maintainer one - a creator god
could be dead, or could be off creating other universes, or
whatever.
You have to explain your position better. Are you saying that you can prove
that there is no "maintainer" or "personal god"?
What you are left with is a few gaps where science has not
as of yet supplied the answers.
But these "few gaps" are all the important ones. The
unending dogmatic religious "gaps" are of no
consequence to a scientist or logician.
How are they important? They only get in the way when
scientists try to understand the universe.
Usually it's discounting hypotheses that prevents efforts to
understand the universe; the Catholic Church's treatment of
Galileo, or (to use a secular example) Lysenkoism.
The case of Galileo is an example of religion getting in the way of a
scientist. Lysenkoism is a similar example of doctrine interfering with
science.
But has religion been able provide answers?
Religious explanations are devoid of the logic which you
hold so important.
We'd all agree to this, but I don't think it was the point.
Being scientifically or logically correct will sometimes
promote religion in some way. The former is deciding,
not the latter.
Just where does science or logic promote religion?
Actually, I think Larry meant 'might promote' rather than 'will
promote'. As an example: some people think that for science
even to look at the question of a creating intelligence promotes
of religion, and take sides on whether science should do that
on that latter basis.
I don't know what he means either. Historically, science and religion has
been enemies.
snip
Your observations cannot prove the "parent" hypothesis
for every case of money under the table. You merely
infer it.
No; but it's a reasonable inference, considering my own
experience.
I believe that it is a reasonable inference to believe that God does not
exist. Yet you will not allow me to come to that conclusion.
It is equally logical to infer that science will come
up with answers to fill those gaps. Your own logic
is against you.
Well, no, because I'm not relying on a 'gaps' argument in the
fairy's case. That would be: You have evidence in more
than one case that your parents were the source of your
money; so it's reasonable to think that they're the source
when you don't know the source. I may have relied on such
reasoning in the past, when I actually stopped believing
in the fairy; but it's not a reason I don't believe in the fairy now.
It is an inference based common sense, not logic. For example: if you flip
a coin ten thousand times and it comes out heads every time, then common
sense tells you that you have a two headed coin. But only examining the
coin will prove it.
By "God of the gaps" is meant a god which is invoked to
answer whatever cannot be answered any other way.
Today that god is reduced to mere questions of "why" which
has no ultimate answer, and questions about the creation of
the universe, or the origin of life. Science is learning more about the
beginning of the universe and the creation of life every day. The gap is
getting smaller.
agree that science may eventually decide the "God"
question, with "eventually" being a dubious word at best,
but for now, based on zero scientific evidence and our
inability to apply logic in this area, the probability must be
assumed as 50-50. The alternative "tooth fairy" explanation
is however much higher than that, i.e. meets the scientific
standard and many lesser standards, e.g. common sense.
I highly respect your perspective about technological
advance, and how we are probably at the starting gate
of that. But, again, that only moves us to the 50-50
probability. It is really not very decisive. All IMO of course.
The British philosopher Antony Flew once invented a story
about two explorers who came across an oasis in the
desert. I don't recall exactly how the story went, but the
idea is that one explorer insisted that there had to be a
gardener to maintain the oasis.
Flew was was actually a story by John Wisdom. Here's the link:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/flew.html
As noted, the one explorer said something like, "There is
someone who planted and and tends this garden."
snip
As the story continues, a number of tests were employed.
They brought in dogs to detect the gardener's presence.
Then electronic detection equipment. The erected a fence
around the oasis. The oasis showed no sign
of disrepair, but there was still no evidence for a gardener.
The first explorer always had an explanation: the gardener
could not be detected by dogs, the gardener could not be
detected by electronic equipment, the gardener could walk
through walls and fences.
Finally the second explorer asked the important question:
What is the difference between your gardener, and no
gardener at all?
Good question, regarding the explorer's second hypothesis:
"There is someone who tends this garden." Since he's talking
a gardener that's indistinguishable from no gardener, his
statement that there is such a thing is meaningless, which is
good reason for the other explorer to not believe it (hold it
as true).
OTOH, note that the explorer's first hypothesis - "There is
someone who planted this garden" was not tested at all - just
lost in the shuffle - meaning that the second explorer has no
reason or evidence to reject it.
How is your creator gardener any more real than the "maintainer" gardener?
Or different from no gardener at all?
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
15 Jan 2005 05:23:30 PM |
|
|
Weatherwax wrote:
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote in message > Weatherwax
wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
If you look at the Bible, you will find that the wind, the
seasons, the migration of birds, earthquakes, and the
movement of the planets are all attributed to God. You
will find similar statements in all ancient religions. Yet
science has come up with explanations for all of these
phenomena which is at least equally as strong as your
"parent" hypothesis. God is not needed as an explanation
for them, any more than the tooth fairy is needed to explain
the money under the pillow.
But this is talking about biblical things, for which there is
contrary evidence. I took George's distinction to apply to
the creator or maintainer God for which there is no
contrary evidence.
That is the "god of the gaps".
It is hard to imazine a God who creates the universe and
then sits around doing nothing. So just what does a
"maintainer God" do? Why is it needed?
How should I know? Some Christians have interpreted
the Bible quote, "By God all things are held together," as
meaning that It exerts the strong nuclear force. (which, I
assume, is disproveable). But, like Flew, I'm agnostic
about a creator god, not a maintainer one - a creator god
could be dead, or could be off creating other universes, or
whatever.
You have to explain your position better. Are you saying that you
can prove
that there is no "maintainer" or "personal god"?
Not that I can prove it - I don't have the physics or math to do that -
but just that it looks proveable, by the same reasoning as you used in
the first paragraph (which is perfectly sound IMO):
One essential property of an maintainer god is agency - it has to do
something, or it's not a maintainer god. If it does some things - make
the leaves fall, the flowers bloom, or whatever, then there would be
evidence of agency - some hidden variables that do not allow it to be
explained as a fully automatic process - some hidden variable in the
equations. Conversely, if the entire process can be explained as fully
automatic - if one can demonstrate that leaves fall under these and
only these conditions, period, with no hidden variables - there's no
room for an agent. Similarly, I'd say, a proof a Theory of Everything
would be a proof of no agency involved in any physical processes, which
would rule out a maintainer god period.
What you are left with is a few gaps where science has not
as of yet supplied the answers.
But these "few gaps" are all the important ones. The
unending dogmatic religious "gaps" are of no
consequence to a scientist or logician.
How are they important? They only get in the way when
scientists try to understand the universe.
Usually it's discounting hypotheses that prevents efforts to
understand the universe; the Catholic Church's treatment of
Galileo, or (to use a secular example) Lysenkoism.
The case of Galileo is an example of religion getting in the way of a
scientist. Lysenkoism is a similar example of doctrine interfering
with science.
Well, yes, it's fair to describe both of those examples as 'religion'
(Catholic and theist in one case, Marxist and non-theist in the other)
- and to say that religion always does get in the way of science, as
those two "ways to explain the world" (scare quotes because I obviously
don't consider them both legitimate ways) are incompatible.
And I see atheists who want to keep any consideration of gods out of
science, because they want to keep religion out of science, as being
essentially on the right side. That's why, for instance, I've ended up
changing my mind on the whole question of teaching ID in schools -
looking at the historical record, there's very good reason to accept
the slippery slope argument that allowing teaching about ID is a step
toward banning teaching about evolution. Definitely religion. Our
knowledge gaps about the universe are like round holes, and turning to
religion for answers is like trying to shove square pegs into those
holes.
But I'd say that adults can look at the god-question, and come up with
some answers, scientifically - perhaps not in our lifetimes, but at
some time - and for that to ever happen, it's necessary that those
questions do get asked in the fist place.
But has religion been able provide answers?
Religious explanations are devoid of the logic which you
hold so important.
We'd all agree to this, but I don't think it was the point.
Being scientifically or logically correct will sometimes
promote religion in some way. The former is deciding,
not the latter.
Just where does science or logic promote religion?
Actually, I think Larry meant 'might promote' rather than 'will
promote'. As an example: some people think that for science
even to look at the question of a creating intelligence promotes
of religion, and take sides on whether science should do that
on that latter basis.
I don't know what he means either. Historically, science and
religion has been enemies.
I think what I said above, about the ID slippery slope, is an example
of what he means. Those who oppose allowing it to be taught, IMO,
aren't motivated by any opposition to the idea of ID itself - what
motivates them is the concern that allowing ID in the schools will
mean, in practice, promoting Christianity in the schools. (And I've
ended up agreeing with them.)
snip
Your observations cannot prove the "parent" hypothesis
for every case of money under the table. You merely
infer it.
No; but it's a reasonable inference, considering my own
experience.
I believe that it is a reasonable inference to believe that God does
not
exist. Yet you will not allow me to come to that conclusion.
No, I think that "There is no tooth fairy" is as close as we can come
to a universally true synthetic statement based on inference. It's not
'proven' in the sense of a logical proof - it's logically possible that
there is sicj a thing, and logically possible that there's some
evidence for that that we've just overlooked (say, that there really
*is* a tooth fairy in the Ganymede system; and we learned its story in
the deep past, when aliens from that system visited earth) - but the
same is true of any inferred synthetic statement: it's always possible
it can be wrong, and possible it can be proven wrong.
When (or if; I forget whether I did) I say that inferring "There is no
tooth fairy" is invalid, I mean only that it's not valid deductively -
that it's only an inductive conclusion. (And when I've agreed there's
no 'proof' that there's no fairy, I've meant a deductively valid
logical or mathematical proof). But it's a strong inductive conclusion
- the strongest that inductive reasoning can produce.
It is equally logical to infer that science will come
up with answers to fill those gaps. Your own logic
is against you.
Well, no, because I'm not relying on a 'gaps' argument in the
fairy's case. That would be: You have evidence in more
than one case that your parents were the source of your
money; so it's reasonable to think that they're the source
when you don't know the source. I may have relied on such
reasoning in the past, when I actually stopped believing
in the fairy; but it's not a reason I don't believe in the fairy
now.
It is an inference based common sense, not logic. For example: if
you flip
a coin ten thousand times and it comes out heads every time, then
common
sense tells you that you have a two headed coin. But only examining
the
coin will prove it.
I agree with your example and your conclusion. Your 'common sense'
reasoning sounds the same as the 'strong inductive' reasoning I've just
been blathering on about.
What I'd say, though, is that this reasoning only gives an inductive
conclusion about that coin - not 'coins in general' or anything else in
general - and questions like "Does an intelligence make lightning
happen?" and "Did an intelligence design the parameters of the physical
universe?" are not like flips of the same coin. The first can be
answered by referring to automatic physical processes that we can
observe and study. But the second is a question about unknown causes
of those processes themselves, that cannot be resolved by appealing to
them. The parameters of the universe, which by amazing coincidence
produced us, can be explained only by an intelligence, or (more likely,
IMO; after all, I am an atheist) antecedent automatic processes about
which, at this point, we know nothing.
By "God of the gaps" is meant a god which is invoked to
answer whatever cannot be answered any other way.
Today that god is reduced to mere questions of "why" which
has no ultimate answer, and questions about the creation of
the universe, or the origin of life. Science is learning more about
the
beginning of the universe and the creation of life every day. The
gap is getting smaller.
I think it's likely that such questions can be answered; and possible
that eventually the few remaining gaps will be so small that there's no
room for any gods. And I think that Larry's basically in agreement on
that point as well:
agree that science may eventually decide the "God"
question, with "eventually" being a dubious word at best,
but for now, based on zero scientific evidence and our
inability to apply logic in this area, the probability must be
assumed as 50-50. The alternative "tooth fairy" explanation
is however much higher than that, i.e. meets the scientific
standard and many lesser standards, e.g. common sense.
I highly respect your perspective about technological
advance, and how we are probably at the starting gate
of that. But, again, that only moves us to the 50-50
probability. It is really not very decisive. All IMO of course.
The British philosopher Antony Flew once invented a story
about two explorers who came across an oasis in the
desert. I don't recall exactly how the story went, but the
idea is that one explorer insisted that there had to be a
gardener to maintain the oasis.
Flew was was actually a story by John Wisdom. Here's the link:
http://people.brandeis.edu/~teuber/flew.html
As noted, the one explorer said something like, "There is
someone who planted and and tends this garden."
snip
As the story continues, a number of tests were employed.
They brought in dogs to detect the gardener's presence.
Then electronic detection equipment. The erected a fence
around the oasis. The oasis showed no sign
of disrepair, but there was still no evidence for a gardener.
The first explorer always had an explanation: the gardener
could not be detected by dogs, the gardener could not be
detected by electronic equipment, the gardener could walk
through walls and fences.
Finally the second explorer asked the important question:
What is the difference between your gardener, and no
gardener at all?
Good question, regarding the explorer's second hypothesis:
"There is someone who tends this garden." Since he's talking
a gardener that's indistinguishable from no gardener, his
statement that there is such a thing is meaningless, which is
good reason for the other explorer to not believe it (hold it
as true).
OTOH, note that the explorer's first hypothesis - "There is
someone who planted this garden" was not tested at all - just
lost in the shuffle - meaning that the second explorer has no
reason or evidence to reject it.
How is your creator gardener any more real than the "maintainer"
gardener?
He's a different 'coin' - one concludes that he exists or not based on
different evidence. The explorers could rule the creator gardener out
by doing other things - searching the area for evidence that all the
plants in the garden are weeds, eg - but observing the garden itself
will tell them nothing about him.
Similarly, a maintainer god can be ruled out by explaining observable
the automatic, physical processes that we can observe in the universe;
but the creator god can be ruled out only by inferring the automatic
processes that produced those physical ones; all one's evidence against
the (objective) reality of the first type of god says nothing about the
(objective) reality of the second.
Or different from no gardener at all?
There's no gardener, if every plant in the 'garden' can be shown to be
a naturally occurring weed, eg. - each such piece of evidence counting
as a flip of the same coin, to use the new analogy.
In the same way, our learning about the antecedent conditions to the
Bang, and the laws by which they caused the Bang and what has happened
since, would be enough to rule out any creator god.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Acme Diagnostics" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Jan 2005 03:32:09 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
(lots of snippage here and directly after each of my comments)
One essential property of an maintainer god is agency - it has to do
something, or it's not a maintainer god. If it does some things - make
the leaves fall, the flowers bloom, or whatever, then there would be
evidence of agency - some hidden variables that do not allow it to be
explained as a fully automatic process - some hidden variable in the
equations. Conversely, if the entire process can be explained as fully
automatic - if one can demonstrate that leaves fall under these and
only these conditions, period, with no hidden variables - there's no
room for an agent. Similarly, I'd say, a proof a Theory of Everything
would be a proof of no agency involved in any physical processes, which
would rule out a maintainer god period.
Yes, that's a maintainer god. My analogies of a maintainer god
were condensed from reading in my youth 500+ speculative
science, astronomy, and related books, Assimov, Clarke, Anthony,
Sagan, Niven, Roddenberry, Wells, Orwell, Drake, etc., etc., and
an attempt to represent the range of best thinking on the subject
in entertaining analogies that a 15-year-old could decode, such
as god dusting a knick-knack on his shelf, etc. Probably 10 such
books on that theme alone. "Mote in God's Eye" sounds like one,
but I can hardly remember specific content after 30 years of
replacing that recall with more productive things.
That apparently flew over Weatherwax's head and he decided to
cover his ignorance (or religious offense, makes no difference)
with two insult posts, the second following an attempt at
conciliation, thus earning an immediate place in my plonk file.
But of course I continue to read your comments with
great interest and make no implication that a time-wasting
and dispolite poster to me should not be a worthy poster to you.
You are a much more patient teacher - putting up with me too at
times.
("Dispolite" - hilarious scene in Laurel and Hardy's "French
Foreign Legion". Fat guy is going to jump off the pier because he
was in love and spurned, notices skinny guy wasn't preparing to
jump too, is perturbed at that saying things like, "You mean
after all I've done for you, you'd let me kill myself alone..."
etc., etc.) with skinny guy answering, "But I'm not in love!"
but eventually (and now sobbing) ties rope around his waist and
says, "Sorry Ollie, I didn't mean to be dispolite.")
I consider your more academic reading of philosophy greatly
informative for your unusual talent of precise and exactly
on-point explanation, and complementary to my reading experience.
I'm into practical philosophy, e.g. example-based,
experience-based, and that's why I took that reading route. The
philosophy in those books is always set in a context of an
example. A contrived example of course, but an example
nevertheless, thus most tied to experience. Also, philosophy is
the victim of the latest experiment (Sagan, I think), and those
books rigorously do not violate any known science at the time
written, a huge issue in sci-fi and the main reason for the very
active and *well-informed* group rec.arts.sf.science. Likewise In
academics, I paid some attention to the pragmatic philosophers
and little else. You seem well able to supply what's missing,
which I find to be a lot!
And I see atheists who want to keep any consideration of gods out of
science, because they want to keep religion out of science, as being
essentially on the right side. That's why, for instance, I've ended up
changing my mind on the whole question of teaching ID in schools -
looking at the historical record, there's very good reason to accept
the slippery slope argument that allowing teaching about ID is a step
toward banning teaching about evolution. Definitely religion. Our
knowledge gaps about the universe are like round holes, and turning to
religion for answers is like trying to shove square pegs into those
holes.
But I'd say that adults can look at the god-question, and come up with
some answers, scientifically - perhaps not in our lifetimes, but at
some time - and for that to ever happen, it's necessary that those
questions do get asked in the fist place.
I've also given that some thought and agree completely. The
faith questions have their place, but there needs to be an
offsetting companion institution to the church where logic and
science are also allowed to reign free, and that can only be the
schools. That issue had been decided in the U.S. at least by
the 60's when I went to school, but now seems to be in question
again. The Arkansas case deciding against "creationism" supplies
a nice, short, well-edited definition of "science" btw.
Just where does science or logic promote religion?
Actually, I think Larry meant 'might promote' rather than 'will
promote'. As an example: some people think that for science
even to look at the question of a creating intelligence promotes
of religion, and take sides on whether science should do that
on that latter basis.
Of course religion sometimes (right: "might") interprets
scientific advances in their own way to promote their dogma. It
is too obvious to waste time on examples. Well, surely they
will be misinterpreting the Titan photos as proof of god somehow
since I can think of five ways to do that off-hand.
I don't know what he means either. Historically, science and
religion has been enemies.
Can Weatherwax be so clueless? I don't think so. He must just
not be cooperating for some agenda reason. Likely he's incensed
at how religion impedes science, which is true, as am I, but has
nothing to do with religion using science at times to promote
their dogma.
I think what I said above, about the ID slippery slope, is an example
of what he means. Those who oppose allowing it to be taught, IMO,
aren't motivated by any opposition to the idea of ID itself - what
motivates them is the concern that allowing ID in the schools will
mean, in practice, promoting Christianity in the schools. (And I've
ended up agreeing with them.)
Again, agree. One qualification, though, for a completely
pragmatic political reason. In the 60's we had a "moment of
silence" in school every morning, and that was the entire
religious component at our school. That didn't interfere with
anything. Nobody I knew was thinking any religious thoughts
during that minute. If that would make 40 million people happier,
I'd have no problem with it. But teaching creationism or posting
religious dogma on walls, prayer before events, etc., definitely
not - that belongs in church or the home.
No, I think that "There is no tooth fairy" is as close as we can come
to a universally true synthetic statement based on inference. It's not
'proven' in the sense of a logical proof - it's logically possible that
there is sicj a thing, and logically possible that there's some
evidence for that that we've just overlooked (say, that there really
*is* a tooth fairy in the Ganymede system; and we learned its story in
the deep past, when aliens from that system visited earth) - but the
same is true of any inferred synthetic statement: it's always possible
it can be wrong, and possible it can be proven wrong.
Hehe. I like "aliens." Very spec-sci George!
When (or if; I forget whether I did) I say that inferring "There is no
tooth fairy" is invalid, I mean only that it's not valid deductively -
that it's only an inductive conclusion. (And when I've agreed there's
no 'proof' that there's no fairy, I've meant a deductively valid
logical or mathematical proof). But it's a strong inductive conclusion
- the strongest that inductive reasoning can produce.
True, and nice piece of explanation. Why didn't he get it the
first time?
I think it's likely that such questions can be answered; and possible
that eventually the few remaining gaps will be so small that there's no
room for any gods. And I think that Larry's basically in agreement on
that point as well:
Yes, because of "possible." We can't know the answer to this
question. But here's something interesting to me, George.
Assuming we did someday find evidence or proof of a creator or
maintainer god, which would get there first? Logic or science? I
say science because I think logic is probably an artifical
construct at that level of description, but our senses (probably
enhanced by then) will probably go a bit further than that.
How is your creator gardener any more real than the "maintainer"
gardener?
He's a different 'coin' - one concludes that he exists or not based on
different evidence. The explorers could rule the creator gardener out
by doing other things - searching the area for evidence that all the
plants in the garden are weeds, eg - but observing the garden itself
will tell them nothing about him.
Similarly, a maintainer god can be ruled out by explaining observable
the automatic, physical processes that we can observe in the universe;
but the creator god can be ruled out only by inferring the automatic
processes that produced those physical ones; all one's evidence against
the (objective) reality of the first type of god says nothing about the
(objective) reality of the second.
Or different from no gardener at all?
There's no gardener, if every plant in the 'garden' can be shown to be
a naturally occurring weed, eg. - each such piece of evidence counting
as a flip of the same coin, to use the new analogy.
In the same way, our learning about the antecedent conditions to the
Bang, and the laws by which they caused the Bang and what has happened
since, would be enough to rule out any creator god.
True. These are elementary distinctions known to just about
everyone who reads for as long as I can remember.
Please continue your conversation with Weatherwax and ignore me
as I really haven't added anything. I just wanted to comment on
my participation and clarify my previous statements. And please
excuse my enthusiasm for "dispolite" !!
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
16 Jan 2005 03:03:44 PM |
|
|
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote
georgedance04@yahoo.ca wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
(lots of snippage here and directly after each of my comments)
One essential property of an maintainer god is agency - it has
to do something, or it's not a maintainer god. If it does some
things - make the leaves fall, the flowers bloom, or whatever,
then there would be evidence of agency - some hidden
variables that do not allow it to be explained as a fully
automatic process - some hidden variable in the equations.
Conversely, if the entire process can be explained as fully
automatic - if one can demonstrate that leaves fall under
these and only these conditions, period, with no hidden
variables - there's no room for an agent. Similarly, I'd say,
a proof a Theory of Everything would be a proof of no
agency involved in any physical processes, which
would rule out a maintainer god period.
Yes, that's a maintainer god. My analogies of a maintainer god
were condensed from reading in my youth 500+ speculative
science, astronomy, and related books, Assimov, Clarke,
Anthony, Sagan, Niven, Roddenberry, Wells, Orwell, Drake,
etc., etc. . . .
The reason I had not replied to George Dance's post is because it was
admittedly speculative, and made no definite claims. In effect he was
merely asserting "the god of the gaps." That is, he was looking for where
science at present has no clear answer, and then inserting God into those
gaps.
Perhaps you can elucidate further on what you mean by a maintainer god,
other than just a "god of the gaps." How would it differ, in a demonstrable
way, from no god at all?
Try some of Assimov's non-fiction work.
< CLIP >
Historically, science and religion has been enemies.
Can Weatherwax be so clueless? I don't think so. He must
just not be cooperating for some agenda reason. Likely he's
incensed at how religion impedes science, which is true, as
am I, but has nothing to do with religion using science at times
to promote their dogma.
Whenever I have seen Religion attempt to use science, it has been based upon
ignorance. For example the numerous attempts to identify "mitochondrial
Eve", with the biblical Eve.
Religious leaders were eager to support excavations in Israel because they
believed such work would prove the Bible. The result has been that the
Exodus, the conquest, and the historicity of David and Solomon are now
either disproven or in great doubt.
The classic example of the conflict between science and religion is Galileo.
But from Horodotus we see that the controvercy goes at least as far back as
the ancient Greeks.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Acme Diagnostics" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
07 Jan 2005 05:38:50 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
Weatherwax wrote:
It is hard to imazine a God who creates the universe and then
sits around doing nothing. So just what does a "maintainer
God" do? Why is it needed?
How should I know? Some Christians have interpreted the Bible quote,
"By God all things are held together," as meaning that It exerts the
strong nuclear force. (which, I assume, is disproveable). But, like
Flew, I'm agnostic about a creator god, not a maintainer one - a
creator god could be dead, or could be off creating other universes, or
whatever.
I was just thinking that if a god created the multiverse, then
one could postulate that it had a reason. If it had a reason,
then it might want to be remain involved in some way.
For instance, if the multiverse is a knick-knack on god's
shelf, god might dust it now and then. Or god might sell it
at a god flea market to another god.
Or, if god built in some randomness or a game of chance
here and there, it might just be curious to see how it turns
out.
Or, it might be interested in various levels of intelligence
that migth have formed. After all, a somewhat intelligent entity
might be more interesting to watch than a rock. Our own
intelligence, meager and insignificant as it probably is, is
still at a level of description closer to the complexity of our
observable universe than to a rock, if not equal or greater
in complexity. I think physicists know a lot more about
the universe than psychologists know about personalities.
Our intelligence might even be connected in some way
to higher intelligent entities, like a sub-quantum modem in our
brains. That sounds like a fun experiment for a god.
God might even want to assume the point-of-view of such an entity
for fun. Or even introduce some change to see if that might be
more interesting to watch in some way.
But I think it extremely likely that a maintainer god would
have none of these interests or even analogies of these
interests so boring that I could imagine them.
It's a little disappointing that anything about the multiverse
that we could imagine now, or ever, would really be kind of
boring for such a god. If there is evidence of supernatural
events, I think it would be much more likely to be just an
advanced technology than a creator god. But you never know. If
and when we finally meet our creator and we ask, "Are you god?"
it might reply, "No, are you?"
This is what I was thinking about when I wrote "maintainer
god." In most human analogies I can think of, someone
associated with something created after the creation, or
some other "user," would at least be a maintainer in some way.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
07 Jan 2005 10:36:40 AM |
|
|
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in
< CLIP >
For instance, if the multiverse is a knick-knack on god's
shelf, god might dust it now and then. Or god might sell it
at a god flea market to another god.
Dust in heaven? That is absurd.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
| User: "Didymus" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
13 Feb 2005 11:52:19 AM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:sUyDd.76900$uM5.52016@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in
< CLIP >
For instance, if the multiverse is a knick-knack on god's
shelf, god might dust it now and then. Or god might sell it
at a god flea market to another god.
Dust in heaven? That is absurd.
It certainly is! Surely heaven has an advanced HVAC system.
Didymus
.
|
|
|
| User: "Libertarius" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
15 Feb 2005 04:16:06 PM |
|
|
Didymus wrote:
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote in message
news:sUyDd.76900$uM5.52016@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in
< CLIP >
For instance, if the multiverse is a knick-knack on god's
shelf, god might dust it now and then. Or god might sell it
at a god flea market to another god.
Dust in heaven? That is absurd.
It certainly is! Surely heaven has an advanced HVAC system.
===>At least a DIRT DEVIL. -- L.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Acme Diagnostics" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
07 Jan 2005 11:29:06 AM |
|
|
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in
< CLIP >
For instance, if the multiverse is a knick-knack on god's
shelf, god might dust it now and then. Or god might sell it
at a god flea market to another god.
Dust in heaven? That is absurd.
Yes, of course. I apologize for my long-winded post so that
you apparently and understandably never got to:
But I think it extremely likely that a maintainer god would
have none of these interests or even analogies of these
interests so boring that I could imagine them.
Larry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Weatherwax" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
07 Jan 2005 01:18:07 PM |
|
|
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in message
news:41dec657$0$99216$45beb828@newscene.com...
"Weatherwax" <Weatherwax@worldnet.net> wrote:
"Acme Diagnostics" <LFinezapthis@partpostmark.net> wrote in
< CLIP >
For instance, if the multiverse is a knick-knack on god's
shelf, god might dust it now and then. Or god might sell it
at a god flea market to another god.
Dust in heaven? That is absurd.
Yes, of course. I apologize for my long-winded post so that
you apparently and understandably never got to:
But I think it extremely likely that a maintainer god would
have none of these interests or even analogies of these
interests so boring that I could imagine them.
I agree. They are boring.
--
Wax
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "FreeThink" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
08 Jan 2005 08:32:44 PM |
|
|
This of course excludes an onmipotent God that would have no need to
grow, experiment or maintain.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
06 Jan 2005 02:50:52 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George. That
isn't allowed.
You tried to get away with the fallacy of reifying numbers so that you
could argue that atheists should be able to prove there is no God
because George Dance can prove there is no greatest number (or something
equally irrelevant).
Reification is the logical fallacy of treating an abstract concept as a
concrete thing.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#reification
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
06 Jan 2005 04:10:39 PM |
|
|
In article <r7CdnQeOQvklOUDcRVn-oA@comcast.com>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George. That
isn't allowed.
On the contrary, it is Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, who is trying
to sell the idea that there is no such thing as an idea.
Which is a hard thing to sell.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
07 Jan 2005 10:30:48 AM |
|
|
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George?
Fallacy of the Complex Question from Septic, yet again. Naturally,
since Septic is the completely fallacious old idiot fool of
alt.atheism, as always.
Jeff
.
|
|
|
| User: "XL" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
13 Jan 2005 11:12:22 AM |
|
|
wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George?
Fallacy of the Complex Question
There is nothing complex about it, it is a very simple question, is Tiny
Dancer still trying to get away with reifying quantity (number), an
abstract concept?
Tiny Dancer is on record as arguing that there might be a magic
invisible space pixie because he can prove there is no greatest number,
therefore atheists could prove there is no magic invisible space pixie
if there really were none.
That's his logical fallacy in this case => reification of quantity
(number), the treating of quantity (number), an abstract concept, as a
concrete thing. Didn't your daddies teach you the basics, moron?
Reification is the logical fallacy of treating an abstract concept as a
concrete thing.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#reification
.
|
|
|
| User: "Virgil" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
13 Jan 2005 12:19:52 PM |
|
|
In article <8c2dnT4lG45lNnvcRVn-uA@comcast.com>, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George?
Fallacy of the Complex Question
There is nothing complex about it, it is a very simple question, is Tiny
Dancer still trying to get away with reifying quantity (number), an
abstract concept?
Does saying that there are such concepts as numbers somehow 'reify' them?
If not, how does Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, do his income taxes
without using those things which he declares have no existence. Or does
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, just cheat on his taxes?
Tiny Dancer is on record as arguing that there might be a magic
invisible space pixie because he can prove there is no greatest number,
therefore atheists could prove there is no magic invisible space pixie
if there really were none.
Nobody except Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon, is on record as saying
about Septic's Magically Invisible Sky Pixies.
Septic XL Troll, the Craven Capon's delusions on this point have been
pointed out sufficiently often so that anyone saner than Septic XL
Troll, the Craven Capon, would have picked up on the insanity of
continuing such claims.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
13 Jan 2005 11:23:40 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:12:22 -0800, XL <xl@xl.net> wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent', numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George?
Fallacy of the Complex Question
There is nothing complex about it, it is a very simple question, is Tiny
Dancer still trying to get away with reifying quantity (number), an
abstract concept?
Tiny Dancer is on record as arguing that there might be a magic
invisible space pixie because he can prove there is no greatest number,
therefore atheists could prove there is no magic invisible space pixie
if there really were none.
That's his logical fallacy in this case => reification of quantity
(number), the treating of quantity (number), an abstract concept, as a
concrete thing. Didn't your daddies teach you the basics, moron?
Reification is the logical fallacy of treating an abstract concept as a
concrete thing.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#reification
In any case (as per the header) invoking gods and deities is not an
explanation so does not constitute a theory.
William
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: God is just a theory |
14 Jan 2005 01:30:58 PM |
|
|
XL wrote:
jientho@aol.com wrote:
XL wrote:
George Dance wrote:
(Sorry I'm late in rejoining the discussion; I've been busy being
'reamed' for talking about another alleged 'non-existent',
numbers.
Are you still trying to get away with reifying numbers, George?
Fallacy of the Complex Question
There is nothing complex about it
Which shows only that you don't understand (or choose to lie about)
what a complex question is. Here's an explanation, followed by a
demonstration, for the readers' benefit if not for yours:
'Complex question / Fallacy of interrogation / Fallacy of
presupposition
' This is the interrogative form of Begging the Question. One example
is the classic loaded question:
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
The question presupposes a definite answer to another question which
has not even been asked. This trick is often used by lawyers in
cross-examination, when they ask questions like:
"Where did you hide the money you stole?"'
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#complexq
, it is a very simple question, is Tiny
Dancer still trying to get away with reifying quantity (number), an
abstract concept?
You're asking two questions:
1) Have I tried to get away with reifying numbers in the past?
2) Am I trying to get away with reifying numbers now?
and trying to Beg the Question on (1).
... there might be a magic
invisible space pixie because he can prove there is no greatest
number,
therefore atheists could prove there is no magic invisible space
pixie if there really were none.
Non-sequitur.
That's his logical fallacy in this case => reification of quantity
(number),
"Alleged logical fallacy," as you've yet to demonstrate any.
the treating of quantity (number), an abstract concept, as a concrete
thing.
Didn't your daddies teach you the basics, moron?
Reification is the logical fallacy of treating an abstract concept
as a
concrete thing.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html#reification
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
