|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 15:16:13 GMT
Many believe they were inspired by God and thus infallible. This belief makes it extremely difficult to convince them that the "wisdom" found within may not, in fact, be all that wise today.
—————-
You could stop proselytizing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 15:32:13 GMT
I didn't say you were, but you started responding to me, and I was responding to movieliker, who WAS making such claims. I hear what you're saying; did you hear/understand what I said? What method can you use to "test the idea of a spiritual world" and how do you know it's reliable enough to believe one exists? What physical method can be used to perform tests on a spiritual world? Why people believe is none of your business. I didn't ask you what "physical" method can be used to test a spiritual world: I asked what METHOD (any method) can you use to "test the idea of a spiritual world" and how do you know it's reliable enough to believe one exists. For the umpteenth time, when people's beliefs influence how they vote, and how they vote affects me, it's my business. Also, when people come on a forum to discuss such beliefs and do so, they make it my business. Not sure which of these ideas you don't get or disagree with.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 15:32:36 GMT
Many believe they were inspired by God and thus infallible. This belief makes it extremely difficult to convince them that the "wisdom" found within may not, in fact, be all that wise today. —————- You could stop proselytizing. You could stop being a moron.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 15:34:33 GMT
If God doesn't exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence 100% of the time. If God does exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence less than 100%. We see no evidence for his existence. Because him not existing predicts such a thing more than his existing, it's evidence that he doesn't exist. —————- A physical test to perform on a spiritual world. Nope!!!! Ridiculous and not evidence. The only God I know of that doesn't interact with a physical world is a deistic God. Most people do not believe in deistic Gods. Theistic Gods interact with the physical world and should be amenable to physical tests. There are even such physical tests in The Bible.
|
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 15:37:41 GMT
Many believe they were inspired by God and thus infallible. This belief makes it extremely difficult to convince them that the "wisdom" found within may not, in fact, be all that wise today. —————- You could stop proselytizing. You could stop being a moron. You could! Why the hell do you think it’s your friggin’ business to try to talk people out of their beliefs in a higher power?!? |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 15:40:36 GMT
If God doesn't exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence 100% of the time. If God does exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence less than 100%. We see no evidence for his existence. Because him not existing predicts such a thing more than his existing, it's evidence that he doesn't exist. —————- A physical test to perform on a spiritual world. Nope!!!! Ridiculous and not evidence. The only God I know of that doesn't interact with a physical world is a deistic God. Most people do not believe in deistic Gods. Theistic Gods interact with the physical world and should be amenable to physical tests. There are even such physical tests in The Bible. Bullsh*t. A spiritual world is not visible in a physical world. You are only interested in trying to drive people’s religious beliefs away from them. It’s none of your business. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 15:53:31 GMT
Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in an invisible God.
This is billions of people.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 4, 2021 17:46:55 GMT
Eva Yojimbo said "The only evidence possible that something doesn't exist is a lack of evidence that it does, and this is precisely what we see with God." Here, I'm going to help to clarify this by offering a non-God example to illustrate my point, and then I'll swing back around to God to show you how it applies. Let's say you've lost your keys and decide to search your bedroom for your keys. Now, there are two possibilities: A) The keys are not in the bedroom. B) The keys are in the bedroom. Now, let's say you search your bedroom for a while and do not find them. One way to phrase this is that there's a "lack of evidence your keys are in the bedroom." Each of the above two possibilities make different predictions about the probability of encountering this "lack of evidence": A) If the keys aren't in the bedroom, you'd expect to find no evidence of them being there 100% of the time. B) If the keys are in the bedroom, you'd expect to find no evidence of them being there less than 100% of the time. Because Probability-A is greater than Probability-B, your "lack of evidence" is, in itself, evidence for Possibility-A (in other words, it makes Possibility-A more likely than it was before). Now, this does not mean that you have proven Possibility-A. It's still possible that the keys are in there and you just haven't found them, but this possibility is LESS LIKELY than it was before you started looking for them because of the absence of evidence of them being in there. There's also the issue of how strong of evidence is it for Possibility-A. If you have a huge bedroom and just started looking, it's pretty weak evidence; if you have a small bedroom and have been looking thoroughly, it's strong evidence. All evidence fundamentally works like this. You have some probability that a given hypothesis is true. That hypothesis should predict certain evidence/experiences if it was true a certain percentage of the time, and should predict that evidence/experience if it's not true a lower percentage of the time. This logic is how science works, why empirical testing of hypotheses is so important, and why it works. But we also engage in this (on a less rigorous level) on a daily basis, such as the "lost keys" example. Now, going back to God, it's the same principle. If God doesn't exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence 100% of the time. If God does exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence less than 100%. We see no evidence for his existence. Because him not existing predicts such a thing more than his existing, it's evidence that he doesn't exist. It's not PROOF he doesn't exist. So then I go back to my initial question: given there's no evidence he exists, what is the reason to assume he does? I think your analogy is a flawed analogy. A more fitting analogy would be; "Do the keys exist at all? The seeker has never seen the keys. He/she was just told by half the people they talked with they did. And half said they never existed. And one more thing --- the looker is blind, is only familiar with his/her house, and the keys could be anywhere in the world. There is no proof or evidence the keys ever existed. Only some people who believe they did." That is a more fitting analogy. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Jan 4, 2021 17:56:43 GMT
Doesn't make any difference. Lack of evidence or proof proves nothing. The Bible (and probably all religious books) are just books of wisdom written by men. It's every reader's responsibility to read them all discriminately and decide what they like and don't. If readers misinterpret the Bible or any other holy book, the onus is on the reader. Not the book. You keep saying "proof" and I've said about a dozen times I'm not talking about proof but evidence, and I have not once claimed that a lack of evidence proved anything. What I said was this: if something does not exist, the only evidence we can have that it doesn't exist is a lack of evidence that it does, and this is what we see with God. Now, please read that as many times as it takes until you understand what I'm saying, because you clearly don't. I agree The Bible and all religious books were written by (fallible) men and are documents of the cultures/times they were written. The problem, again, is that many people don't believe this. Many believe they were inspired by God and thus infallible. This belief makes it extremely difficult to convince them that the "wisdom" found within may not, in fact, be all that wise today. Generally I agree with you that misinterpretation is the fault of the reader, but, again, most Holy Books encourage such literalism, and childhood indoctrination doesn't help. It's my opinion you are clouding the issue and trying to make it unnecessarily complicated to avoid just admitting you are wrong. Some people believe in God. Some don't. There is no proof one way or another. There may be a God. There may not. You can believe anything you want. So can I. You are a smart guy. You should have realized by now, your primitive and severely restricted ways of trying to prove --- or even suggest --- there is no God, are laughably unable. No matter how much you wish to, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. |
|
|
|
Post by SciFive on Jan 4, 2021 18:03:19 GMT
You keep saying "proof" and I've said about a dozen times I'm not talking about proof but evidence, and I have not once claimed that a lack of evidence proved anything. What I said was this: if something does not exist, the only evidence we can have that it doesn't exist is a lack of evidence that it does, and this is what we see with God. Now, please read that as many times as it takes until you understand what I'm saying, because you clearly don't. I agree The Bible and all religious books were written by (fallible) men and are documents of the cultures/times they were written. The problem, again, is that many people don't believe this. Many believe they were inspired by God and thus infallible. This belief makes it extremely difficult to convince them that the "wisdom" found within may not, in fact, be all that wise today. Generally I agree with you that misinterpretation is the fault of the reader, but, again, most Holy Books encourage such literalism, and childhood indoctrination doesn't help. It's my opinion you are clouding the issue and trying to make it unnecessarily complicated to avoid just admitting you are wrong. Some people believe in God. Some don't. There is no proof one way or another. There may be a God. There may not. You can believe anything you want. So can I. You are a smart guy. You should have realized by now, your primitive and severely restricted ways of trying to prove --- or even suggest --- there is no God are laughably unable. No matter how much you wish to, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. Bingo!! |
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 4, 2021 18:32:28 GMT
"No, because not I'm saying I am right, let alone beyond reasonable doubt. " You're not outright saying that obviously, but saying "this one guy adds validity to my argument" is at least invoking it Appeal to Authority Fallacy to some degree. "By that logic, all expert testimony is an Appeal to Authority Fallacy and so is your mentioning Krauss and Neil Degrasse-Tyson. " If I were to sight a single expert by themselves rather than what the consensus in a field is, then that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. It's the reason I don't really care if there's a few climate scientists here and there deny global warming when climate scientists overhwelmingly agree it's happening. "You're not outright saying that obviously, but saying "this one guy adds validity to my argument" is at least invoking it Appeal to Authority Fallacy to some degree." No, our whole society revolves around expert testimony. It is only a fallacy when used improperly either by overstating the testimony or applying the testimony improperly (citing a biologist for computer science). The value of expert opinion is determined by the prestige or respect a figure holds. Our government, military, private businesses,etc don't use high school chemistry teachers, but people with PhDs. They may not be always be right but they are more often right over the high school teachers. "If I were to sight a single expert by themselves rather than what the consensus in a field is, then that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. It's the reason I don't really care if there's a few climate scientists here and there deny global warming when climate scientists overhwelmingly agree it's happening." Congrats, you made 2 fallacies yourself. The first will be last and the last will be first. "It's the reason I don't really care if there's a few climate scientists here and there deny global warming when climate scientists overwhelmingly agree it's happening." False comparison, or better known as Apple-Orange Comparison, is when you compare two things that can't be practically compared. In this case, you are comparing a real science, Climate, that can be tested, experiments can be done, and data can be gathered to a theoretical one, parallel universes, that can't be tested, no experiments can be performed, no data can be gathered, and we aren't even sure its real. "If I were to sight a single expert by themselves rather than what the consensus in a field is, then that would be an appeal to authority fallacy." No, still an appeal to authority because you are over extending the authority. In most known fields of science, you would be right, but not here. The subject matter (parallel universes) is poorly understood and might not even exist. It is a theory and not what's classified as a Scientific Theory like Gravity and Evolution, which are concepts we are certain of but don't understand in full. We might find out that parallel universes exist but not parallel Earths. Of course neither might exist. "No, our whole society revolves around expert testimony." Yes but citing one expert rather than the entire field is can be rather fallacious. Like I said you can find climate scientists that deny global warming. "The value of expert opinion is determined by the prestige or respect a figure holds." No the value of expert opinion is determined by whether or not they're actually correct. Like I said there are plenty of scientists that would disagree with Hawkins. "Our government, military, private businesses,etc don't use high school chemistry teachers, but people with PhDs. They may not be always be right but they are more often right over the high school teachers. " I dunno what this has to do with I actually said "Congrats, you made 2 fallacies yourself." Nope "False comparison, or better known as Apple-Orange Comparison, is when you compare two things that can't be practically compared. In this case, you are comparing a real science, Climate, that can be tested, experiments can be done, and data can be gathered to a theoretical one, parallel universes, that can't be tested, no experiments can be performed, no data can be gathered, and we aren't even sure its real." Not really, while a lot of astrophsyics is theortical, it's still typically based on actual emprical evidence (speed of light, age of the universe, expanding universe, ,etc) "No, still an appeal to authority because you are over extending the authority." Uh no, you do realize there is a big difference between citing one expert from a field (individuals can be wrong) as opposed to what the overhwelming consensus is, right? If 99% of doctors agree that smoking is bad for you, that's not an "appeal to authority" (what one person has to say) that's an appeal to what the overwhelming consensus is. Hardly the same thing. "In most known fields of science, you would be right, but not here. The subject matter (parallel universes) is poorly understood and might not even exist. It is a theory and not what's classified as a Scientific Theory like Gravity and Evolution, which are concepts we are certain of but don't understand in full. We might find out that parallel universes exist but not parallel Earths. Of course neither might exist." I dunno how true this actually is, but like I said scientists generally don't just pull theories out of thin air, they're generally based on some sort of actual scientific, empirical evidence, whereas a "spiritual realm" has none (the poster even admitted it can be measured through physical means.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 19:53:16 GMT
You could stop being a moron. Why the hell do you think it’s your friggin’ business to try to talk people out of their beliefs in a higher power?!? Because that's part of discussing religion, faith, and spirituality, which is what this board is for.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 19:54:55 GMT
The only God I know of that doesn't interact with a physical world is a deistic God. Most people do not believe in deistic Gods. Theistic Gods interact with the physical world and should be amenable to physical tests. There are even such physical tests in The Bible.Bullsh*t. A spiritual world is not visible in a physical world. You are only interested in trying to drive people’s religious beliefs away from them. It’s none of your business. Not Bullshit. Such physical tests are in The Bible, and The Bible tells plenty of stories of God interacting with the physical world. How is Elijah and the Priests of Baal NOT an example of God interacting with the physical world in a demonstrable way? Also, you've provided no evidence (of any kind) a spiritual world exists. But, please, keep repeating yourself and ignoring what I'm saying.
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 4, 2021 19:56:04 GMT
Why the hell do you think it’s your friggin’ business to try to talk people out of their beliefs in a higher power?!? Because that's part of discussing religion, faith, and spirituality, which is what this board is for. It's absurd that you seriously have to explain this to her
|
|
|
|
Post by lordarvidthexiii on Jan 4, 2021 19:56:06 GMT
"You're not outright saying that obviously, but saying "this one guy adds validity to my argument" is at least invoking it Appeal to Authority Fallacy to some degree." No, our whole society revolves around expert testimony. It is only a fallacy when used improperly either by overstating the testimony or applying the testimony improperly (citing a biologist for computer science). The value of expert opinion is determined by the prestige or respect a figure holds. Our government, military, private businesses,etc don't use high school chemistry teachers, but people with PhDs. They may not be always be right but they are more often right over the high school teachers. "If I were to sight a single expert by themselves rather than what the consensus in a field is, then that would be an appeal to authority fallacy. It's the reason I don't really care if there's a few climate scientists here and there deny global warming when climate scientists overhwelmingly agree it's happening." Congrats, you made 2 fallacies yourself. The first will be last and the last will be first. "It's the reason I don't really care if there's a few climate scientists here and there deny global warming when climate scientists overwhelmingly agree it's happening." False comparison, or better known as Apple-Orange Comparison, is when you compare two things that can't be practically compared. In this case, you are comparing a real science, Climate, that can be tested, experiments can be done, and data can be gathered to a theoretical one, parallel universes, that can't be tested, no experiments can be performed, no data can be gathered, and we aren't even sure its real. "If I were to sight a single expert by themselves rather than what the consensus in a field is, then that would be an appeal to authority fallacy." No, still an appeal to authority because you are over extending the authority. In most known fields of science, you would be right, but not here. The subject matter (parallel universes) is poorly understood and might not even exist. It is a theory and not what's classified as a Scientific Theory like Gravity and Evolution, which are concepts we are certain of but don't understand in full. We might find out that parallel universes exist but not parallel Earths. Of course neither might exist. "No, our whole society revolves around expert testimony." Yes but citing one expert rather than the entire field is can be rather fallacious. Like I said you can find climate scientists that deny global warming. "The value of expert opinion is determined by the prestige or respect a figure holds." No the value of expert opinion is determined by whether or not they're actually correct. Like I said there are plenty of scientists that would disagree with Hawkins. "Our government, military, private businesses,etc don't use high school chemistry teachers, but people with PhDs. They may not be always be right but they are more often right over the high school teachers. " I dunno what this has to do with I actually said "Congrats, you made 2 fallacies yourself." Nope "False comparison, or better known as Apple-Orange Comparison, is when you compare two things that can't be practically compared. In this case, you are comparing a real science, Climate, that can be tested, experiments can be done, and data can be gathered to a theoretical one, parallel universes, that can't be tested, no experiments can be performed, no data can be gathered, and we aren't even sure its real." Not really, while a lot of astrophsyics is theortical, it's still typically based on actual emprical evidence (speed of light, age of the universe, expanding universe, ,etc) "No, still an appeal to authority because you are over extending the authority." Uh no, you do realize there is a big difference between citing one expert from a field (individuals can be wrong) as opposed to what the overhwelming consensus is, right? If 99% of doctors agree that smoking is bad for you, that's not an "appeal to authority" (what one person has to say) that's an appeal to what the overwhelming consensus is. Hardly the same thing. "In most known fields of science, you would be right, but not here. The subject matter (parallel universes) is poorly understood and might not even exist. It is a theory and not what's classified as a Scientific Theory like Gravity and Evolution, which are concepts we are certain of but don't understand in full. We might find out that parallel universes exist but not parallel Earths. Of course neither might exist." I dunno how true this actually is, but like I said scientists generally don't just pull theories out of thin air, they're generally based on some sort of actual scientific, empirical evidence, whereas a "spiritual realm" has none (the poster even admitted it can be measured through physical means. "Yes but citing one expert rather than the entire field is can be rather fallacious. Like I said you can find climate scientists that deny global warming." No, it isn't as parallel universes are purely theoretical while global warming is an understood science. "No the value of expert opinion is determined by whether or not they're actually correct." That's subject dependent, and not all things can be tested at present. "I dunno what this has to do with I actually said" Best practices. If you disagree, then please take advice on matters of life or death from rank amateurs instead of the best in their field. "Not really, while a lot of astrophsyics is theortical, it's still typically based on actual emprical evidence (speed of light, age of the universe, expanding universe, ,etc) " That's only useful if the parallel universe has the same physical laws. That is not guaranteed. "Uh no, you do realize there is a big difference between citing one expert from a field (individuals can be wrong) as opposed to what the overhwelming consensus is, right? If 99% of doctors agree that smoking is bad for you, that's not an "appeal to authority" (what one person has to say) that's an appeal to what the overwhelming consensus is. Hardly the same thing. " How many of these physicist have been to a parallel universe? How many of these physicist have observed a parallel universe? Normally scientific consensus is much more important, but not when it comes to something so theoretical as parallel universes. In fact with so many unknowns, its an appeal to authority if you assign too much weight to what they say. It is only a tad better than having Hawkings on your side. Even when you have either, you should not go out on a limb. You can point it out because it does add weight, but you can't stretch the piont.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 19:58:06 GMT
Here, I'm going to help to clarify this by offering a non-God example to illustrate my point, and then I'll swing back around to God to show you how it applies. Let's say you've lost your keys and decide to search your bedroom for your keys. Now, there are two possibilities: A) The keys are not in the bedroom. B) The keys are in the bedroom. Now, let's say you search your bedroom for a while and do not find them. One way to phrase this is that there's a "lack of evidence your keys are in the bedroom." Each of the above two possibilities make different predictions about the probability of encountering this "lack of evidence": A) If the keys aren't in the bedroom, you'd expect to find no evidence of them being there 100% of the time. B) If the keys are in the bedroom, you'd expect to find no evidence of them being there less than 100% of the time. Because Probability-A is greater than Probability-B, your "lack of evidence" is, in itself, evidence for Possibility-A (in other words, it makes Possibility-A more likely than it was before). Now, this does not mean that you have proven Possibility-A. It's still possible that the keys are in there and you just haven't found them, but this possibility is LESS LIKELY than it was before you started looking for them because of the absence of evidence of them being in there. There's also the issue of how strong of evidence is it for Possibility-A. If you have a huge bedroom and just started looking, it's pretty weak evidence; if you have a small bedroom and have been looking thoroughly, it's strong evidence. All evidence fundamentally works like this. You have some probability that a given hypothesis is true. That hypothesis should predict certain evidence/experiences if it was true a certain percentage of the time, and should predict that evidence/experience if it's not true a lower percentage of the time. This logic is how science works, why empirical testing of hypotheses is so important, and why it works. But we also engage in this (on a less rigorous level) on a daily basis, such as the "lost keys" example. Now, going back to God, it's the same principle. If God doesn't exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence 100% of the time. If God does exist, we would expect to see no evidence for his existence less than 100%. We see no evidence for his existence. Because him not existing predicts such a thing more than his existing, it's evidence that he doesn't exist. It's not PROOF he doesn't exist. So then I go back to my initial question: given there's no evidence he exists, what is the reason to assume he does? I think your analogy is a flawed analogy. A more fitting analogy would be; "Do the keys exist at all? The seeker has never seen the keys. He/she was just told by half the people they talked with they did. And half said they never existed. And one more thing --- the looker is blind, is only familiar with his/her house, and the keys could be anywhere in the world. There is no proof or evidence the keys ever existed. Only some people who believe they did." That is a more fitting analogy. My analogy works just fine for illustrating how evidence works and why a lack of evidence for a hypothesis when evidence would be possible is evidence against that hypothesis. I wasn't trying to create a perfect analogy with God. It wasn't necessary to illustrate the more general point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 19:58:41 GMT
Because that's part of discussing religion, faith, and spirituality, which is what this board is for. It's absurd that you seriously have to explain this to her It's absurd I had to explain it once. After having to explain it to her countless times I'm beginning to suspect she's not all there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:05:51 GMT
You keep saying "proof" and I've said about a dozen times I'm not talking about proof but evidence, and I have not once claimed that a lack of evidence proved anything. What I said was this: if something does not exist, the only evidence we can have that it doesn't exist is a lack of evidence that it does, and this is what we see with God. Now, please read that as many times as it takes until you understand what I'm saying, because you clearly don't. I agree The Bible and all religious books were written by (fallible) men and are documents of the cultures/times they were written. The problem, again, is that many people don't believe this. Many believe they were inspired by God and thus infallible. This belief makes it extremely difficult to convince them that the "wisdom" found within may not, in fact, be all that wise today. Generally I agree with you that misinterpretation is the fault of the reader, but, again, most Holy Books encourage such literalism, and childhood indoctrination doesn't help. It's my opinion you are clouding the issue and trying to make it unnecessarily complicated to avoid just admitting you are wrong. Some people believe in God. Some don't. There is no proof one way or another. There may be a God. There may not. You can believe anything you want. So can I. You are a smart guy. You should have realized by now, your primitive and severely restricted ways of trying to prove --- or even suggest --- there is no God, are laughably unable. No matter how much you wish to, you cannot prove that God doesn't exist. I'm not clouding anything. I've said from the beginning most people don't understand how evidence works and you're clearly and example of that. What, pray tell, was I wrong about? You keep repeating this "there is no proof either way" like a mantra. I've said repeatedly I'm not (never have been) talking about proof but evidence (and assumptions). That same statement applies to any imaginary being. LMAO, my "primitive and restrictive ways of trying to prove there is no God?" You mean, "the fundamental modelof how evidence works in order to prove anything at all?" THOSE "primitive and restrictive ways?" Please, do tell, what other advanced and non-restrictive ways would you endorse that would warrant belief in God? I'm sure the world of epistemological philosophy is on the edge of their seat waiting for you to detail this new, super-sophisticated method. Here, I'm going to make this simple: Either there is evidence for God or there isn't. If you think there is evidence, post it and then we can discuss why that is/isn't evidence. If you agree with me that there's no evidence, then you need to argue why it's rational to assume God (or any being) exists without evidence. If you can do neither, you must then agree that belief in God is irrational and unwarranted.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Jan 4, 2021 20:07:07 GMT
Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in an invisible God. This is billions of people. So what's your point?
|
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Jan 4, 2021 20:09:15 GMT
Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in an invisible God. This is billions of people. So what's your point? That because a bunch of people believe in something must add validity to it. That's not fallacious at all!
|
|
