DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
The Face of God....
- Thread starter Atlan0001
- Start date
If you believe I have a mental disorder because I don't submit to the ridiculous notions of fairies landing on toadstools and gods miraculously appearing because I do take evidence seriously, then so be it.
Again, as I mentioned earlier to Dave, black holes and gods are apples and oranges. I would never treat reality with the same disdain I treat the supernatural.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Once again, Dave, and I hope you actually read this post, black swans and gods are apples and oranges. Stick to the subject matter.
Btw, isn't the universe supposed to be homogeneous and isotropic?
YOU said, "And likewise"
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
No they are not.
You try to deny analogies because they show the flaws in your arguments.
The black swan fallacy is the error of assuming that - because something hasn't been observed before - it cannot exist or happen. This fallacy is rooted in the idea that our understanding of the world is based on what we've seen, and we fail to account for unforeseen or rare events."
That is a universal fallacy. It applies to God just as well as it applies to swans.
Answer the question: Do you claim you know that there are no swans on your street simply because you've never seen any in all your time there (and no one else you've asked has said so)?
Of course you don't, because you know that's an invalid conclusion.
What you are doing here is committing the fallacy of "special pleading" (ironically, the inverse of how it is usually used). You try to apply different rules of analysis to the supposition of God than you apply to the supposition of swans on your street.
"Special pleading" is an invalid form of argument.
Last edited:
Not a chance. You compare reality to the supernatural. I can appreciate and easily consider multi-colored swans.
A good scientist, a true scientist has nothing to do with this matter. Science is about understanding the world and the universe around us.
DaveC426913
Valued Senior Member
Again with the Special Pleading fallacy.
You essentially try to claim we can't use logic in an academic discussion about the possible existence of God.
If that were true, you are shooting yourself in the foot, since have been trying to use your own logic (flawed though it may be) in this very discussion.
So which is it?
Either you think it is possible to have an academic discussion about the possible existence of God. In which case you will be retracting your special pleading argument.
Or do you think it is not possible to have an academic discussion about the possible existence of God. In which case you will be retroactively recusing yourself from this academic discussion about God' existence.
Last edited:
davewhite04:
Also, worth remembering: I'm not saying your god couldn't possibly be real. All I'm saying is that nothing so far has convinced me that your god is real. Moreover, for lots of reasons - some of which I have already explained to you - I don't think it is at all likely that your god is real.
If I have been fortunate enough to have acquired some expertise in certain areas of knowledge, that probably does mean that my words on those topics might be worth some consideration.
I realise that it's not considered cool among certain young people these days to defer to experts. However, that kind of attitude is ultimately self-limiting. Nobody can do all the work themselves. It's not necessary to try to reinvent every wheel personally. It's better to learn what you can from those you are willing to teach what they know. (That doesn't mean you should just blindly accept everything you're told, mind you, because that would also be a big mistake.)
Don't be afraid to explore new ideas, davewhite04.
Maybe I am. Do you have any reason to suggest that I'm entirely believing the opposite of truth?
Also, worth remembering: I'm not saying your god couldn't possibly be real. All I'm saying is that nothing so far has convinced me that your god is real. Moreover, for lots of reasons - some of which I have already explained to you - I don't think it is at all likely that your god is real.
Are you going to suggest that the theory of evolution is wrong because Darwin was an evil atheist, next? That would not be an unusual line of argument for a creationist. It would, however, be a fatally flawed one.
Huh?
If I have been fortunate enough to have acquired some expertise in certain areas of knowledge, that probably does mean that my words on those topics might be worth some consideration.
I realise that it's not considered cool among certain young people these days to defer to experts. However, that kind of attitude is ultimately self-limiting. Nobody can do all the work themselves. It's not necessary to try to reinvent every wheel personally. It's better to learn what you can from those you are willing to teach what they know. (That doesn't mean you should just blindly accept everything you're told, mind you, because that would also be a big mistake.)
You sound a bit upset, davewhite04. Did something I wrote make you feel uncomfortable? Have you considered that, perhaps, that might be a good thing?
Don't be afraid to explore new ideas, davewhite04.
Last edited:
It serves as evidence that two or more witnesses hold the same belief.
Anecdotal evidence - or eyewitness testimony, for that matter - is evidence. It's just a rather weak form of evidence. That is why courts of law usually look for better evidence, especially physical evidence.
If two witnesses claim they saw a person being murdered, the police are very likely to investigate their claims. But if there is no body to be found, no missing person who matches the description of the supposed victim, conflicting evidence from other witnesses, etc., then it is unlikely that the police will pursue the claims of the witnesses for long. Instead, they will say: we will stop actively investigating this report, until and unless new evidence comes to light. In the meantime, nobody will be prosecuted for murder.
They are evidence of what billions of people believe. But, like the police, I will need something more than that before I accept that any god is real.
It's one thing to talk vaguely about gods in general, but of those billions of people on all continents who believe in gods, lots of them believe in different and incompatible gods. Believers in Yahweh don't accept Krishna. Believers can't even agree on how many gods there are, let along which ones are the ones that actually exist.
At least think about why people don't need God.
Stupid isn't the whole explanation for why people believe in gods, obviously. On the other hand, studies tend to show that you're less likely to believe in gods when you're smarter and/or more highly educated.
People can become convinced of all kinds of things that aren't true for bad reasons. In the case of religion, the number one culprit is consistent indoctrination at a very young age.
Smart people who already believe dumb things often find clever ways to justify their beliefs to themselves. They are also prone to ignoring or dismissing evidence that tends to refute their beliefs. In one way, it's harder for a smart person to accept they are mistaken, because they are probably accustomed to being right about many things. It's easier to assume that other people are mistaken, when you don't critically examine your own beliefs.
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
Yes. My experiences prove your subjective thoughts are wrong in this area. It's your experiences and mine we're comparing, so it's subjective to both of thoughts on this subject. I don't know what makes you so confident that the God I talk with isn't real? Answer this then ask yourself... Is atheism(believe God/gods don't exist) a sensible position?
So you believe the god's I describe not likely to be real... how come you're so confident. There has been billions of experiences.
? I avoid evolution now, I've got enough information for what I need. Evolution explains the high variety of animals were all created using evolution as the method.
It was a question. But worthless for this. Just ignore.
No doubt.
I agree. The bible was written by 40+ people, who perhaps learnt the way in which to record the Jewish peoples history.
Not upset James R, bad hangover and mood that day, apologies.
My mind has been so open over the years, I'm trying to reel in what I think is useful than sew my skull back together.
Джеймс, почему люди на всех континентах верят в существование душ? Любые аборигены, хоть у вас в Австралии, хоть индейцы в обеих Америках, хоть европейцы, хоть древние греки и римляне, хоть индийцы, хоть африканцы, хоть русские - все они издревле верили в существование души. Откуда это взялось у разных, не связанных никакими культурными связями между собой, народами?
davewhite04
Valued Senior Member
There are flood tales around the world for example. Independent records.
Надо спросить у геологов - что тогда происходило с климатом на Земле? Возможно, было какое то потепление, и ледники таяли, оставляя под водой целые континенты? Кстати, из-за потепления могло также быть много испарений, которые вызвали затяжные дожди. Что могло послужить причиной такого неожиданного и резкого потепления?
I think, ultimately, it's due to fear of death and a wish to have something of oneself persist after death. Not only the self, but also one's ancestors and loved ones who have died.
More basically, it's not hard to observe that living things are different from dead things. If we're not sure what it is that causes things to be alive, then it's natural for a lot of people to try to fill that knowledge gap with the concept of a supernatural "spark of life". Which is all well and good, except for the fact that there's no evidence for the persistence or existence of any part of human being separate from his or her body.
It's the same mistake of jumping to conclusions - or just making some shit up - so that you can pretend to know things that you don't actually know. People are good at that.