Go Back   AFA Forums > Religion, Unreason and Similar Tropes > Belief Central

Belief Central A place for the discussion of belief or a colony for repeated logical fallacies or misrepresentations.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #21  
Old 19th January 2017, 09:18 PM
Spearthrower Spearthrower is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Posts: 4,119
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Quote:
Stub King said View Post
I think I will then paint the universe orange.

Mmm orange.
Reply With Quote
Like Stub King liked this post
  #22  
Old 19th January 2017, 10:14 PM
hackenslash's Avatar
hackenslash hackenslash is offline
Trust me, I'm not a doctor.
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: People's Republic of Mancunia, Antipodes
Posts: 1,576
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
You know, this would be more illustrative if it went

p1. All men are mortal
p2. Sally is mortal
C. Therefore Sally is a man
The reason it runs like that is because it's from a much longer post dealing with formal fallacies, and I'd already used Hitler and mortality as the starting point.

Quote:
The most common form of deductive argument one might encounter is the syllogism, which takes the form of at least two connected premises (P1, P2) followed by a conclusion (C). An example of a valid deductive syllogism follows:

P1: All men are mortal.
P2: Hitler was a man.
C: Hitler was mortal.
I go on to show various iterations of the same argument in the propositional calculus, varying the order of the terms, eventually ending up here:

Quote:
P1. All men are mortal.
P2. Hitler wasn't a man.
C. Therefore, Hitler wasn't mortal.

It looks a bit odd to say that Hitler wasn't a man, until you realise that, in this case, I'm talking about the next-door neighbour's cat, also called Hitler (I'm making this up, in case you're wondering; my neighbour's cat is called Goebbels).

Again, the issue here is that men aren't the only things that are mortal, thus the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises, even if the premises are true.
That's why it takes the peculiar approach it does. Possibly I should amend it for the purpose of the meme.
__________________

Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
  #23  
Old 19th January 2017, 10:50 PM
Loki's Avatar
Loki Loki is online now
You get what everyone gets....you get a lifetime
Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Up the creek
Posts: 11,045
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Mod Note.

Servitus.

We take a dim view of Plagiarism here. Further examples will be sanctioned.
__________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away."Philip K. Dick

Reply With Quote
Like Stubby liked this post
Thank hackenslash, Blue Lightning, Stubby thanked this post
  #24  
Old 20th January 2017, 01:19 PM
Stub King's Avatar
Stub King Stub King is offline
Take my advice, don't listen to me
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 845
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Mmm orange.
sorry. I am a capricious super being. maybe we should have a vote? after all, you have the free will I gave you. might as well use it
__________________
The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
  #25  
Old 20th January 2017, 01:31 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,963
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Mmm orange.
So, "Orange is the new Universe."

Sounds like a good name for a tv show.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 20th January 2017, 02:54 PM
Blue Lightning's Avatar
Blue Lightning Blue Lightning is offline
"Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask"
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Sydney
Posts: 6,083
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

The OP has been dissected by the members of this forum. Nea, it's been utterly shredded.

There is one little thing I'd like to take up, more for the future and for dealing with more skilful theists. This exchange caught my eye:

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
...
Quote:
Servetus said View Post
The Bible is a very good place to provide a good answer.
...

The Bible is the claim of God's existence, so it can't also be the evidence of God's existence - this represents a gigantic example of circular reasoning and is consequently of no interest to anyone who thinks critically.
I do not agree, ST. The bible is evidence. It's just exceedingly poor evidence.

Forgive me here. Like Hack, I'm a pendant when it comes to the use of some words, including the word 'evidence'.

The bible is a collection of books written by disparate authours. Sometimes we know who the authour was; sometimes the books were written anonymously; or eponymously; sometimes fraudulently. Sometimes they have been subsequently altered. Often they were based on multiple or generational level hearsay. They are, nevertheless, a form of testimony.

They are very good evidence, indeed, of what their various authours wanted readers to believe.

Beyond that, we need to consider the nature of the claim.

For example, the bible claims that the Romans exercised military control over Palestine around 30CE. That claim is a sound one, well supported by other, corroboratory evidence. Contrast that with, for example, the testimony of a defendant who swears "I didn't do it, 'Gov", when we have CCTV footage of the firing of the fatal shot, and fingerprints and DNA from the gun recovered from the scene.

Further, the babble's claim of the Romans' military control at the relevant time is not an extraordinary claim. We all know of the Sagan Standard, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

The babblical claim that the xian gawd exists is firmly of the extraordinary variety.

Often enough, in debating theists, I've suggested that at least three considerations apply to an assessment of the reliability of any text or testimony, being-

1. Is it externally corroborated? Or, conversely, it inconsistent with known external verifiable evidence?
2. Is it internally inconsistent? Or, conversely, does it contradict itself?
3. Is the text likely to be adversely affected by human failings, such as the frailty of memory, the risk of embellishment or the likelihood of reconstruction?

The more extraordinary a claim, the more compelling the alignment of these factors needs to be before the claim might tentatively be accepted.

Measured against these criteria, the babble's claim of a xian gawd fails hopelessly.

I suspect you're likely to agree with me. Let me know if I'm in error. In many ways, I'm writing for the audience.

My own preference is that skeptics should not deny that the bible -in principle- is evidence. It is evidence: It's extraordinarily-flimsy, multiply-contradicted and internally-inconsistent evidence of its ludicrous supernatural claims. Evidence which should be rejected.

"Pleeease, Gov'nr!?!"

"Take the prisoner down."

Quote:
Spearthrower said View Post
Quote:
Stub King said View Post
I think I will then paint the universe orange.
Mmm orange.
On this forum, when applied to the OP, the word is "ornage".

__________________
"Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
"Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 20th January 2017 at 03:13 PM.
Reply With Quote
Like Darwinsbulldog, Stubby, DanDare, 142857, wadaye liked this post
Thank Darwinsbulldog, 142857 thanked this post
  #27  
Old 20th January 2017, 03:32 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,443
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

I agree BL.

Various myths, even some religious myths, may have part that are true, and may consist of verbal traditions of past events, such as the flooding of the Med sea being true [but of course the flood was not global, only "global" in the sense of inundating a large section of land where those myths existed.

Another good example is the Australian indigenous cultural memories of the behaviour of the great barrier reef, now verified which paleontologist and geophysical evidence.

A third cultural myth concerns the green Sahara desert, which may be a cultural memory of hunter-gatherers who left the area when it dried up.

http://atheistfoundation.org.au/foru...ad.php?t=29237
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Like Blue Lightning liked this post
  #28  
Old 20th January 2017, 04:34 PM
DanDare's Avatar
DanDare DanDare is offline
Religion or Reality, choose...
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
Posts: 7,446
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

OTOH the bible is not evidence in the way the OP is intending it to be. It is evidence of peoples claims. It is testimony. But it is not convincing evidence of the things claimed nor is it an authority on itself.

The problem is that theists pounce on attempts of nuance to claim all sorts of stuff that convinces many others. When discussing nuance we need to ensure we don't leave openings for intentional obfuscation and false equivalences.
__________________
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government".
-Thomas Jefferson

Burden of proof is the obligation on somebody presenting a claim to provide evidence to support its truth (a warrant). Once evidence has been presented, it is up to any opposing "side" to show the evidence presented is not adequate. If claims were accepted without warrants, then every claim could simultaneously be claimed to be true.

History isn't written by the victors. It's written by the people with the time machines.
Reply With Quote
Like Blue Lightning liked this post
  #29  
Old 20th January 2017, 04:53 PM
Darwinsbulldog's Avatar
Darwinsbulldog Darwinsbulldog is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Perth
Posts: 18,443
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
OTOH the bible is not evidence in the way the OP is intending it to be. It is evidence of peoples claims. It is testimony. But it is not convincing evidence of the things claimed nor is it an authority on itself.

The problem is that theists pounce on attempts of nuance to claim all sorts of stuff that convinces many others. When discussing nuance we need to ensure we don't leave openings for intentional obfuscation and false equivalences.
I don't think it matters that much Dan. True hardened warriors for religious doctrine will willfully and deliberately lie and deceive to try to "win" their arguments. How many times have they quote-mined Darwin's discussion about the evolution of the eye? And how many times has this been debunked? They know that they are being dishonest if they have bothered to read our replies, and yet they still do it. They must at least have heard a few debates on it, or seen videos.

They do it to themselves, some even admit where facts and doctrine conflicts, they choose doctrine. Deliberate lying in other words.

For the third parties, the "observers" of such debates, I think we should be as nuanced as practically possible, because it not only demonstrates the correctness of our views, but how we got there.
__________________
Just stick to the idea that science tests falsifiable hypotheses to destruction.
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare, Blue Lightning liked this post
  #30  
Old 20th January 2017, 05:54 PM
stevebrooks stevebrooks is offline
AFA Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 4,963
Default Re: Evidence for God's existence

Quote:
DanDare said View Post
OTOH the bible is not evidence in the way the OP is intending it to be. It is evidence of peoples claims. It is testimony. But it is not convincing evidence of the things claimed nor is it an authority on itself.

The problem is that theists pounce on attempts of nuance to claim all sorts of stuff that convinces many others. When discussing nuance we need to ensure we don't leave openings for intentional obfuscation and false equivalences.
I really look at it in the same way as claiming that "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life" is evidence for evolution.

I would argue thusly, Darwin's work is not evidence except in the contents that are accessible and reproducible, for instance it's quite possible to visit the places Darwin visited and make the observation Darwin made (at the moment, it may not be so in the future). But what happens when all the species, all the places he visited are gone, drowned in seawater or if enough time passes buried by tectonic activity.

The principal still holds that the processes he described should be ongoing and observable, in other word even if the specific research and data he assembled is no longer reproducible what the book describes is a process that is observable.

If we apply the same criteria to the bible it fails. The book is not evidence, what the book describes, what the book theorises is the evidence. If we don't hold to this position at least then accusation of belief in evolution hold some sway. It can be argued if the book is the evidence then our acceptance of evolution is a belief. I don't hold that books are evidence in themselves, what they describe, the data they present, the methodologies used is the evidence. If we take a book and examine the evidence contained and find it fabricated or unreproducible, if the methodology fails, if the external data doesn't support it, then it's not in any way acceptable as evidence.

Like Harry Potter and the Philosophers Stone isn't evidence magic is real the bible isn't evidence god exists unless you can demonstrate the information contained therein is applicable to reality.
__________________
From the mouth of a seven year old: "When you're you're dead, you don't go anywhere!"
Reply With Quote
Like DanDare liked this post
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 01:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2017 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.