More undeniable proof for God
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-02-2015, 06:55 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(25-02-2015 10:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 04:18 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  You mean they would say that a given scientist was speaking outside of their field of expertise? I have seen similar exercises in the past where the qualifications of the participants were indeed highly suspect with regards to the statement they were seeking to make. Did you have a particular instance in mind?

YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

I'm not making an accusation. I'm sharing with you what I found last time I investigated a similar claim. My recollection of the claim in that instance was scientists supporting young earth creationism. I found a breakdown where each of the names on the list had been contacted for comment and the results were certainly not a comprehensive endorsement of the claim. The entry criteria for being on the list was that they had a PhD in any field, so many were engineers or computer scientists. If I recall correctly many withdrew their claim when queried about it, or thought they were agreeing to a much less bold claim, and none (maybe one or two?) were active scientists working in a relevant field.

This was a few years ago an I'm sure that further attempts have been made to replicate the original results under better controlled conditions. But on the basis of that prior experience I do not take at face value a claim that thousands of scientists have this opinion or that opinion. I would want to check the claim before accepting it. That's why I'm asking for a source for such a claim that you consider valid: So that I can investigate it.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
27-02-2015, 11:04 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(26-02-2015 01:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 11:40 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. What would you like to bet? 2. Define "close to zero".

1. I said I would bet.
2. A tiny percentage.

1. Are you psychic?
2. You are an educator. Have you never been pressured to tow a party line in academia?
3. Putting 1 and 2 together--if a college professor in his 40s comes to the realization that the Bible is 100% true and chooses to now believe in Creation, not Evolution (personally, I believe in Evolution) what does he do or not do? Be honest.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 11:08 AM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(26-02-2015 06:55 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(25-02-2015 10:21 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  YES. 5,000 SCIENTISTS OR MORE WHO'VE MADE THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES I'M TALKING ABOUT.

How dare you. Or do you really think there are ZERO legitimate, scholarly biologists who believe in creation, or PhD historians who believe in Jesus Christ, etc. Really? REALLY?

It can only be the Bible is correct and you are currently experiencing spiritual, not merely logical or evidence, blindness. I think highly of you as an intelligent, thoughtful TTA member but you really might want to read my last few posts and then try again.

I'm not making an accusation. I'm sharing with you what I found last time I investigated a similar claim. My recollection of the claim in that instance was scientists supporting young earth creationism. I found a breakdown where each of the names on the list had been contacted for comment and the results were certainly not a comprehensive endorsement of the claim. The entry criteria for being on the list was that they had a PhD in any field, so many were engineers or computer scientists. If I recall correctly many withdrew their claim when queried about it, or thought they were agreeing to a much less bold claim, and none (maybe one or two?) were active scientists working in a relevant field.

This was a few years ago an I'm sure that further attempts have been made to replicate the original results under better controlled conditions. But on the basis of that prior experience I do not take at face value a claim that thousands of scientists have this opinion or that opinion. I would want to check the claim before accepting it. That's why I'm asking for a source for such a claim that you consider valid: So that I can investigate it.

I understand and I appreciate the follow-up. Yes, very often a collection of academics will take a stand in an area like Creation. Yes.

All I found objectionable is any claim that there are no "true" biologists that believe in the Bible and Creation. But if we agree with Chas that there are few only, does that mean you are following them ad populum. I'm afraid it would unless you:

1. Investigate the science for yourself to some degree.
2. Recognize that science evolves.
3. Recognize that scientists are humans who are sometimes correct, sometimes not, but persons whose livelihood depends on adherence to a body of thought. You understand my meaning--an atheist or Christian may convert or deconvert based on science because the stakes are high. But a scientist is someone who can lose everything from face to friends to finances by going against the stream of thought in his field. That's huge.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-02-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(27-02-2015 11:08 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 06:55 PM)Hafnof Wrote:  I'm not making an accusation. I'm sharing with you what I found last time I investigated a similar claim. My recollection of the claim in that instance was scientists supporting young earth creationism. I found a breakdown where each of the names on the list had been contacted for comment and the results were certainly not a comprehensive endorsement of the claim. The entry criteria for being on the list was that they had a PhD in any field, so many were engineers or computer scientists. If I recall correctly many withdrew their claim when queried about it, or thought they were agreeing to a much less bold claim, and none (maybe one or two?) were active scientists working in a relevant field.

This was a few years ago an I'm sure that further attempts have been made to replicate the original results under better controlled conditions. But on the basis of that prior experience I do not take at face value a claim that thousands of scientists have this opinion or that opinion. I would want to check the claim before accepting it. That's why I'm asking for a source for such a claim that you consider valid: So that I can investigate it.

I understand and I appreciate the follow-up. Yes, very often a collection of academics will take a stand in an area like Creation. Yes.

All I found objectionable is any claim that there are no "true" biologists that believe in the Bible and Creation. But if we agree with Chas that there are few only, does that mean you are following them ad populum. I'm afraid it would unless you:

1. Investigate the science for yourself to some degree.
2. Recognize that science evolves.
3. Recognize that scientists are humans who are sometimes correct, sometimes not, but persons whose livelihood depends on adherence to a body of thought. You understand my meaning--an atheist or Christian may convert or deconvert based on science because the stakes are high. But a scientist is someone who can lose everything from face to friends to finances by going against the stream of thought in his field. That's huge.

So, in other words, you're not actually going to provide a source for your 5000 claim, but are instead going to switch to an aggressive defensiveness in hopes of making us forget that that was (momentarily) a subject of conversation.

That 5000 scientists might buy into religion, and even announce that they do, is... plausible. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all.

But the weight of their authority comes not from their numbers, or even that they are scientists, but the demonstrated rigor, accuracy, and effectiveness of the scientific method in a proper, peer-reviewed context. It is the process, and not so much the people engaged in the process, that is reliable and trustworthy. So scientists speaking AS scientists, discussing peer-reviewed findings backed by scientific consensus in the relevant fields, those are reliable and authoritative sources. But a bunch of scientists just deciding and declaring something, without peer-reviewed publications and falsifiable hypotheses and experiments and so on? That's just a bunch of people saying stuff. They might be scientists, but they're not talking AS scientists. Fair enough. People can't be on the clock all the time. So, take all the scientists in the world, and you can probably find an order of magnitude greater than 5000, if they aren't speaking as scientists. Or... if you're lazy liars, like these people, you can con the scientist into endorsing a statement that is technically not an endorsement of your religious position (and then have them joined by a bunch of non-scientists who you can pretend are scientists) and then con your audience into thinking that it is.

But yeah, the number is plausible. Not particularly persuasive if it is true, without the papers and scientific examination to back it up, but plausible, given the numbers we're talking about.

That an apologist would know about such a list, and believe that it is legitimate, and NOT actually help us take a direct look at it, when you are the one who brought it up and we are actually interested in having a look... that is very much NOT plausible. You're coming across like a used car salesman who had a car to sale, but is suddenly backpeddling when we want to look under the hood. But we should accept it anyway, because TRUST you, there are PLENTY of good used cars NO I WON'T LET YOU LOOK UNDER THE HOOD, and here's some arguments about WHY a good car might be found in a used car lot!

.... yeah, sure. Dodgy We didn't trust you before and we surer than Hell don't trust you now.

As to your original point, that we might do what you called a no-true-scientist response? I counter it with my point, earlier in this post, that it is the scientific process which is worthy of trust, rather than scientists in general, and also Chas's point that a scientist's opinion outside her field of expertise is not particularly valuable (I'd no more trust an engineer to comment on biology than I'd trust a roboticist to perform open heart surgery). I'd also cite the history of religious apologetics in engaging in deceptive, misleading tactics, such as the one linked above, as a reason of adopting a policy of skepticism towards such claims. The correct strategy in response to these things is to closely examine whether they were speaking AS scientists or were off the clock, so to speak, as well as the credentials and body of work of the scientists making the claim, the number and quality of papers published on the subject, and also how they fit in (or don't) with the consensus of the field as a whole. Examine it with a fine-toothed comb, because there ARE religious con artists out to trick us with things that look exactly like this. That is, as you histrionically demand of us, how we dare not accept your claims at face value.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Reltzik's post
27-02-2015, 04:33 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(27-02-2015 11:04 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  
(26-02-2015 01:40 PM)Chas Wrote:  1. I said I would bet.
2. A tiny percentage.

1. Are you psychic?

No, there's no evidence that that exists.

Quote:2. You are an educator. Have you never been pressured to tow a party line in academia?

Why do you keep saying that? I'm a software and systems engineer.

Quote:3. Putting 1 and 2 together--if a college professor in his 40s comes to the realization that the Bible is 100% true and chooses to now believe in Creation, not Evolution (personally, I believe in Evolution) what does he do or not do? Be honest.

Professor if what? It actually matters.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 06:16 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
I don't get it?

If BC is Before Christ and AD is After his death...what do they call the 33/34 time period when he was actually alive? DC?


My Youtube channel if anyone is interested.
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCEkRdbq...rLEz-0jEHQ
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 07:14 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(28-02-2015 06:16 PM)Shadow Fox Wrote:  I don't get it?

If BC is Before Christ and AD is After his death...what do they call the 33/34 time period when he was actually alive? DC?

AD means Anno Domini - in the year of the Lord. It is counted from Jesus's (alleged) birth.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
28-02-2015, 08:16 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
So what's the deal, Q? Are you independently wealthy? A "taker"? Living in mummy's basement?

Whatever the case, you have altogether too much time on your hands, given the evidence of your frequent, repetitive, unpersuasive posts.

God does not work in mysterious ways — he works in ways that are indistinguishable from his non-existence.
Jesus had a pretty rough weekend for your sins.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 03:13 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(27-02-2015 01:08 PM)Reltzik Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:08 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  I understand and I appreciate the follow-up. Yes, very often a collection of academics will take a stand in an area like Creation. Yes.

All I found objectionable is any claim that there are no "true" biologists that believe in the Bible and Creation. But if we agree with Chas that there are few only, does that mean you are following them ad populum. I'm afraid it would unless you:

1. Investigate the science for yourself to some degree.
2. Recognize that science evolves.
3. Recognize that scientists are humans who are sometimes correct, sometimes not, but persons whose livelihood depends on adherence to a body of thought. You understand my meaning--an atheist or Christian may convert or deconvert based on science because the stakes are high. But a scientist is someone who can lose everything from face to friends to finances by going against the stream of thought in his field. That's huge.

So, in other words, you're not actually going to provide a source for your 5000 claim, but are instead going to switch to an aggressive defensiveness in hopes of making us forget that that was (momentarily) a subject of conversation.

That 5000 scientists might buy into religion, and even announce that they do, is... plausible. There are a lot of scientists out there, after all.

But the weight of their authority comes not from their numbers, or even that they are scientists, but the demonstrated rigor, accuracy, and effectiveness of the scientific method in a proper, peer-reviewed context. It is the process, and not so much the people engaged in the process, that is reliable and trustworthy. So scientists speaking AS scientists, discussing peer-reviewed findings backed by scientific consensus in the relevant fields, those are reliable and authoritative sources. But a bunch of scientists just deciding and declaring something, without peer-reviewed publications and falsifiable hypotheses and experiments and so on? That's just a bunch of people saying stuff. They might be scientists, but they're not talking AS scientists. Fair enough. People can't be on the clock all the time. So, take all the scientists in the world, and you can probably find an order of magnitude greater than 5000, if they aren't speaking as scientists. Or... if you're lazy liars, like these people, you can con the scientist into endorsing a statement that is technically not an endorsement of your religious position (and then have them joined by a bunch of non-scientists who you can pretend are scientists) and then con your audience into thinking that it is.

But yeah, the number is plausible. Not particularly persuasive if it is true, without the papers and scientific examination to back it up, but plausible, given the numbers we're talking about.

That an apologist would know about such a list, and believe that it is legitimate, and NOT actually help us take a direct look at it, when you are the one who brought it up and we are actually interested in having a look... that is very much NOT plausible. You're coming across like a used car salesman who had a car to sale, but is suddenly backpeddling when we want to look under the hood. But we should accept it anyway, because TRUST you, there are PLENTY of good used cars NO I WON'T LET YOU LOOK UNDER THE HOOD, and here's some arguments about WHY a good car might be found in a used car lot!

.... yeah, sure. Dodgy We didn't trust you before and we surer than Hell don't trust you now.

As to your original point, that we might do what you called a no-true-scientist response? I counter it with my point, earlier in this post, that it is the scientific process which is worthy of trust, rather than scientists in general, and also Chas's point that a scientist's opinion outside her field of expertise is not particularly valuable (I'd no more trust an engineer to comment on biology than I'd trust a roboticist to perform open heart surgery). I'd also cite the history of religious apologetics in engaging in deceptive, misleading tactics, such as the one linked above, as a reason of adopting a policy of skepticism towards such claims. The correct strategy in response to these things is to closely examine whether they were speaking AS scientists or were off the clock, so to speak, as well as the credentials and body of work of the scientists making the claim, the number and quality of papers published on the subject, and also how they fit in (or don't) with the consensus of the field as a whole. Examine it with a fine-toothed comb, because there ARE religious con artists out to trick us with things that look exactly like this. That is, as you histrionically demand of us, how we dare not accept your claims at face value.

Please reread my posts in this thread. There is no list of 5,000 scientists that I am aware of, but I am certainly aware of the fact that on an ongoing basis, clusters of two dozen to 200 or more academicians take Christian stands and post them--and I hope it is not unreasonable to say that if there are 5 million scientists in the world, that at least 5,000 of them would take Christian perspectives as literalists.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-03-2015, 03:14 PM
RE: More undeniable proof for God
(27-02-2015 04:33 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(27-02-2015 11:04 AM)The Q Continuum Wrote:  1. Are you psychic?

No, there's no evidence that that exists.

Quote:2. You are an educator. Have you never been pressured to tow a party line in academia?

Why do you keep saying that? I'm a software and systems engineer.

Quote:3. Putting 1 and 2 together--if a college professor in his 40s comes to the realization that the Bible is 100% true and chooses to now believe in Creation, not Evolution (personally, I believe in Evolution) what does he do or not do? Be honest.

Professor if what? It actually matters.

I'd asked you before if you had students. You said you treat your students less abusively than you treat Christians at TTA. I asked you on my previous post to be honest in your reply regarding what a tenured biologist would be frightened to do if he came to be a biblical literalist.

I'm told atheists on forums like TTA are bitter and angry. If you are not, your posts to me will be respectful, insightful and thoughtful. Prove me wrong by your adherence to decent behavior.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: