On the Existence of Garage Dragons
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-08-2015, 01:47 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 07:47 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  That seems to suggests that things that are not visible do not exist.

No, it doesn't. He is saying there is no substantve difference between something that is not detectable and something non-existent.
No, that is what Carl asks "What is the difference?"
Unbeliever goes to a whole new level and states therefore it must not exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 01:52 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 01:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:11 AM)Chas Wrote:  No, it doesn't. He is saying there is no substantve difference between something that is not detectable and something non-existent.
No, that is what Carl asks "What is the difference?"
Unbeliever goes to a whole new level and states therefore it must not exist.

It is painfully obvious that this is the only coherent answer to the question. It is, in fact, the whole point of the passage.

But if you disagree, it's quite easy to prove me wrong. All you have to do is answer the question.

What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
20-08-2015, 01:56 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 08:53 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 08:47 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Until the person making the claim of existence can show it, then whatever "it" is, is considered non-existeient.

Which makes as much sense as claiming that unless a person can show that a child is their biological offspring, then they must be somebody else's.
I agree with you Tomasia,

But my response to your god claims is that they are insufficiently defined they do fall for the issues described by the "garage dragon" analogy in that the claims offer no testable or falsifiable criteria, and when we think we might be able to test it (i.e. statistical analysis on answered prayer) more information comes to light as to why we won't see the evidence that we would expect to see.

Of course you could say that the claim isn't changing, that it is all there already. But this has been changing and elaborating for well over 1,000 years. For example the idea of transubstantiation (Catholic mind you) certainly wasn't around in the supposed time of Yeshua.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:00 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 01:52 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 01:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  No, that is what Carl asks "What is the difference?"
Unbeliever goes to a whole new level and states therefore it must not exist.

It is painfully obvious that this is the only coherent answer to the question. It is, in fact, the whole point of the passage.

But if you disagree, it's quite easy to prove me wrong. All you have to do is answer the question.

What is the difference between a garage dragon and no dragon at all?
I've already answered your question twice and I have also pointed out that you are only describing a deist god.

But I am not going to go down this path with you until you do my first step first. Remember my three steps.

Your interpretation of what a garage dragon is would be addressed in step 2.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:05 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've already answered your question twice

No, you haven't. You have, however, twice gone on an irrelevant, rambling tangent about how people might act if they believe in the garage dragon, which has nothing to do with the question.

(20-08-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  and I have also pointed out that you are only describing a deist god.

I have pointed this out. It's rather the entire thrust of the argument, in fact.

(20-08-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But I am not going to go down this path with you until you do my first step first.

I already answered this.

You throwing a temper tantrum because you don't like that I've pointed out the obvious omission you make in your "steps" does not change that.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
20-08-2015, 02:15 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 12:54 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  Free,

What is your take on 14:33 - 16:53 on this video? Do you think that Sagan is saying that he believes that god and loch ness monster are possible? He doesn't seem to think they are impossible, so would you say that he must believe that they are possible?

No, because he used the caveat of "but," when he says, "But that doesn't mean every fraudulent claim needs to be accepted."

In regards to the Lochness Monster, the reason why it could be possible is because we have discovered innumerable new species over the course of our history, which gives us reason to accept it as being possible, even if the possibility is remote.

But in regards to the existence of God, the reason we say it is not possible is that thousands of claims regarding supernatural gods have popped up numerous times over our history, and not one of them has ever shown a shred of evidence or precedent to approach a possibility.

The Lochness Monster possibility has a precedent of other newly discovered animals to build upon.

God does not.

Quote:
(20-08-2015 08:08 AM)Free Wrote:  Here you demonstrate agnosticism, because by necessity, if you don't believe it's impossible, then by default you claim a belief in the possibility that God exists whether you directly state it with words or not.

I would argue that an agnostic can have no belief in regard to whether or not god is possible. Not believing it is impossible, is not the same as believing it is possible.

If he has no beliefs either way, then he is not agnostic.

He is atheistic.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:16 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 01:37 PM)Free Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 12:48 PM)Matt Finney Wrote:  It seems to me that you purposely don't understand.

Do you think it would be fair to say that you have ventured beyond skepticism and into cynicism?

Perhaps you need to understand something about rationalization.

Whenever anyone says that something is "possible" it must be demonstrated with evidence as actually being possible. All too often ordinary everyday people use the word "possible" as in "anything's possible" in a loose manner.

The truth of the matter is that not anything is possible. When we look at the very definition of the word, we see the following:

pos·si·ble
ˈpäsəb(ə)l/
adjective
1.
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something.

For something to be possible, then something must exist to make it a possibility. All too often we see theists on here who have no idea how far reaching the word "possible" actually is, and to what extent it entails.

Now, you say that the existence of God is possible. Okay, but now you need to show me why the existence of God is possible.

That is the entire point of my argument. I am not trying to decieve you, but rather only lead you to understand why me and other atheists/rationalists/secularists rationalize the existence or non existence of all things, and not just God.

So think about your answer to my question and get back to me.

Why is the existence of God a possibility?

I never said the existence of god is possible. I don't believe that it is possible for a god to exist. I also don't believe it's impossible. I don't know whether it is possible or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:18 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 01:25 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 12:24 PM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  And father's exist and are necessary for human reproduction. Your example is stupid.

The purpose of the example was to clarify what the meaning of plausibility is, in relationship to evidence.

It’s plausible that a man walking with a child is his biological father, even if the man’s actual biological status is unknown. You claim plausibility requires evidence. What’s the evidence for plausibility in this example? You repeat: “fathers exists.” “all children have biological parents”, is this the evidence for plausibility here? I would think it was a simple question, which does help to clarify the meaning of plausibility..

Quote:Because you are a dishonest and disingenuous individual. Until you actually admit truth behind your reasons for being here and spouting off your nonsense (and stop hiding behind bullshit reasons), you remain squarely in the list of "dishonest fuckers that don't deserve any respect and who haven't earned any.”

You and I seem to have a unique relationship, one that has no parallel with anyone else here, most of whom I get along with fine.

But I’m assuming the “dishonest fuckers that don't deserve any respect and who haven't earned any.”, are not just folks you run into online, or read about in the news, but one’s that correspond to actual people in your own life. I would like to know who these folks are, who left such a chip on your shoulder?

Are they the pastors and parishioners of the church you used to attend? Your parents? Who are these dishonest fuckers who hurt you? Because clearly somebody did. There must be some accounting for your maladaptive temperament, that makes it outside the norm even among your peers here.

Quote:Because the last thing you are here to do, is learn (which is what you claim to be doing).

There’s no single reason as to why I’m here, lol. I’m here, just like in any other group or forum in which I participate in, and have been doing so for over a decade, because I enjoy it for the most part, it servers my own curiosities. In fact the reason for why I communicate with any particular atheist such as yourself, and why I communicate with another atheists such as Rocketsurgeon, or Girlyman, or Matt, or anyone else is unlikely to be one and the same.

With you, it’s already given, that even when you might say something insightful, it’s not long before you devolve into an unpleasant person. So I guess the question would be why do I continue to communicate with you? Perhaps because I never had anyone dislike me to the extent that you do, lol. So sometimes I wonder if there’s some way in which we can reach some sense of tolerance, be slightly amiable, perhaps if I get creative or something?

So why do I continue to communicate with you? So I can find a way not to dislike you.

"The purpose of the example was to clarify what the meaning of plausibility is, in relationship to evidence. "

Your example has no evidence and no plausibility, only an assumption. Facepalm

"You and I seem to have a unique relationship, one that has no parallel with anyone else here, most of whom I get along with fine. "

I don't care Drinking Beverage

"But I’m assuming the “dishonest fuckers that don't deserve any respect and who haven't earned any.”, are not just folks you run into online, or read about in the news, but one’s that correspond to actual people in your own life. I would like to know who these folks are, who left such a chip on your shoulder?"

Liars like you and other theists. Drinking Beverage Why do you think I am on an atheist forum you dishonest twit?

"There’s no single reason as to why I’m here, lol. I’m here, just like in any other group or forum in which I participate in, and have been doing so for over a decade, because I enjoy it for the most part, it servers my own curiosities. In fact the reason for why I communicate with any particular atheist such as yourself, and why I communicate with another atheists such as Rocketsurgeon, or Girlyman, or Matt, or anyone else is unlikely to be one and the same.

With you, it’s already given, that even when you might say something insightful, it’s not long before you devolve into an unpleasant person. So I guess the question would be why do I continue to communicate with you? Perhaps because I never had anyone dislike me to the extent that you do, lol. So sometimes I wonder if there’s some way in which we can reach some sense of tolerance, be slightly amiable, perhaps if I get creative or something?"


Whatever lies you have to tell yourself.

"So why do I continue to communicate with you? So I can find a way not to dislike you."

I am apathetic towards your feelings for me. Why the fuck do I care what you think? Drinking Beverage

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:15 PM)Free Wrote:  If he has no beliefs either way, then he is not agnostic.

He is atheistic.

To clarify: atheism and agnosticism are non-exclusive. Being an agnostic does not mean that you are not an atheist. The colloquial usage of the term "agnostic" does not match its technical definition, which is "the philosophical position that the truth of some matter can never be known".

I would argue that agnosticism as a philosophical position is incoherent - it is essentially the philosophical position that garage dragons exist, which is self-contradictory, as I have explained in this thread - but it is entirely possible to be an agnostic atheist.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
20-08-2015, 02:23 PM
RE: On the Existence of Garage Dragons
(20-08-2015 02:05 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(20-08-2015 02:00 PM)Stevil Wrote:  But I am not going to go down this path with you until you do my first step first.

I already answered this.

You throwing a temper tantrum because you don't like that I've pointed out the obvious omission you make in your "steps" does not change that.
I pointed out that you are merging 3 ideas together and so we can't come to a clear understanding.

My item 1 has nothing to do with your ideas of what a "garage dragon" is. My item one is only focused on the ability to evaluate a claim. It doesn't even discuss what the claim is. There is no magical entity within the claim. And honestly your own option 4 is the same thing as as option 2
2. I accept your claim is valid, I have falsified it which means your conclusion is false.

So obviously you accept option 2 as a valid way of dealing with a claim. Do you also accept option 1 and option 3 as also valid ways of dealing with a claim?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: