The Dawkins Scale
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
19-08-2015, 03:47 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 03:55 PM by Stevil.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Can you prove that?

Can you show any meaningful way in which it can be said to be true?

No, you can't. Therefore, it is false. That is what false means.
That's a false dichotomy.

If I told you that a jar containing marbles had an even number of marbles but I couldn't produce a meaningful way in which I came about that conclusion that does not mean that the jar does not contain an even number of marbles.
Whether the amount of marbles is even or odd is unknown. We can't know that it is even or odd.
My claim that their IS an even amount of marbles is insufficient even though my conclusion might just be correct.

The mere fact of me making an insufficient claim does not rule out the possibility of my conclusion.
If you are to assert that there is not an even number of marbles then you have the burdon of proof on you. But then you have a insufficient claim also, does this mean we need to rule out the possibility that the amount of marbles is not not even (double negative means that it is even)
But then using your logic it is both odd (because my intial claim was insufficent) and even (because your counter claim is insufficient) then we get caught up in the (Law of contradiction) thing.

Wouldn't it be more logical to just say that my initial claim is invalid and that it is unknown whether the number of marbles is even or not?

(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:22 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Sure, the garage dragon analogy/argument means that we recognise that the claim itself is insufficient for evaluation.
It does not mean that the subject of the claim does not exist.

No, the garage dragon analogy states that the claimed entity cannot be evaluated.

There is no meaningful way to say that it exists, which means that it does not exist.
This is not a valid logical assessment, I'm glad Carl didn't fall for that mistake.

(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"
I've given you the answer already.

For the religious folk the difference between the existence of a god and the non existence of a god is that with the existence of a god they believe they have a purpose and moral obligation, they believe that their scriptures are a guide to their lives.
That is the consequence to them regarding the existence of their god.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 03:48 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:24 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:22 PM)itsnotmeitsyou Wrote:  NO! I know that is not what you actually mean because, reasons!

That.

And the other.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cozzymodo's post
19-08-2015, 03:56 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Can you show any meaningful way in which it can be said to be true?

No, you can't. Therefore, it is false. That is what false means.
That's a false dichotomy.

"True or false" is a false dichotomy?

(19-08-2015 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If I told you that a jar containing marbles had an even number of marbles but I couldn't produce a meaningful way in which I came about that conclusion that does not mean that the jar does not contain an even number of marbles.

Yes, it does.

If you are unable to produce any evidence of the jar containing an even number of marbles, that would mean that you counted the marbles and came up with an odd number.

What you probably mean is that you didn't produce any evidence, and instead held the jar up out of reach and refused to let the marbles be counted. Which is not relevant, since the marbles could be counted, and thus that evidence could be produced. We at least know that it is possible for it to be true.

In the case of the garage dragon, however, this is not the case. The garage dragon is defined in such a way as to mean that there cannot be evidence for its existence. There is no way, ever, to produce any sort of evidence indicating that it is real. Therefore, it is not, because that is what "real" means.

(19-08-2015 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, the garage dragon analogy states that the claimed entity cannot be evaluated.

There is no meaningful way to say that it exists, which means that it does not exist.
This is not a valid logical assessment.

Then you should be able to answer the question.

(19-08-2015 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:28 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "What's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all?"
I've given you the answer already.

No, you haven't. You went off on a tangent about the way people act when they believe that something is true, which is irrelevant.

I ask again: what is the difference between an absolutely undetectable 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
19-08-2015, 04:03 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  If I told you that a jar containing marbles had an even number of marbles but I couldn't produce a meaningful way in which I came about that conclusion that does not mean that the jar does not contain an even number of marbles.

Yes, it does.

If you are unable to produce any evidence of the jar containing an even number of marbles, that would mean that you counted the marbles and came up with an odd number.
What, really?!

Hmm, seems we have left evidence and logic behind.

Let's say that the jar is sealed. I cannot count the marbles. I can guess. I take a guess because I feel it in my bones. I tell you that there is definately an even number of marbles in the jar.

Does this insufficiently formulated claim mean that there cannot be an even number of marbles in the jar?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Stevil's post
19-08-2015, 04:05 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
I'd say 6.9

"It says you have to be saved in order to go to heaven. The way I see it, you only have to be yourself to go to hell!" - Marilyn Manson, Copps Collesium, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. (1997)

Censored
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 04:08 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:47 PM)Stevil Wrote:  I've given you the answer already.

No, you haven't. You went off on a tangent about the way people act when they believe that something is true, which is irrelevant.

Ummm, What?!

You astound me.

Their claim is that god exists, if they believe that god exists then they also believe that they have a purpose and a set of divinely defined morals.

If they believed that god doesn't exist then they think their life will be without purpose and they think that they will no longer have any reason to have morals.

This is the consequence. They believe that their god claim is true and they act accordingly. If they believed that their god claim was false they would act differently.
It is very important to them that their god exists.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2015, 04:13 PM (This post was last modified: 19-08-2015 04:17 PM by Free.)
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 02:39 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 02:37 PM)Free Wrote:  There is no evidence at all tio support the concept that God is responsible for anything.
Does the god claim that you have seen contain criteria for an expectation of evidence?

All claims do, not just a god claim.

Any time a claim is made in regards to the existence of anything the criteria for the expectation of evidence applies.

If that criteria is not met- at least to some observable degree- then the claim is rightfully and intellectually honestly declared as false.

If the claimant persists despite failing to meet that criteria, he can be deemed as either being intellectually dishonest or mentally incompetent.

In regards to the god claim, it doesn't even meet one of the following:

Hypothesis - some evidence
Theory - good evidence
Fact - proven

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
19-08-2015, 04:16 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 04:08 PM)Stevil Wrote:  
(19-08-2015 03:56 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, you haven't. You went off on a tangent about the way people act when they believe that something is true, which is irrelevant.

Ummm, What?!

You astound me.

Their claim is that god exists, if they believe that god exists then they also believe that they have a purpose and a set of divinely defined morals.

If they believed that god doesn't exist then they think their life will be without purpose and they think that they will no longer have any reason to have morals.

This is the consequence. They believe that their god claim is true and they act accordingly. If they believed that their god claim was false they would act differently.
It is very important to them that their god exists.

But the only information we get out of any of that is about their beliefs and how those beliefs affect them. It tells us absolutely nothing about whether or not God actually does exist.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Grasshopper's post
19-08-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 01:52 PM)WillHopp Wrote:  How the hell is this still going? Unreal.

I know. It started out so simple.

1 through 7

Then it exploded.

Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
19-08-2015, 04:19 PM
RE: The Dawkins Scale
(19-08-2015 04:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Hmm, seems we have left evidence and logic behind.

Someone did, quite a long time ago.

(19-08-2015 04:03 PM)Stevil Wrote:  Let's say that the jar is sealed. I cannot count the marbles.

And now you are in the position of the man claiming that there is an invisible dragon in his garage.

I ask again, phrased slightly differently to appease your new obsession: what is the difference between an even number of invisible, weightless, incorporeal, undetectable marbles and no marbles at all?

However, in the interest of clearing this thread, any further discussion on this topic will take place over here. We've derailed this thread enough already.

"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
Post Reply
Forum Jump: