"True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-11-2010, 05:00 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(13-11-2010 10:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Since you apparently agree that there can be no evidence of the supernatural, I don't understand what your objection could be unless you don't understand what the scientific method is.
Look at the context of the post I was agreeing with. Look at Ghost's explanation of what defines the supernatural. Of course there can't be natural evidence of the supernatural. That would be a contradiction.

(13-11-2010 10:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm not really going anywhere with it. You made an erroneous statement. I was just pointing it out.
What erroneous statement?!

I said that an illogical objection was no objection (that (empirical) evidence of God would be satisfactory (paraphrasing yourself))

You then said that I was claiming that the lack of an illogical objection constituted proof of God somehow.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 09:45 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Ghost

Quote:Forget what you think you know for a second. Ask yourself this. IF (BIG IF!) the supernatural doesn't leave evidence, then can science determine whether or not it exists?

Here's the deal. If the supernatural DOESN'T leave evidence, then science won't tell us. If it DOES, then that either means that it's really good at avoiding detection or that despite some controversial and contested claims, it doesn't exist. How do you plan to determine whether or not the supernatural leaves evidence?

Here is the problem with your argument, though: the only reason there is any debate about god, ghosts, or any other supernatural being or event is because people have claimed to witness physical evidence of their existence. A burning bush, a parted sea, an apparition, etc. The entire basis for the claim of the supernatural is because people say the saw something, heard something, felt something. If one human being can see it or hear it or feel it then it stands to reason that others can as well.

The supernatural claims themselves require that the supernatural manifest itself in the physical world. Your argument is completely contrary to that. So, since there is zero evidence to support these claims, I think it's fair to reasonably conclude that the supernatural dos not exist.

Now, you can get into the specifics of each one and work on debunking it, but I still think you get to the point where you can throw these things out. The bible, both the old and new testaments, have no corroborating evidence. On the contrary, what we have are earlier mythology that resembles much of the old testament, no archeological proof for much of the bible (for example, the evidence points to a conclusion that the early Hebrews were not slaves in Egypt and did not contribute to the building of the pyramids so the whole Passover story is discredited) and, again, no corroborating evidence to support miracles in the text. We can conclude that the Bible is fiction. That may not provide the answer on all supernatural claims, but I think it fairly takes care of a big one.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 11:00 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(14-11-2010 05:00 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  
(13-11-2010 10:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Since you apparently agree that there can be no evidence of the supernatural, I don't understand what your objection could be unless you don't understand what the scientific method is.
Look at the context of the post I was agreeing with. Look at Ghost's explanation of what defines the supernatural. Of course there can't be natural evidence of the supernatural. That would be a contradiction.

I know perfectly well what you said. Unless "unnatural" evidence is not evidence, the scientific method applies.

Quote:
(13-11-2010 10:16 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  I'm not really going anywhere with it. You made an erroneous statement. I was just pointing it out.
What erroneous statement?!

I said that an illogical objection was no objection (that (empirical) evidence of God would be satisfactory (paraphrasing yourself))

No, you didn't. I said that I had never seen any evidence for God. You said "Well, except for erroneous objections", which has only one obvious interpretation: that erroneous objections against something are evidence in its favor.

Quote:You then said that I was claiming that the lack of an illogical objection constituted proof of God somehow.

Because that is what you said. Or, at least, that is what you appeared to say, but you apparently misspoke.

"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
14-11-2010, 11:08 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Yes, an erroneous objection to God is upon the requirement for empirical evidence.

I didn't misspeak. I addressed your questions accurately. The problem was with your misinterpretation of the answer.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 11:15 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(14-11-2010 11:08 AM)fr0d0 Wrote:  Yes, an erroneous objection to God is upon the requirement for empirical evidence.

What? This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Quote:I didn't misspeak. I addressed your questions accurately. The problem was with your misinterpretation of the answer.

What misinterpretation? This is what you said:

fr0d0 Wrote:
Unbeliever Wrote:Pardon me if I don't take your word for it. I've heard that from a lot of people, and I've still yet to see any evidence whatsoever in favor of a god's existence.

Well except for illogical objections!

There's really only one thing that this could mean: that you think that illogical objections against something are evidence in favor of something. So either you misspoke (which doesn't seem too terribly unlikely, as you've done so before, and it's no big deal if you did) and got confused during the subsequent discussion, or you think I am talking about something that I am not.

"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
14-11-2010, 01:01 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
I think the sentence makes perfect sense. I'll re-state for you: An erroneous objection to God = one that requests empirical evidence.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-11-2010, 07:00 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
(14-11-2010 01:01 PM)fr0d0 Wrote:  I think the sentence makes perfect sense. I'll re-state for you: An erroneous objection to God = one that requests empirical evidence.

Thank you. Now, may I - once again - ask why? You keep saying this, but you haven't offered justification for it.

"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
15-11-2010, 09:42 AM (This post was last modified: 15-11-2010 09:46 AM by Ghost.)
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Hey, BnW.

Quote:Here is the problem with your argument, though: the only reason there is any debate about god, ghosts, or any other supernatural being or event is because people have claimed to witness physical evidence of their existence. A burning bush, a parted sea, an apparition, etc. The entire basis for the claim of the supernatural is because people say the saw something, heard something, felt something. If one human being can see it or hear it or feel it then it stands to reason that others can as well.

If you think that seeing something happen is credible scientific evidence for why and how it happened, then more power to you. I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you. How do you verify it? Collect data? Experiment? Recreate conditions? Explain the laws that govern it? Make predictions? Figure out the math?

Here's the problem with your argument. People allegedly heard and saw these things. So why isn't that evidence good enough to be called scientific evidence?

Quote:The supernatural claims themselves require that the supernatural manifest itself in the physical world. Your argument is completely contrary to that.

It is in no way contrary to that and it never has been.

I'm not saying that people can't see the supernatural. I'm saying that science can't comment on it because science relies on the consistency of the rules that govern the natural universe, a consistency that by definition cannot be relied upon when investigating the supernatural.

Let's imagine for a moment that the supernatural does in fact exist. Poof! You have a vagina. Explain to me how science would determine that it was a supernatural event.

Quote:So, since there is zero evidence to support these claims, I think it's fair to reasonably conclude that the supernatural dos not exist.

No one, no one, is saying that it's unreasonable to believe the supernatural doesn't exist. So that argument has been put to bed. Hopefully no one will invoke it again.

The argument is not that scientists have not found evidence of the supernatural. The argument is that scientists CAN'T find evidence of it REGARDLESS of whether or not the supernatural exists. So if that is the case, it's unreasonable to conclude the supernatural doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence.

Quote:...That may not provide the answer on all supernatural claims, but I think it fairly takes care of a big one.

The veracity of The Holy Bible is irrelevant. The Bible is not the supernatural. It's like saying that a math textbook is full of errors so clearly there's no such thing as math. The question is not, is the Bible accurate. The question is, can science prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-11-2010, 08:01 PM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Quote:If you think that seeing something happen is credible scientific evidence for why and how it happened, then more power to you. I've got some swampland in Florida to sell you. How do you verify it? Collect data? Experiment? Recreate conditions? Explain the laws that govern it? Make predictions? Figure out the math?

Here's the problem with your argument. People allegedly heard and saw these things. So why isn't that evidence good enough to be called scientific evidence?

I never claimed that seeing something is credible scientific evidence. I was responding to your earlier statements that the supernatural can be mundane events that don't have any noticeable impact on the real world. While I suppose that could be true, the entire reason we are having this discussion is because events are claimed to have manifested themselves in the real world. But, again, I never, ever claimed this was credible scientific evidence. On the contrary, I don't think it is and that basing a belief system on fantastical statements of miracles that has no corroborative evidence of any kind is just defying logic.

Quote:Let's imagine for a moment that the supernatural does in fact exist. Poof! You have a vagina. Explain to me how science would determine that it was a supernatural event.

I've nothing to add to this but I just wanted to say that I enjoyed this one statement more than everything else you have ever written and I wanted you to know that "Poof! You have a vagina" was going to make it into my repertoire at least once a week going forward for at least the next 6 months. So,thanks for that.

Quote:The argument is not that scientists have not found evidence of the supernatural. The argument is that scientists CAN'T find evidence of it REGARDLESS of whether or not the supernatural exists. So if that is the case, it's unreasonable to conclude the supernatural doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence.

I disagree. The burden of proof discussion has gone on endlessly already on this forum, but, again, the burden is on those who claim something to be true. "You can't completely disprove it" is not a credible, logical argument. There has to be some evidence to support a claim as it is impossible to prove a negative. That is how science works: a hypothesis is put forth and evidence is sought to prove or disprove that hypothesis.

Now, I take your point that you can't ever completely disprove the existence of the supernatural, and I've conceded that point in the past. In fact, I think everyone has conceded the point that you can't absolutely disprove most things. So, hopefully we can put that argument to bed as well. However, you can, based on the total lack of evidence, reasonably deduce that the supernatural does not exist.

Shackle their minds when they're bent on the cross
When ignorance reigns, life is lost
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-11-2010, 12:04 AM
RE: "True Atheists are Hypocrites"
Hey, BnW.

Quote:Quote:
The argument is not that scientists have not found evidence of the supernatural. The argument is that scientists CAN'T find evidence of it REGARDLESS of whether or not the supernatural exists. So if that is the case, it's unreasonable to conclude the supernatural doesn't exist based on a lack of evidence.

I disagree. The burden of proof discussion has gone on endlessly already on this forum, but, again, the burden is on those who claim something to be true. "You can't completely disprove it" is not a credible, logical argument. There has to be some evidence to support a claim as it is impossible to prove a negative. That is how science works: a hypothesis is put forth and evidence is sought to prove or disprove that hypothesis.

You're supporting your disagreement with points that have nothing to do with the presented argument.

Burden of proof has nothing to do with whether or not the supernatural can be investigated by science. It's an idea that is predicated on the assumption that it CAN be investigated by science.

The "can't completely disprove" argument is meaningless if what is being proposed is correct. If the supernatural does not leave scientific evidence, you can't do anything. To say "can't completely" suggests that some ground has been gained somewhere. That isn't the case if there is no evidence for or against. "We haven't seen it," is a fine argument for skeptics, but not for science.

To say that something requires evidence if you know there isn't evidence to be found is... I can't even find the right word. If your response to that is, "yes there is," then fine, that statement is meaningless. But if it doesn't leave evidence then it's ridiculous.

What we're talking about here is an utterly non-partisan question. Can science detect the supernatural? If it can, it can. If it can't, it can't. I don't care what's reasonable to deduce or what makes sense or what's close enough. It's a cut and dry question. Can science detect quazars? Yes. Can science detect subatomic particles? Yes. Can science detect behavioural patterns among schizophrenics? Yes. Can science detect the supernatural? That's the question.

So I'll say it again. If the supernatural does not leave scientific evidence meaning that science cannot prove or disprove its existence beacase it can do nothing without evidence for or against that is naturally occuring then concluding that the supernatural doesn't exist BASED ON THE LACK OF EVIDENCE is ludicrous because you'd KNOW that the supernatural can exist independently of scientific evidence UNLIKE everything else in the universe that is naturally occuring. To state it differently, if you know that data doesn't exist not because it's unfound but because it CAN'T exist, then concluding something doesn't exist BECAUSE there's no data is dumb.

We can debate whether or not the supernatural does leave the kind of evidence that science can use (I'm so blue in the face from stating that that I don't know how to state it anymore) but I don't see how we can debate the above.

Peace and Love and Empathy,

Matt
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: