The quality of trolls has declined lately.

I almost miss the stories of talking to angels.

(August 21, 2021 at 2:55 pm)Helios Wrote:

Quote:Here you go, mate.

https://www.courant.com/news/connecticut...story.html

I wanted evidence that banning gay priests is what caused molestations to go down not a mere correlation of reported which by the way contradicts the fact most pedophiles are straight even ones who molest boys because pedophilia isn't about the sex of the victim. A more likely explanation is simply increased scrutiny of the church has either lead to molesters stopping molesting or they have become better at covering their tracks or the church is simply lying again and scapegoating gays.

I think you can use logic here.  The proportion of gay priests is declining;  the rate of new cases of boy molestation has declined during the same time period.  If you say it's a mere coincidence, do you have evidence it is?

(August 21, 2021 at 3:08 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: The quality of trolls has declined lately.

I almost miss the stories of talking to angels.

I'm actually curious, because I can't get into your mindset. What makes you think anyone is trolling?

Quote:I think you can use logic here.

Without any reliable data, logic won't suffice here.

Quote:  The proportion of gay priests is declining; 

We don't actually know that 

Quote: the rate of new cases of boy molestation has declined during the same time period.  

We don't actually know that and I already gave two far more reasonable explanations for the same drop which are reinforced by data on the nature of pedophilia.

Quote:If you say it's a mere coincidence, do you have evidence it is?

I never claimed it was a mere coincidence. You by contrast have banked your hypothesis on a mere correlation with foundations that have not been quantified in any meaningful way.

(August 21, 2021 at 3:12 pm)Ahriman Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 3:08 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: The quality of trolls has declined lately.

I almost miss the stories of talking to angels.

I'm actually curious, because I can't get into your mindset. What makes you think anyone is trolling?

To some,  a troll is simply someone whom they disagree with.

---

(August 21, 2021 at 3:24 pm)Helios Wrote:

Quote:I think you can use logic here.

Without any reliable data, logic won't suffice here.

Quote:  The proportion of gay priests is declining; 

We don't actually know that 

Quote: the rate of new cases of boy molestation has declined during the same time period.  

We don't actually know that and I already gave two far more reasonable explanations for the same drop which are reinforced by data on the nature of pedophilia.

Quote:If you say it's a mere coincidence, do you have evidence it is?

I never claimed it was a mere coincidence. You by contrast have banked your hypothesis on a mere correlation with foundations that have not been quantified in any meaningful way.

Odd, in one sentence you say logic won't suffice in lieu of reliable data, then in another, you want me to rely on what you call a 'reasonable explanation'. 

 But I think it's pretty obvious that if the past molesting priests are dying off and new ones aren't being admitted to seminary, at least in America, then the rate is declining.

Quote:Odd, in one sentence you say logic won't suffice in lieu of reliable data, then in another, you want me to rely on what you call a 'reasonable explanation'. 

Yes without data logic alone will not suffice and I never you were to rely on my explanations. I was simply pointing out they can equally or better explain the correlation and are indeed more reasonable considering what we know about pedophilia.

 

Quote:But I think it's pretty obvious that if the past molesting priests are dying off and new ones aren't being admitted to seminary, at least in America, then the rate is declining.

No, it's not obvious all we know is reported cases have gone down. That's not evidence that molestation isn't happening and sure as heck, not evidence, homosexuality has anything to do with it. 

(August 20, 2021 at 5:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The teleological argument doesn’t seem so much an argument as it does an expression of confirmation bias. Thusly:

-I believe in a god.

-The god in which I believe designed the universe.

-Since this god designed the universe, evidence of design should be observable.

-Everything I see exhibits design.

-This design is clearly the work of the god in which I believe.

-Therefore, the god in which I believe exists.

The only irrefutable clause in the above it the first one. Everything else is supposition, unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, and dizzyingly circular logic. I think even Voltaire was much too forgiving when he said that the most the TA could ‘prove’ was an Architect, not a god.

Boru

That's not the formulation of the teleological argument, and it doesn't yield the theistic God as a conclusion, just an intelligent designer with some desirable properties. Also, if you include the word "God" in the premises, you have a circular argument that has nothing to do with design arguments;

(August 21, 2021 at 5:33 pm)Klorophyll Wrote:

(August 20, 2021 at 5:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: The teleological argument doesn’t seem so much an argument as it does an expression of confirmation bias. Thusly:

-I believe in a god.

-The god in which I believe designed the universe.

-Since this god designed the universe, evidence of design should be observable.

-Everything I see exhibits design.

-This design is clearly the work of the god in which I believe.

-Therefore, the god in which I believe exists.

The only irrefutable clause in the above it the first one. Everything else is supposition, unsupported assertions, wishful thinking, and dizzyingly circular logic. I think even Voltaire was much too forgiving when he said that the most the TA could ‘prove’ was an Architect, not a god.

Boru

That's not the formulation of the teleological argument, and it doesn't yield the theistic God as a conclusion, just an intelligent designer with some desirable properties. Also, if you include the word "God" in the premises, you have a circular argument that has nothing to do with design arguments;

I grant that it’s a rather informal statement of the TA, but is in essence accurate. Proponents of the argument point to design in nature and conclude ‘god’. Since the argument was original formulated to prove God, it is - in and of itself - circular. An intelligently designed Universe is implicit in the argument.

Nothing to do with me, mate.

Boru

(August 20, 2021 at 4:58 pm)Spongebob Wrote: Well, the teleological argument itself is one based on perceived evidence.  IOW, design is inferred based on someone's interpretation of how the universe works.  So this is not an argument to be made without the use of evidence.  Your interpretation of design in the universe is an opinion, but there are other interpretations and other hypotheses. 

To say "the appearance of design in the universe warrants a designer" is not really an opinion, it's a valid analogy based on the simple observation that things don't arrange themselves or serve some goal without an agent behind.

(August 20, 2021 at 4:58 pm)Spongebob Wrote: Now, arguing that a snowflake is "designed" is pretty weak since we know what happens on a molecular level to cause crystalline formation of ice and we can repeat this with variable results by varying the conditions.  

How does the fact that you know something about the formation of snowflakes weaken the design hypothesis....? Just because you know how something was formed doesn't mean there is no supernatural agent that intended for it to form.... non-sequitur.

(August 20, 2021 at 4:58 pm)Spongebob Wrote:  Another similar approach is that of intelligent design, which has been demonstrated to be absolutely false from just about everything claiming to be designed, such as eyeballs.  These arguments are weak largely because those making the arguments don't have the imagination to form theories of evolutionary development.

Evolutionary development is irrelevant to these arguments. As I said before, a deity can operate through the very mechanisms of evolution. To say otherwise would be personal incredulity.

(August 20, 2021 at 4:58 pm)Spongebob Wrote:

Quote:Well, Einstein, in order to formulate SR, still relied on big chunks of classical mechanics, electromagnetism, etc. all of which are based on empirical data. 

No, he didn't.  His fascination with light began as a boy when he saw the light glinting off of the water.  He formed these thought experiments as a way of imagining what was going on.  He didn't use science or math until his ideas were already formed and he knew he needed mathematics to confirm his hypothesis would work so the scientific community would take him seriously.

....?? 
I'm sorry but there is more to Einstein's biography than what you read in some pop-sci article. His original paper on special relativity is titled "On the electrodynamics of moving bodies" and he mentions Maxwell's name in the same paper. He was familiar with Maxwell's theory of electromagnetism. Einstein certainly wasn't some isolated loon who was having fun imagining thought experiments , as you seem to present him above, he still received a standard physics training, a PhD degree, and familiarized himself with the major works of his predecessors, like any other physics graduate...

Physics, like any other experimental science, can't be done in a vacuum, Einstein's thought experiments definitely helped him, but they aren't the whole story.

(August 20, 2021 at 4:58 pm)Spongebob Wrote: Now you say a deity acts through natural processes.  Well, how are we to tell the difference between a deity's actions and just plain natural processes?  How are we to determine that the laws of the universe are they way they are because of a deity or because that's just how they are?  And how are we to determine when a message is divinely revealed?

Under theism, everything is a deity's actions, nothing get out of God's will. "Natural processes" or "laws" are just labels we put to make sense of the world around us. We either argue that a universe is an effect to a cause, and that infinite regress is impossible, or we don't. Once we establish the existence of a first cause, we can infer some of its properties from its creation (the universe). If we obtain benevolence, it's even possible to argue for theism, not just deism.

(August 20, 2021 at 4:58 pm)Spongebob Wrote: Yes, it's only valid because that's the only way it can work.  If you are arguing something not known to exist in the observable universe, you really have only one tool left, and that is logic.

I agree. Many people here though don't seem to welcome purely logical arguments.

(August 21, 2021 at 3:11 pm)Mashmont Wrote:

(August 21, 2021 at 2:55 pm)Helios Wrote: I wanted evidence that banning gay priests is what caused molestations to go down not a mere correlation of reported which by the way contradicts the fact most pedophiles are straight even ones who molest boys because pedophilia isn't about the sex of the victim. A more likely explanation is simply increased scrutiny of the church has either lead to molesters stopping molesting or they have become better at covering their tracks or the church is simply lying again and scapegoating gays.

I think you can use logic here.  The proportion of gay priests is declining;  the rate of new cases of boy molestation has declined during the same time period.  If you say it's a mere coincidence, do you have evidence it is?

I don’t think you understand how logic works. Assuming your correlation is true, you still haven’t proven whatever you believe is the cause. What do you believe the cause is and then provide us with your evidence. That’s called “burden of proof.” Not that I think for one second that you’re here with any intention of serious discussion. I don’t. But I’m bored.