Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 5:47 pm
(October 4, 2021 at 5:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (October 4, 2021 at 11:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yet you keep trying to supply empirical evidence to support the God Hypothesis. Why do you do that?
I am using observations in the world as premises in inductive arguments. Think really hard about the words 'premise' and 'inductive'.
To empirically test X isn't possible if X isn't some repeatable or reproducible phenomenon. But it's alway possible to give inductive arguments supporting the existence of X, and use empirical evidence in the premises.
Here is an example: Joan of Arc exist(ed). But there is no empirical test that we can perform in a laboratory leading us to her existence. However, an inductive argument along the lines of: (available historical accounts of various events in France's history and many elements of Joan of Arc's biography are better explained if she existed than not) would clearly be a fine argument.
This is just utter nonsense. Historians know more about her than they know about anyone who lived prior to her or anyone who lived for several centuries after her. Yes, we may all be but brains in vats, god may have created the World last Tuesday, etc. But, if we decide to live in the real World, Jehanne la Pucelle existed as a historical person; her so-called Visions & Voices are another matter entirely.
Posts: 1101
Threads: 15
Joined: November 29, 2019
Reputation:
2
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 5:53 pm
(October 4, 2021 at 5:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I'm unconcerned. I think that the vast weight of evidence to that effect allays any rational doubt.
The vast weight of evidence you're referring to only implies correlation. And I am not denying that people's beliefs are correlated with their parents'.
(October 4, 2021 at 5:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Any claim about anything made with reference to it's appearance is an empirical premise, as empirical premises refer to what we can observe.
The world either looks designed, or it does not look designed. You can either use an empirical premise, or deny any possibility of an empirical premise - but to do both simultaneously is self defeating, thus..incoherent.
I didn't deny anywhere the possibility of an empirical premise, I denied the possibility of empirical tests/investigations about a supernatural entity. This is not the same thing.
(October 4, 2021 at 5:47 pm)Jehanne Wrote: This is just utter nonsense. Historians know more about her than they know about anyone who lived prior to her or anyone who lived for several centuries after her.
Historians knowing things is not an argument for existence. Any actual argument to prove that Joan of Arc existed would be inductive, you can try.
Posts: 44036
Threads: 529
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 6:00 pm
(October 4, 2021 at 5:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (October 4, 2021 at 11:44 am)Mister Agenda Wrote: Yet you keep trying to supply empirical evidence to support the God Hypothesis. Why do you do that?
I am using observations in the world as premises in inductive arguments. Think really hard about the words 'premise' and 'inductive'.
To empirically test X isn't possible if X isn't some repeatable or reproducible phenomenon. But it's alway possible to give inductive arguments supporting the existence of X, and use empirical evidence in the premises.
Here is an example: Joan of Arc exist(ed). But there is no empirical test that we can perform in a laboratory leading us to her existence. However, an inductive argument along the lines of: (available historical accounts of various events in France's history and many elements of Joan of Arc's biography are better explained if she existed than not) would clearly be a fine argument.
Well, we have three surviving letters of Joan’s, so that’s a pretty convincing empirical test.
But let’s say we didn’t. Accounts of French history of that period are also empirical evidence. And there’s no reason that empirical evidence can’t be used in an inductive argument.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 66329
Threads: 140
Joined: June 28, 2011
Reputation:
160
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 6:07 pm
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2021 at 6:08 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
(October 4, 2021 at 5:53 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I didn't deny anywhere the possibility of an empirical premise, I denied the possibility of empirical tests/investigations about a supernatural entity. This is not the same thing. If fish or anything else look designed...you've offered an empirical means of testing the claim. If you deny any possibility of empirical tests, then you deny any possibility that fish or anything else look designed.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 6:19 pm
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2021 at 6:20 pm by LadyForCamus.)
(October 4, 2021 at 5:53 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (October 4, 2021 at 5:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: I'm unconcerned. I think that the vast weight of evidence to that effect allays any rational doubt.
The vast weight of evidence you're referring to only implies correlation. And I am not denying that people's beliefs are correlated with their parents'.
(October 4, 2021 at 5:41 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Any claim about anything made with reference to it's appearance is an empirical premise, as empirical premises refer to what we can observe.
The world either looks designed, or it does not look designed. You can either use an empirical premise, or deny any possibility of an empirical premise - but to do both simultaneously is self defeating, thus..incoherent.
I didn't deny anywhere the possibility of an empirical premise, I denied the possibility of empirical tests/investigations about a supernatural entity. This is not the same thing.
How did an immaterial “thing” design and create a physical world? I mean, this is your god after all. Since he was the The Cause. what was his mechanism of action?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 5767
Threads: 49
Joined: September 25, 2018
Reputation:
20
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 6:22 pm
Magic, LFC. When in doubt, magic. Magic magically fixes any issues.
Posts: 7259
Threads: 506
Joined: December 12, 2015
Reputation:
22
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 7:02 pm
(October 4, 2021 at 6:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: (October 4, 2021 at 5:22 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: I am using observations in the world as premises in inductive arguments. Think really hard about the words 'premise' and 'inductive'.
To empirically test X isn't possible if X isn't some repeatable or reproducible phenomenon. But it's alway possible to give inductive arguments supporting the existence of X, and use empirical evidence in the premises.
Here is an example: Joan of Arc exist(ed). But there is no empirical test that we can perform in a laboratory leading us to her existence. However, an inductive argument along the lines of: (available historical accounts of various events in France's history and many elements of Joan of Arc's biography are better explained if she existed than not) would clearly be a fine argument.
Well, we have three surviving letters of Joan’s, so that’s a pretty convincing empirical test.
But let’s say we didn’t. Accounts of French history of that period are also empirical evidence. And there’s no reason that empirical evidence can’t be used in an inductive argument.
Boru
Scholars also have the written transcripts of her trials of Condemnation and Nullification, the latter having occurred 25 years after her immolation.
Posts: 2386
Threads: 5
Joined: January 3, 2018
Reputation:
22
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 7:31 pm
(October 4, 2021 at 5:42 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: (October 3, 2021 at 6:01 pm)Abaddon_ire Wrote: Well, that presents you with a problem. If you were walking on a beach and found a watch lying in the sand, would you conclude it was designed?
No you couldn't, because you think every single grain of sand on the beach was also designed.
Simply put, the watch was assembled by people using matter created by a designer.
And BTW, the word 'design' is an umbrella term. People don't really design anything, they just assemble/transform existent matter using their knowledge of nature.
That is what it means to design.
Posts: 44036
Threads: 529
Joined: July 24, 2013
Reputation:
109
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 7:35 pm
(This post was last modified: October 4, 2021 at 7:36 pm by BrianSoddingBoru4.)
(October 4, 2021 at 7:02 pm)Jehanne Wrote: (October 4, 2021 at 6:00 pm)BrianSoddingBoru4 Wrote: Well, we have three surviving letters of Joan’s, so that’s a pretty convincing empirical test.
But let’s say we didn’t. Accounts of French history of that period are also empirical evidence. And there’s no reason that empirical evidence can’t be used in an inductive argument.
Boru
Scholars also have the written transcripts of her trials of Condemnation and Nullification, the latter having occurred 25 years after her immolation.
But Kloro doesn’t seem able to grasp that, just as historiography is an empirical science, he is unable to grasp that calling apparent design ‘evidence’ is an empirical argument.
So, his use of a flawed example to support his claim that empiricism can’t be part of an inductive argument kinda sorta blew up in his face.
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
Posts: 15262
Threads: 450
Joined: March 29, 2015
Reputation:
29
RE: Atheism and the existence of peanut butter
October 4, 2021 at 9:15 pm
(October 4, 2021 at 5:19 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: Yersinia pestis's design is not less impressive than the pretty fish.
It may be impressive, but it is not intelligent or it would be very cruel.
(October 4, 2021 at 5:19 pm)Klorophyll Wrote: But because atheists suddenly become blind when it comes to the apparent design of various life forms, presenting good-looking animals is a good way to bring them back to their senses.
This shows again how you don't know anything about what you are talking about. Atheists are very well aware of the design of nature and life. It doesn't mean that if atheists don't believe in the intelligent design that they don't see the design. Nature is designed by forces that influence it, like sand dunes are designed by winds, and life is designed by natural selection.
To educate yourself read the book "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.
teachings of the Bible are so muddled and self-contradictory that it was possible for Christians to happily burn heretics alive for five long centuries. It was even possible for the most venerated patriarchs of the Church, like St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas, to conclude that heretics should be tortured (Augustine) or killed outright (Aquinas). Martin Luther and John Calvin advocated the wholesale murder of heretics, apostates, Jews, and witches. - Sam Harris, "Letter To A Christian Nation"
|
