(December 5, 2011 at 5:25 pm)lucent Wrote: On that basis, there is no reason to expect the Universe to conform to the results of empirical testing and research and either.
Perhaps I wasn't clear in what my point was. Let me simplify it for you:
In measuring the proof of a claim:
Repeatable tests + peer review > conjecture
Quote:saying that we should prefer hard evidence over "abstract" philosophy(whatever that means)
Hard evidence = repeatable tests that yield the same data.
Abstract philosophy = broad and subjective issues that philosophers have wrestled with for thousands of years (meaning and purpose of life, what morality is, why do we use reason, etc.).
Quote:For science to be done, the assumption of uniformity in nature must be made. This is the expectation that the Universe will behave in the future like it behaved in the past. The evidence for this of course only exists in the past. Therefore, the results of empirical testing and research in this sense are not any more reliable than the conclusion of a philosophical argument for the existence of God.
In measuring how extraordinary a claim is:
Basic assumptions (reality is real, consistency of the universe, etc). < Fantastic assumptions of faith that run contrary to all observed data.
ECREE: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Assumption: The laws of the universe will continue to apply tomorrow.
Degree of claim: Mundane
Proportional proof required: None
Assumption: God created this planet 5 billion years ago for us, created us circa 100K years ago, we remained in a "fallen state" for all but the last 2K years, he solved that problem by sending his only son, who was also himself, down to earth to be the bloody sacrifice that was the only means by which he could convince himself to forgive us for the sins that were the result of a woman made from a rib eating a magic fruit after speaking with a talking snake. This son of God was brought back from the dead and he flew up into the sky (presumably flying through space like Superman) leaving behind a deeply fragmented church that held deeply contradictory ideas about who and what this son was (Docetic, Arian, Ebionite, Marcionite, etc) because after all, the message of the son was critical to our eternal salvation but not important enough to write down during his 30 year life. That responsibility was delegated to Mark, who wasn't an eye witness, and three other Gospels followed based on the book Mark wrote. Anyone who doesn't believe this story will be burned forever in Hell by the god who loves us so much.
Degree of claim: Laughable
Proportional proof required: Heal Stephen Hawking. Then I'll believe.
"Blah blah blah" isn't going to cut it.
Quote:The problem for atheists is that they have no way to account for them in their secular worldview.
Not this merry go round again. See my exchange with Statler for my refutation of this drivel.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
