Tell us about the dinosaurs

[Ryft]

Parsimony removes the need for the hypothesis of god.

Necessity proves otherwise, and parsimony is its bitch.

[cdog]

So... you don't know? I'm not familiar with Michael Shermer, but sure, I would agree you can't have a scientific inquiry without definitions. And I would suggest that it's nigh on impossible, not to mention pointless, to inquire into every conceivable notion of god. Whether god resides/exists in another universe, plane of existence, dimension or whatever makes no difference. As soon as you contend that god in any way influences this universe (creating it, performing miracles) why should that influence not be in any way detectable? Sure maybe we haven't detected it so far, or we don't yet have the capability to detect it, but when it's claimed that any such detection is impossible, well that's just bullshit. Which is why I asked if that's actually your position.

[Ryft]

As soon as you contend that god in any way influences this universe (creating it, performing miracles) why should that influence not be in any way detectable?

...which I answered.

[Anomalocaris]

Parsimony removes the need for the hypothesis of god.

Necessity proves otherwise, and parsimony is its bitch.

Necessity has no demands beyond the needs of parsimony. Only sybaritic bitches of intellectual flaccidity seeks to "prove" otherwise.

[orogenicman]

orogenicman Wrote:

Anecdotal evidence is not scientific. As I pointed out to you before (and you brushed it aside), personal revelation, the very foundation of Christianity, is by definition first-person. As such, no one is under any obligation to believe one man's personal revelation over another's. And, as such, science doesn't rely on them as evidence of anything. 10 anecdotes are no better than one, and 100 no better than ten.

Arcanus wrote:

What the fuck does that have to do with what I wrote?

Everything. See below.

Arcanus wrote:

Where did I ever suggest anecdotal evidence is scientific? Nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that one's anecdotal evidence should be persuasive for someone else? Again, nowhere. Where did I ever suggest that science does, or even should, rely on anecdotes as evidence of anything? Once again, nowhere.

And I never claimed that you did. However, most Christians DO use anecdotal evidence to argue for the existence of their god. I hear them use such 'evidence' every day. Your quote of Shermer points out that:

If we want to make this a scientific question that can be decided by empirical evidence, the burden of proof is on both believers and nonbelievers to establish operational definitions and quantifiable criteria by which we can arrive at a testable conclusion.

My point is that one vital criteria that must be met is that anecodotal evidence can never be used as scientific evidence for the existence of god. And what that does, by the way, is pretty much remove any evidence that Christians to date have for the existence of their god. Shall I cite specific examples? Or are you ready to concede the point?

Arcanus wrote:

In other words, all of that had sweet fuck all to do with what I had actually written. Thanks for regaling us so irrelevantly with such vociferous screed. The Straw Man fallacy consists of attacking a position that is different from or weaker than your opponent's actual position, but I'm not sure what fallacy is committed when you fabricate some completely different and ridiculously asinine position your opponent has never held but you nevertheless pretend he does.

I habitually "brush aside" such brain-farted irrelevance as that. Get used to it.

Wow, such language from a devout Christian. Tsk tsk. There was no strawman in what I posted. It directly addressed a portion of your response, as I've outlined above. You really ought to learn to control your temper, dude.

orogenicman Wrote:

This is also where I invariably hear Christians claim that God is outside of our physical realm and, as such, cannot be empirically tested. And if that is (rather conveniently) the case, then there is no empirical test that can be devised to prove this God's existence. And so the idea of testing for the existence of God is a non-starter.

Arcanus wrote:

Thanks for repeating the very fucking point I was making (along with Michael Shermer)? God forbid you should just quote the point and say, "I agree"—as if by repeating the very point you can pretend it was your own valuable contribution to the discussion.

So you were saying that the idea of testing for the existence of God is a non-starter? Odd. It appeared to me that you were arguing just the opposite. But hey, if you don't believe that one can devise a test to verify the existence of God, then our arguments aren't so far apart after all (in which case, tell us again the point of "creation science").

orogenicman Wrote:

In addition, if this deity is outside the realm of reality in which we mete out our existence, then it seems to me that he could be defined as an alien. And so the question that comes to my mind is, what vested interest does this alien being who doesn't reside in our world have in our world?

Arcanus wrote:

Are you so exquisitely out of touch with what Christianity teaches that you cannot even answer that question? Some experience with thoughtful skeptics and critical thinkers would soon teach you that before a person rejects a position he should at least be familiar with its most elementary teachings first—so as to know what it is he's rejecting. If you truly don't know what the answer is to that question, then that speaks volumes about you. If you actually do know, then this display of disingenuous sophistry says just as much.

(P.S. I may brush aside this or that comment of yours, but you ignored an entire post of mine, addressed to you.)

No sir. I submit to you that you dismiss what I post because you can't post a level headed rebuttal, Furthermore, I suspect that my grasp of the Christian religion is at least as good as anyone else's, not that that has anything to do with this discussion. So, care to actually answer my question, in bold, above?

[Welsh cake]

First, those good theists are not the only ones. For example, atheist and skeptic Michael Shermer writes (1999), "What criteria for falsifiability could we establish to determine God's existence or nonexistence? Believers' claim that there is overwhelming evidence, or atheists' claim that there is no evidence, is not a test.

You do realise he was asking a rhetorical question? Michael wasn't interested in actually going about testing hypothesises for god when he was actually elaborating on the fact that god as a fictional character is not epistemologically testable. He concluded his thinking that there is no experiment or convincing argument to reach a conclusion that a man-made god exists empirically.

If we want to make this a scientific question that can be decided by empirical evidence, the burden of proof is on both believers and nonbelievers to establish operational definitions and quantifiable criteria by which we can arrive at a testable conclusion. What is the operational definition of God and what quantifiable criteria should we use to accept or reject the null hypothesis of God's nonexistence?"

The late-Karl Popper had his fair share of critics from rationalists and philosophers for his "views" on scientific methodology and the like. Here he fails to understand how the burden of proof works. It falls heaviest on those making ontologically positive extraordinary claims i.e. god exists. I'm not making an ontologically negative claim here "god does not exist" because you haven't even told me what your definition of the concept is.

And on that note, Arcanus, could you at least have the decency to respond to me directly and not quote someone else, reference or no reference. Do you want to have a discussion or not?

Second, those theists are not hypocrites if they point out that God is beyond the scope of "incoherent" science. They want to have their cake and eat it too only if they bash science on one hand yet esteem it on the other.

That's equivalent to stating those theists aren't hypocrites if they reject and discredit the findings of science yet praise the subsequent advancements of technology brought about if it helps them spread their gospel's message. They are still being hypocritical regardless.

I don't, actually. I have no idea where that came from.

From you. Asserting that reason and evidence cannot disprove God as creator when failing to understand what is required for existence claims was just an argument from incredulity.

[Statler Waldorf]

Unlike you, who couldn't school a banana, let alone even a grade school child. With such a deficiency, perhaps Arcanus contributing is an act of charity on the behalf of a certain retard who plays an epic game of poor to nonexistent definitions and goal post moving.

Funny how you give no examples, and just resort to personal attacks. Classic. You're right, I would have a much harder time "schooling" a banana than you guys. I agree.

[Anomalocaris]

Unlike you, who couldn't school a banana, let alone even a grade school child. With such a deficiency, perhaps Arcanus contributing is an act of charity on the behalf of a certain retard who plays an epic game of poor to nonexistent definitions and goal post moving.

Funny how you give no examples, and just resort to personal attacks. Classic. You're right, I would have a much harder time "schooling" a banana than you guys. I agree.

You are a banana, Statler.

[Statler Waldorf]

orogenicman Wrote:
And I never claimed that you did. However, most Christians DO use anecdotal evidence to argue for the existence of their god. I hear them use such 'evidence' every day. Your quote of Shermer points out that:

Since you have not scientifically surveyed the majority of Christians on Earth, you yourself are using anecdotal evidence to bash on Christians for using anecdotal evidence? Nice! I’d expect nothing less of you.

[downbeatplumb]

If something exists then there should be a way to test for it.

There may be life on worlds in other solar systems.

We dont know if this is true and we cant test for it now, but we can theorise on ways to get this information.

If we cant even theorise on ways to test for something then its a good sign that it does not exist