This video from David Wood seems to be pertinent to almost every discussion that takes place here. Perhaps it should be required viewing to any who would participate in this forum.
What do you think?
check it out.
https://youtu.be/YrGVeB_SPJg
peace
791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
To be clear , convinced provisionally. Second, being convinced the concept of God is likely is different from believing in a particular version .
As I’ve already said for one thing if a being truly defeated death it would convince me that it was omnipotent, That is not proof of course but it would definitely convince me.
You see demanding absolute proof of X before you would be convinced is something that Fred would do not a skeptic. Absolute proof of anything is impossible in this world as far as I know. Falsification on the other hand is easily accomplished usually.
Of course it’s not because what you are advocating is not skepticism it’s denial.
Thank you for your comments and the interaction
As I said earlier Ive really enjoyed this discussion now it seems to be reaching a point that we have extracted all we can from it.
I know we focused specifically about proof for God’s existence here but I think that I might start a new post to deal with Intelligent Design and what specifically would convince folks that life or the universe exhibited it.
It would be interesting to see who really is a skeptic and who is a Frediean on that question,
peace
noted, welcome to the fold
peace
” Leap of Faith ” is one of my favorites.
Never left, you said certainty is not the question.
That would mean it was immortal not omnipotent.
An immortal being does not need to defeat death any more than a immaterial being needs to defeat matter. Immortality means not having to worry about death in the first place.
On the other hand a mortal being needs to defeat death to escape his own mortality
but we digress 😉
peace
If it was actually science, a proper theory, you would not need to ask. Just asking that question implies a tacit admission of defeat
Just curious, but what do you mean when you write, “defeated death”? Do you mean died and came back to life? If so, that doesn’t strike me as all that indicative of omnipotence or all that impressive for that matter. I’ve done that three times on various operating tables and I daresay I do not meet any of the other standard characteristics of omnipotent.
Or are you thinking of something else? Perhaps you mean “lives forever”, but how would you know if something actually did? Your life is quite finite, so there is no way you could ever know if something lived any longer than you have, to say nothing of living forever. But even beyond that, there’s a term for such anyway: immortal. There are plenty of beings throughout history and mythology described as immortal who are not considered omnipotent. Tolkien’s elves are one of the better examples, but there are countless others.
Maybe you mean immune to damage and harm, but again that hardly qualifies as omnipotent. That too has a term (two actually, one at each end of a spectrum in fact): invincible and invulnerable. There are countless superheroes who fall along the spectrum. Deadpool and the Hulk fall pretty much the farthest along the invincible side (yeah…even more so than Superman if you can believe that, but then their from separate universes, so it requires some incomparable variables, but I digress…) and neither of them are omnipotent.
Anywhoo…just curious what you mean by defeating death and how you’d go about measuring it.
Of course I would need to ask.
I would need to ask the same question of a climate change science denier.
Science is no obstacle to the Frediean
peace
yes, I’m thinking about resurrection rather than resuscitation
Every E can be qualified and specified what is important is whether the qualifications are a means to discover the truth or simply a way to deny it
peace
Really? You just don’t get it. If I tell you that water boils at 100ºC, what would it take to convince you? You would go and check experimentally because “water boils at 100ºC” has all the necessary explanatory power. ID has no entailments because it doesn’t explain anything. ID is like the classical theistic God: it makes no sense to demand evidence for it. Literally ANYTHING could be “designed”
Evidence that emissions produced by humans increase the concentration of greenhouse gases and in turn, drive the temperature of the planet up is what you’re looking for. It doesn’t matter what a climate change denier thinks counts as evidence, that’s what climate change is about. Actually what climate change deniers do is to deny such evidence exists.
What I saw was that I wrote this:
which you then chopped up like this:
so that you could misinterpret my meaning and ask inane questions. That’s not honest behavior.
It is baffling, especially as the bulk of humanity apparently does. Cultural inertia?
Reminds me of an after-work conversation over drinks a good while ago. My boss mentioned he needed to go to confession and I asked him why as he had given absolutely no prior indication of being at all religious. He said he needed to go occasionally as otherwise he ran the risk of something bad happening.
If I was a Frediean about it I can think of noting that would convince me
How do I know that induction is valid?
How do I know that the world outside my mind exists independently?
How do i Know that I’m not being purposely deceived?
etc etc etc
So you can’t conceive of anything that would convince you that life or the universe is intelligently designed? Got it
Thanks Fred
Not to speak for Dazz but sure, why not? Let’s say the universe is intelligently designed. Now explain to me why that is evidence for a particular (in your case Calvinist Christian) deity. Where’s the attribution.
OK I’ll give you yet another chance to elaborate
Specifically what evidence would convince you that Fairies exist?
What about God?
If you can’t conceive of any you are a frediean in respect to these things
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
Are we talking about Intelligent Design, the (make-believe) scientific theory?
It’s not. It’s certainly not evidence for the Christian God
That is why I think that ID has very little to do with specific religious beliefs.
peace
fifthmonarchyman,
To put it another way. What would it take to convince you that Dazz’s theory for the origin of life is true?
Ok…but even that strikes me as not a big deal. I know of two cases where people “came back to life”, one after two days and one after five (the latter in a coffin in front of loved ones…yikes!) It happens. Neither of those two guys had any other capabilities anyone would consider omnipotent however.
But fine…let’s go with this “superman” Jesus fellow. According to the stories, he:
1. Turned water into wine
2. Healed a bunch of folk
3. Drove out an evil spirit
4. Showed some folk a better way to fish
5. Pulled a picnic of bread and fish for 5000 together out of thin air
6. Healed a leper (“alms for an ex-leper?”)
7. Raised a couple of people from the dead (“I’m not dead yet!”)
8. Calms a storm
9. Casts several demons into a herd of pigs (one of my personal favorites)
10. Walks on water
11. Got 4000 followers to tighten their belts (well…fed them from 7 loaves…seriously…)
12. Withers a perfectly good fig tree because it didn’t have fruit on it when he was hungry (another of my personal favorites)
So…let’s see…if we really analyze Jesus’ miracles, the only logical conclusion that one can reasonably draw is that Jesus was most definitely not omnipotent.
1. Turning water into wine is an interesting action, but hardly indicative of omnipotence. Now, if Jesus was turning water into…say…Pichon Longueville Comtesse de LaLande, that’d be a pretty good indicator of omnipotence, but Jesus supposedly way before the French even started growing grapes, so…
2. Why would an omnipotent being bother healing people piecemeal? If an omnipotent being was actually concerned about people’s illnesses, such an entity could just DISMISS ALL ILLNESS. That’s omnipotence. Playing house call doctor is most definitely not the action of an omnipotent being.
3 Driving out evil spirits is nothing special. Ever been to an Irish pub during St Paddy’s Day?
4. Seriously…showed Simon a place to put his nets to get get fish? C’mon…
5. Pulling the picnic out of thin air is really great showmanship, but again…the act of an omnipotent entity? No. If you actually have power over life and death itself, feeding people is completely unnecessary. An omnipotent entity would not bother with food; it would just make sustenance of any kind unnecessary.
6. Raising people from the dead is a pretty good trick, but again, clearly indicates that Jesus was not omnipotent. For an actual omnipotent entity, there would be no such thing as death in the first place.
7 Casting demons into a herd of pigs. Clearly just an act of someone with a sense of humor, but hardly indicative of omnipotence. I mean really…why would an omnipotent entity bother pissing off a herd of pigs?
8. And finally…withering a fig tree because it had no fruit. Of all the miracles, this one completely dismisses any possibility of Jesus being omnipotent. First, it indicates that Jesus got frustrated about something, but an omnipotent entity would never – correction…COULD NEVER – get frustrated about anything. Humans get frustrated when reality does not meet our expectations, but for an omnipotent entity, there could be no such thing as expectations. Anything an omnipotent entity conceived would be. Nevermind that an actual omnipotent entity would never be hungry in the first place, walking up to a tree and expecting it to feed him when it couldn’t is hardly the tree’s fault given an omnipotent entity. Wouldn’t the omnipotent entity already know said tree had no fruit? Or conversely, could said omnipotent entity simply walk up to any and all trees that had fruit? Or, simply make it so there were no fruitless trees? And so on…?
Seriously, all these “miraculous” actions strike me not as the actions of an omnipotent (or even particularly powerful) entity. Rather they strike me as the rather unimaginative stories of the kind of superhero a bunch of oppressed people living in a not-all-that-safe-or-hygenic part of the world would come up with.
I’ll stick with Deadpool and Spawn…far more entertaining and imaginative to me.
I get it.
I’m asking what would convince you that the universe or life exhibited Intelligent Design. Not about anyone’s particular idea of how to go about inferring intelligent design.
peace
that is after all the point ……….
Thanks Fred
peace
If you provide an operational definition of either of those, including the entailments were such to exist then (assuming the association with the entailments is valid) observing the entailments would provide support for the claim that faeries or gods, as defined, exist.
If you cannot provide such a definition and entailments then the problem is with your concepts not with those who lack belief in them.
Just as it is necessary for Shaggy to provide an acceptable operational definition of zombie before we can determine if they exist or not.
Thanks Fred,
peace
Yes. Without an operational definition the word is literally meaningless.
I realize that mocking is all you have, but do try to address the actual issues being raised.
No, you don’t get it.
Uh no…thank you for demonstrating that you are the Frediean here. I personally appreciate you admitting that you only think Jesus is omnipotent because you believe it, not because you’re open-minded or because you’ve actually examined any evidence.
And since you’ve arrived at your conclusion in the absence of facts, logic, or analysis, no amount of facts, logic, or analysis will impact your conviction.
Thanks Fred!
You’ve really fallen head over heels for this cartoon vid, haven’t you? Just so you know, it’s not really that good. As I’ve said, the first half is solid, but really says nothing new (though I agree that several people here could benefit from watching it). But then it gets crappy, by doing just what you are doing–suggesting that everybody who disagrees with your particular views is unreasonable. Wood is an apologist for a theory that actually doesn’t have much going for it on the evidence front. Nothing at all like the cartoon.
In that case, what was the point of you asking the question? “So you can’t conceive of anything that would convince you that life or the universe is intelligently designed?”
FMM tactic strikes me as a variation on this coupled with an attack on this.
Pascal’s wager, going thru the motions is enough for some versions of God
By that definition , God being eternal does not cheat death therefore His omnipotence remains unproven . Sorry for the digression
So you think that Fred’s “skepticism” was entirely justified because he hadn’t been provided with a proper operational definition and you think mockery is not the correct response?
peace
The topic of the thread is skepticism and I’d like to know if you are an actual skeptic of ID or like Fred
peace
I would say that the second part is just an extension of the first part to a live controversial area.
However I’m fine if we ignore the second part all together as long as we understand the point being made about skepticism.
peace
I’m not discussing the video, I’m discussing your mangling of my comment and your either refusal or inability to address the actual issues raised.
Once again you forget the incarnation and hypostatic union.
It’s OK. but you understand why it’s important to try and stay focused on the topic don’t you?
We can talk about the other stuff all you want some other time
peace
but that is what I’m discussing.
Skepticism verses denial
If you want to change the topic to the importance of operational definitions that Patrick approves of I suggest you start another thread.
peace
I’m discussing your behavior in this thread. I certainly understand why you don’t want to own it.
I believe in Flebderkamps. I even think some of the people here are Flebderkamps. For those of you who are unfamiliar with them, they are from another planet. They look just like us, but they lie a lot and are very unreliable when they promise to do things. The way they really differ, though, is that they can read minds, but will only do it if they feel like it.
Who here will join me in tracking down the real threat to continued human existence created by these dreaded Flebderkamps? I mean, I can understand skepticism, but….which of you are simply deniers: people who will allow humankind to die out because of your staunch refusal to believe–even with the abundance of available evidence?
I will happily own trying to keep the discussion on the topic at hand instead of getting bogged down in irrelevant tangents about definitions.
With that in mind I’ll ask again
Is there any evidence you can conceive of that would convince you of the existence of Fairies or God?
peace
Off the top of my head I think I would be convinced of the existence of Flebderkamps if I witnessed a being from another planet who looked liked me who knew what I was thinking at many times and under various different circumstances
That took about 5 seconds
Do you see how easy this is for a non Frediean?
Well, I hate both Flebderkamps and Earthlings, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend, so …
You mean keeping it to the unsupported claims of you and David Wood that distinguishing between someone else’s non-entailed fantasies is paramount for any true skeptic.
Just because you believe in authority doesn’t mean that an “authority” like David Wood is correct. The flaws and mistakes of the video are the legitimate area of discussion. You don’t get to insist that Wood is correct when he’s not.
Is there an observationally meaningful claim you have made for God’s existence?
I haven’t seen it.
Glen Davidson
Thanks Fred
feel free to discuss away
peace
Already answered above:
“If you provide an operational definition of either of those, including the entailments were such to exist then (assuming the association with the entailments is valid) observing the entailments would provide support for the claim that faeries or gods, as defined, exist.
If you cannot provide such a definition and entailments then the problem is with your concepts not with those who lack belief in them.”
Try addressing my actual points this time.
If you mean am I really skeptical of “Intelligent Design” as a genuine scientific endeavour – then – of course. The sole argument appears to be “evolution sucks therefore design!”
Like Tom English, I have an aversion to videos as a form of advancing an argument so I’ve no idea what you mean by “like Fred”. Does Wood present his argument in written form?
ETA it occurs to me you apply the Sherlock Holmes method when you give me two alternatives “skeptic or Fred”. Are you sure you can fit anyone into one or other category?
If you think so we are at an impasse.
Demand for a definition is not the same thing as conceiving of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong.
If you think it is we simply have no basis for discussion on this one
I will let you try and convince Shaggy to accommodate you. 😉
Peace