Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

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.

 

peace

791 thoughts on “Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

  1. fifthmonarchyman: I would agree and add of course that God is truth.

    peace

    People create their own gods. And different people create very different gods.

    Having followed the recent election, it seems that people create their own truth, and different people create very different truth.

  2. fifthmonarchyman:

    Allan Miller: I am merely ridiculing it. Nothing particularly mysterious about that, it should have been obvious from the leaden sarcasm of my opening post on the topic. I am simply saying that is a particularly feeble line of argumentation

    I will use this approach with Patrick and his ilk when the claim that no evidence would convince them that God exists because there is no operational definition of God.

    That would be foolish since the two situations are not comparable. I’m merely pointing out that without an operational definition the word you use is literally meaningless. I have never claimed that no evidence would convince me that your god exists.

  3. fifthmonarchyman:

    dazz: What evidence do you have that knowledge requires God? None at all.

    this is simply incorrect. If you think that knowledge is possible with out God tell me how you know stuff.

    You’ve got it backwards. You’re the one claiming that your god is necessary for knowledge so you have the obligation to support that claim. Thus far, despite repeated challenges to do so, you haven’t. You attempt to shift the burden of proof is a transparent attempt at evasion.

  4. fifthmonarchyman: I don’t recall calling folks who insist that they are atheists retards or trolls.

    You have implied that we are delusional, which violates the site rules.

    Premise one: You know that truth exists
    Premise two: God is truth
    Conclusion: therefore You know God exists

    You syllogism is disingenuous because you don’t believe in a god that is only the abstract noun “truth”, you have made it clear that you believe in a variant of the Christian god. Further, you believe not because of the syllogism you present but because of your presuppositions from your childhood indoctrination. It’s not an honest argument.

  5. sean samis: We know that anything which has not been proved impossible is possible.

    You don’t know this, and this is essentially an argument from ignorance.

  6. Patrick: You syllogism is disingenuous because you don’t believe in a god that is only the abstract noun “truth”, you have made it clear that you believe in a variant of the Christian god.

    I don’t beleive in a “Patrick” who only makes irrelevant observations on this website but that has nothing to do with the fact that that was an irrelevant observation by a guy named Patrick.

    Patrick: Further, you believe not because of the syllogism you present but because of your presuppositions from your childhood indoctrination.

    Why I believe is beside the point here.We all have all sorts of reasons for doing what we do.

    What is important is whether the syllogism is valid and the premises are true. If so it should be believed.

    Patrick: You’re the one claiming that your god is necessary for knowledge so you have the obligation to support that claim.

    Thanks Fred.

    By the way truth (God) is not a claim he is the standard by which we evaluate claims.

    peace

  7. Kantian Naturalist,

    Its pretty hard to falsify a theory that no one can even agree what it is.

    I guess it is a good strategy on your sides part, just let the theory mean anything and then every time it is shown that the mechanisms are incapable, well, just say there are others- you know like your personal favorite- “Nature just does it”!

    Who needs reading when you have that for fixes all duct tape.

  8. fifthmonarchyman:

    Premise one: You know that truth exists
    Premise two: God is truth
    Conclusion: therefore You know God exists

    Is that wrong for some reason?

    It is defective. Premise two assumes that which is to be proven. If your deity does not exist, she/he/it/they cannot “be truth”.

    So how do you know your deity “is truth”? Until you demonstrate the validity of that claim, your syllogism is defective and worthless.

    sean s.

  9. FMM, you’re pathetic at logic and you should know that by now.

    Even if we were to accept P1 (truth exists), P2 is not well defined.
    Actually the conclusion only follows if P2 is taken to mean “God is truth, and only truth, they’re one and the same thing”, or “Truth requires God to exist” which clearly both beg the question.

    P1: Gremlins are fun
    P2: Fun exists
    C: Gremlins exist

  10. phoodoo,

    Its pretty hard to falsify a theory that no one can even agree what it is.

    You still on this one? Despite the fact that you have been pointed to numerous sources that all say the same thing regarding what the modern ToE is, you insist (without, I bet, troubling to look) that there is no agreement. And without providing a shred of evidence that there is no agreement.

    And this – this thing you don’t even know what it is – is what you spend your days railing against?

  11. Allan Miller: Despite the fact that you have been pointed to numerous sources that all say the same thing regarding what the modern ToE is

    Um, no, that’s not true. I have been pointed to numerous sources which all say a DIFFERENT THING regarding what the modern theory of evolution is.

    So to clear it all up Allan, why don’t you just quote what the theory of evolution is right here, right now, and then we can discuss this so called theory. Ok?

  12. phoodoo,

    Um, no, that’s not true. I have been pointed to numerous sources which all say a DIFFERENT THING regarding what the modern theory of evolution is.

    OK, bullshit boy, put your money where your mouth is and provide some actual evidence of that claim. It should be a simple matter to provide two quotes from two sources you have been offered and indicate how you deduce that they have a different – a contradictory and incompatible – view of evolution.

    So to clear it all up Allan, why don’t you just quote what the theory of evolution is right here, right now, and then we can discuss this so called theory. Ok?

    I have provided an author of a well-respected textbook, and you batted that back with ‘why Futuyma’? So I know in advance that anything I say will be ‘Why that? Who decides?’.

    Support your nonsense. There is but one generally accepted ‘theory of evolution’ among biologists today. You are the one claiming that this isn’t true. So support that claim.

  13. dazz: Even if we were to accept P1 (truth exists), P2 is not well defined.

    are you the official decider on premises and their definition?

    dazz: Actually the conclusion only follows if P2 is taken to mean “God is truth, and only truth, they’re one and the same thing”, or “Truth requires God to exist” which clearly both beg the question.

    P2 does in fact mean that God is truth and only truth when properly defined and understood. And it does not beg the question it’s simply what God is

    dazz:
    P1: Gremlins are fun
    P2: Fun exists
    C: Gremlins exist

    You are confusing the adjective “Fun” for the noun “Fun” these are related but not identical.

    It’s easier to get it right with true and truth because they are not spelled the same way

    peace

  14. fifthmonarchyman: [to dazz] are you the official decider on premises and their definition?

    Very lame response; are you the official decider? If not dazz, why you?

    You could have asked for a fuller explanation, or explained why you thought dazz was wrong. But you chose the low-road. No surprise there; you already knew your second premise was defective.

    fifthmonarchyman: P2 does in fact mean that God is truth and only truth when properly defined and understood. And it does not beg the question it’s simply what God is

    More circularity: we only know what your deity is if we have the proper definition of “truth” and we only know the proper definition of “truth” when we know what your deity is.

    Just more empty words.

    sean s.

  15. sean samis: Very lame response; are you the official decider? If not dazz, why you?

    I’m not the official decider either, That honor goes to the Truth. The entire history of mankind is one of continual attempted usurpation of that office

    sean samis: we only know what your deity is if we have the proper definition of “truth” and we only know the proper definition of “truth” when we know what your deity is.

    yes
    quote:
    Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life.
    (Joh 14:6a)

    and
    and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
    (Joh 8:32)

    and

    And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God.
    (Joh 17:3a)

    end quote:

    sean samis: More circularity:

    No simply the doctrine of divine simplicity. Basic Theistic Philosophy
    check it out

    http://www.iep.utm.edu/div-simp/

    After you have tackled that If you need me to explain further just let me know

    peace

  16. fifthmonarchyman: P2 does in fact mean that God is truth and only truth when properly defined and understood

    Then your argument can be simplified as “Truth exists”.
    But then you’re not allowed to attach traits to truth that you assume for God.

    You believe in a personal God? An omniscient God? Truth is none of that. So God is not truth and only truth, they’re not one and the same thing, so your argument fails.

  17. Allan Miller,

    Futuymas book is the theory of evolution? The whole book?

    I wonder why, when I look up “theory of evolution” the first listing isn’t Futuyma? Actually the first listing is DARWIN’S theory of evolution, not Futuyma’s. How strange.

    And when you look up evolution in Wikipedia, bullshit boy, it doesn’t say its Futuyma’s theory of evolution, in fact he is hardly even mentioned anywhere at all, except for some minor quote out of some 300 plus authors.

    And yet, this single book by Futumya is THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION! The entire book! Wow!

    Bullshit, boy.

  18. phoodoo:
    Allan Miller,

    Futuymas book is the theory of evolution?The whole book?

    The book explains the theory, yes.

    In the same way you can find many different textbooks on quantum field theory, by many different textbook authors, which explain quantum field theory.

    That’s the exact same way you can find textbook authors that explains evolutionary theory.
    One of those would be Douglas Futuyma’s book ‘Evolution’, which explains Evolutionary Theory.

    I wonder why, when I look up “theory of evolution”the first listing isn’t Futuyma?

    Because Futuyma didn’t invent the theory of evolution, nor did he invent the theory he explains in his book.
    In the same way the textbook authors, who are physicists, that wrote books explaining quantum field theory. That doesn’t mean the people who write these textbooks on quantum field theory are the inventors of quantum field theory, they are simply educated in quantum field theory well enough to teach it and write textbooks explaining it.

    Douglas Futuyma, in the same way, is a textbook author and an evolutionary biologist, not the man who laid the foundations for the theory.

    Actually the first listing is DARWIN’S theory of evolution, not Futuyma’s.How strange.

    Not strange at all, since Futuyma isn’t claiming to have come up with the theory of evolution. He merely explains the contents of the extant theory in his book.

    And when you look up evolution in Wikipedia, bullshit boy, it doesn’t say its Futuyma’s theory of evolution in fact he is hardly even mentioned anywhere at all, except for some minor quote out of some 300 plus authors.

    But phoodoo, we already agreed wikipedia is usually a crappy resource, so why would you take it as authoritative when we both agree it isn’t?

    Regardless, again, it’s not “Futuyma’s” theory of evolution. Futuyma merely explains the theory in his book.

    And yet, this single book by Futumya is THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION!The entire book!Wow!

    Yes, yes it is. It is a textbook that explains the concepts of the theory of evolution. Now go read it.

    Bullshit, boy.

    Denial is the most predictable of all human responses.

  19. dazz: But then you’re not allowed to attach traits to truth that you assume for God.

    God’s simplicity means that he has no parts so when properly understood all of God’s “traits” are in fact one and the same God.

    dazz: You believe in a personal God? An omniscient God? Truth is none of that.

    Yes it is, Truth is all of that and much more. The reason you don’t know that is because you don’t know truth fully.

    You have a partial and deficient understanding of truth. If you understood him better you would value him more

    peace

  20. dazz: You believe in a personal God? An omniscient God? Truth is none of that.

    Does a god have to be personal and omniscient to exist? Just because your straw-man conception of truth is not the same as my understanding of God does not mean it’s not the same as someone else’s.

    Atheism is a blanket claim that no gods exist not just that my God does not exist

    peace

  21. Rumraket,

    Well before we can explain a theory, we better first decide what the theory is. We haven’t even gotten that far yet. We can’t falsify an explanation, we need a theory to see if its falsifiable or not.

  22. fifthmonarchyman: Does a god have to be personal and omniscient to exist? Just because your straw-man conception of truth is not the same as my understanding of God does not mean it’s not the same as someone else’s.

    Atheism is a blanket claim that no gods exist not just that my God does not exist

    You object to non believers creating a straw man and in the next sentence do the same thing.

    Just curious, do you actually believe you could be wrong about the Calvinistic God?

  23. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,

    Well before we can explain a theory, we better first decide what the theory is.We haven’t even gotten that far yet.We can’t falsify an explanation, we need a theory to see if its falsifiable or not.

    So you can’t have an explanation before you have theory and you can’t have a theory before you have an explanation.

  24. phoodoo:
    Rumraket,
    Well before we can explain a theory, we better first decide what the theory is.

    The author of the book, in so far as he explains the theory, has already implicitly “decided” what the theory is. Not that Futuyma really was responsible for “deciding” this, he merely explains what the greater scientific community in the relevant field takes to be evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory as understood by the experts. That’s why evolutionary biologists generally praise and recommend his book to people who want to learn at an undergraduate level, what evolutionary theory is.

    The theory is explained in the book. You can’t explain a theory without also implicitly having “decided” what it is. In the same way that, if a physicist writes a textbook that explains quantum field theory, that physicist has “decided” to explain what quantum field theory is as understood by experts in the relevant field.

  25. Rumraket: Futuyma merely explains the theory in his book.

    Well then, as a responsible textbook author, surely he provided a references section that tells students where they can find the actual theory. Right?

  26. Pedant: Literature bluff.

    Explain in your own words.

    You’re right. Godel sentences require a particular type of formalism to prevent circularity.

  27. Mung: Well then, as a responsible textbook author, surely he provided a references section that tells students where they can find the actual theory. Right?

    What an outrageously stupid comment. In so far as the theory is explained, it’s simultaneously in the book. It can’t not be.

    Are you guys drunk or something?

  28. All of a sudden phoodoo, Mung and Cole are pushing the “evolution is not a theory”, “there’s no theory of evolution”, “it’s unfalsifiable, not science”

    Looks like we finally have an ID theory! It goes something like this

    “I’m rubber you’re glue, everything you say goes back to you”

    Now that there’s no theory of evolution or theory of ID, how are we going to teach the controversy? Somebody please, think of the children!

  29. Mung: You don’t know this, and this is essentially an argument from ignorance.

    I forgot this showed up here too, as well as here.

    We do know it is possible that no deity exists because we know that anything which has not been proved impossible is possible.

    That’s what possible means.

    Definition of possible at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/possible

    1 a : being within the limits of ability, capacity, or realization — a possible but difficult task
    b : being what may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature, custom, or manners — the best possible care; the worst possible circumstance

    2 a : being something that may or may not occur — a possible surprise visit
    b : being something that may or may not be true or actual — possible explanation

    3 : having an indicated potential — a possible housing site

    Since we don’t know that the absence of gods is impossible, the absence of gods is something that “may be conceived, be done, or occur according to nature ”; it’s something that may or may not occur”; it’s “something that may or may not be true or actual”.

    We do know it is possible that no deity exists because we know that anything which has not been proved impossible is possible.

    We don’t know that no deity exists, we just know that is possible.

    sean s.

  30. walto:
    I know you are, but what am I?

    Is that supposed to be another theory of ID? What’s the theory of ID then? Oh boy, you just ruined it, now there’s no theory of ID and we’re back to square one.

  31. dazz:
    walto : I know you are, but what am I?

    dazz: Is that supposed to be another theory of ID? What’s the theory of ID then? Oh boy, you just ruined it, now there’s no theory of ID and we’re back to square one.

    Well, I look at the “rubber/glue” theory as something of a species of the “I know you are” genus.

  32. walto: Well, I look at the “rubber/glue” theory as something of a species of the “I know you are” genus.

    I don’t know that it’s impossible for you to be rubber, therefore it’s possible you’re rubber.

  33. Mung: I don’t know that it’s impossible for you to be rubber, therefore it’s possible you’re rubber.

    No, that doesn’t work. You’re mixing epistemic and metaphysical possibilities there.

  34. Rumraket: What an outrageously stupid comment. In so far as the theory is explained, it’s simultaneously in the book. It can’t not be.

    Are you guys drunk or something?

    What an outrageously bumbling, farcical, petulantly retarded, buffoonish comment. Were you sucking on a dirty crack pipe all afternoon before you wrote it?

    Allan never said the theory of evolution is hidden somewhere in the book-he said the book is the theory. Once again we have you evolutionists hiding the theory somewhere like a skull and bones handshake. How many pages does the theory take up? Is it quotable?

  35. phoodoo: Were you sucking on a dirty crack pipe all afternoon before you wrote it?

    Absolutely not! The crack pipe was spotless.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.