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.
fifthmonarchyman,
Is that the standard definition Erik had in mind, or are there multiple standard definitions? You might also mention what you’re quoting from, which is apparently intended to be a direct quote from the deity himself.
Did you watch the video? Wood argues that the level of skepticism is acceptable if it facilitates rather than hinders the search for truth.
There are two categories of standard definitions of God: By a philosopher of religion or from catechism/confession of faith. FMM indicated where he quoted from: London Baptist Confession of Faith.
There is only one standard definition. God’s own self revelation.
As I just said our individual approximations whether theological or philosophical are “standard” in as much as they correspond to God’s own self revelation.
I did mention it. It’s from the 1644 London Baptist Confession of Faith it’s a statement of the truth as these folks understood it. The document contains this addendum
quote:
Also we confess, that we know but in part, and that we are ignorant of many things which we desire and seek to know; and if any shall do us that friendly part to show us from the word of God that which we see not, we shall have cause to be thankful to God and them
end quote:
peace
Right. Presuppositionism or no presuppositionism, “revelation” or no “revelation.” All in the same boat, paddling feverishly.
Once again you fail to tell me what the standard definition of god is; now you have said there are several standard definitions in two categories, none of which you have managed to state, and incidentally contradicting your claim of the standard definition.
Would you consider that an adequate citation? I would not.
That is where we are destined to spend our lives paddling against the current aka Sisyphus——- unless someone tosses us a lifeline.
peace
I’m watching everyone else paddle.
lmgtfy
No wonder John has me on ignore, lol.
Sorry. I sometimes forget that not everyone is familiar with this stuff
I assumed that if you were interested you could highlight the attribution and google it.
I apologize
peace
Just so you know, everyone hates it when you do that. And there may be a vote later to throw free riders off the raft.
If you know one, you will recognize its variations too. You don’t know even one, so asking for empirical evidence is just…
Anyway, here’s the introductory video yet again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gbGvyJNELU
As it happens, it is often our very familiarity with it that has bred our contempt.
Does that mean the attribution was sufficient in your opinion?
peace
Never throw a potential meal overboard!
That’s what I did, but you should have specified anyway. The reader’s convenience is something to consider.
Once again you fail to state your “standard definition”. Will you ever do it?
And once again, you did not hear the definition. That’s why you will never understand how inappropriate it is to ask for empirical evidence. And equating empirical evidence with science is inappropriate anyway.
LOL.
That’s because you didn’t give it. And you have in fact denied a definition three times, all before the cock crowed.
I gave you an introductory video – twice. FFM gave a definition. You have paid no attention to them. To show that you are really interested, you could do some obvious homework such as read Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God
But no, you are not serious and there’s no way to help you.
I’m interested in the standard definition of god you said existed. An introductory video is not a definition, and if the definition is in there somewhere, elementary consideration for others should stay you from asking me to dig through 20 minutes of who knows what searching for it. Similarly, rather than point me toward a Wikipedia article of great length, you could just cut and paste this standard definition. Is FFM’s definition the standard one you intend? If so, just say so, but you have not so far. I don’t understand your reluctance to provide an answer to a simple question. In my past experience, this generally happens when one is unable to.
It should be noted that our approximations are perfectly compatible and complementary. There are different nuances and subtleties of course just as you find for any term and the different approximations focus on various aspects of the eminently bountiful and rich concept but there is a general conscious.
Now can we put the “no standard definition” canard to bed?
peace
What approximations? Erik hasn’t said anything yet. Neither have you, if you think about it. You have just quoted a very old statement of faith that could use quite a bit of disambiguation before it ought to be considered a definition.
I have to add that both of you seem very smug in your superiority of understanding.
You sound like Fred. Did you watch the video?
Are you the official decider of what constitutes a proper definition?
peace
For what it’s worth, I completely agree that the existence or non-existence of God as defined by classical theism cannot be settled by appeal to ’empirical evidence.’
The theists who do appeal to ’empirical evidence’ as establishing the existence of God are not working within a classical theistic framework (e.g. scholasticism).
Likewise, the atheists who appeal to to ’empirical evidence’ as establishing the non-existence of God are not working within a classical theistic framework (e.g. scholasticism).
If you don’t want to work within that framework, or don’t see the point of using it, that’s one thing. But there is a long-standing theological tradition which treats the existence of God as a purely a priori question, not an a posteriori one. So empirical evidence either way is besides the point.
It’s not smugness to humbly recognize that God has graciously revealed himself.
It’s smugness to act as if he has not done so with out any evidence for that conclusion.
OK fine
returning to the topic at hand
Do you agree that if you don’t have a methodology that allows you in principle to establish the truth of God’s existence then you are not a skeptic but in denial?
peace
That’s exactly the complaint I made of your cut and pastes John. Are you completely unaware of your hypocrisy?
You did that not only with the Nillson Pelger paper, but also with your own paper about Avian ancestry.
And Allan of course, being the team player that he is, said oh, don’t be lazy, just read or watch whatever someone else tells you is meaningful somewhere. Perhaps Allan will now admonish you to do the same. And BTW, if you do read the article someone blindly says has an answer someone buried inside it, and you quote the part that doesn’t show the answer, Well, that of course is quote mining according to Allan.
and that is exactly the point of the video!!!!!!!!
We are all selectively skeptical when it is in our interest.
peace
No. Again, simple courtesy should prevent answering a simple question by referring me to a 20-minute video, somewhere in which a definition is alleged to lurk.
No, but since you asked, a definition is not merely a description. It’s a statement of everything that is, in combination, both necessary and sufficient to recognize a thing. Your statement of faith isn’t even that. Nor has Erik agreed that it’s the standard definition.
Kantian Naturalist,
What is the classical theistic definition of god? Can you do better than FFM or Erik?
Something like timeless, immanent, immaterial, but somehow able to talk to prophets and incarnate in material, time-bound bodies of carpenters and pigeons. What’s so hard to believe about it?
God is not a thing. If that’s not part of what defines God it ought to be. 🙂
If we hope to detect any phenomenon, we must use a model that at least allows the possibility that it may exist.
…a false premise built into a model which is never questioned cannot be removed by any amount of new data.
– E.T. Jaynes
If we hope to detect any phenomenon, we must use a model that at least allows the possibility that it may be detectable
Not if there is no methodology, after all if there was such a methodology faith would be unnecessary. Is faith unnecessary?
A designer is a thing.
Do you agree that if you don’t have a methodology that allows you in principle to establish the truth of unicorns’ existence then you are not a skeptic but in denial?
You seem to have no conception of what a methodology of discovery is about. You can’t just decide to have a methodology that can discover whatever you desire to know, you simply work with what has been sufficiently established to expand your realm of knowledge.
It would help if you understood significant areas of knowledge beyond your religious beliefs.
Glen Davidson
Can you do at least as good as dazz? Look,
Dazz knows (roughly) what he is denying. You don’t. Instead, you invoke the standard of empirical evidence for the immaterial. When your math schoolteacher talks about zero (or any other concept for that matter, “1” or “2” or “circle” are not empirical either) would you ask for empirical evidence in order to believe in it? When you insist on such a category error, your school career is over.
Dazz earlier said something else informative,
The first sentence is right, the second is false. Wood does not equivocate on evidence. Not all evidence is empirical. In addition to empirical data, there’s also logical proof.
For example, we all invoke the law of non-contradiction often enough. When we arrive at a self-contradiction, we don’t need more data in order to be corrected. We know from the law of non-contradiction that we need correction. This correction is completely independent of empirical data, i.e. there’s no data added or removed in the process.
Wood knows this and healthy skeptics know this. There’s a specific class of radicals, which includes dazz, who always associate *empirical* with *evidence* and cannot separate the two.
phoodoo,
You seem to have developed a healthy hatred for me, phoodoo, such that I pop up where I’m not even commenting. I’m flattered.
Allan Miller,
Nah, you are just the archetype of an evolutionist. Most evolutionists are team players too.
Or are you going to admonish John for not being diligent enough to watch a twenty minute video? Because this is what you said I should do, spend twenty minutes reading John’s papers, instead of encouraging him to quote the relevant part himself.
I would hardly call it a hatred to call out the inconsistencies of the debaters here.
What evidence (empirical or otherwise) do you have that the mathematical concept “zero” exists?
There’s no logical proof of any conclusion without premises. You can pick premises that will lead to just about any conceivable conclusion.
Can you please tell me what logical argument convinced you that God exists? Or perhaps you already believed before hearing about those arguments?
What is the standard definition of faith?
According to the definition that Christians use faith is something like trust.
I have faith that my son will be home for thanksgiving and there is a methodology by which in principal I can establish the truth of that proposition
Faith is necessary to please God. I need to trust him in order to have a meaningful relationship with him just as I do with any person .
That faith has zero to do with lacking a methodology to establish the truth of his existence.
peace
Yes, that is why I do have a methodology that allows me in principle to establish the truth of unicorns’ existence.
It’s the same method that allows us to establish the existence of any proposed animal, It’s pretty much observation. If I was to see a unicorn I would know they exist
Do you even recognize the condescension and prejudice you exhibit with statements like this?
peace
Why is that relevant?
I believed that my parents existed before I had a logical argument for their existence. But I could offer a logical argument for their existence that would establish the truth of that proposition if I was skeptical of it.
peace
We call those “premises” presuppositions. The question is can you consistently live by the “premises” that lead to the conclusion that God does not exist?
peace
No, if you care about truth. But if you see no constraints to picking premises, then you evidently don’t care about truth.
You don’t even believe in zero. This tells me nothing convinces you. It’s good to know things like this beforehand, so we don’t have to waste time.
phoodoo,
1) All you had to do was search for the word ‘paleognath’ if you wanted to know where in John’s paper paleognath monophyly is covered. It takes about 3 seconds to find it; I just tried again. Was that really too much trouble?
2) He did quote the relevant part when asked.