Scooby-Doo and the Case of the Silly Skeptic

Posted on by

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”

  1. dazz: I was obviously referring to the position that the classical theist God can’t be perceived. Isn’t that your position?

    So you obviously cannot quote me on this.

    KN mentioned transcendence. He forgot immanence. Omnipresence means both transcendence and immanence. None of this means “can’t be perceived” but it also doesn’t mean “anybody can perceive God anytime one wants”. Still, it means that asking for empirical evidence is a category error.

    You are probably at your most natural self when your posts consist entirely of derping.

  2. OK then, let’s get to the point. Who would win in a fight? God or Batman? I’m going with Batman because God doesn’t have anywhere to hide, but Batman has his bat-cave. Thoughts?

  3. Kantian Naturalist: Clifford’s Maxim: for any claim about the actual world, one ought not to accept that claim in the absence of sufficient empirical evidence.

    Change the “actual world” to “empirical world” and the maxim is just fine. Otherwise, when said by a physicalist, you always stumble eventually on his assumption that actual=empirical=material=real. The most explicit example is Alan Fox. The others tend to be more crypto-physicalists to varying degrees.

    If you mean empirical or physical, then say so. Actual means something different and real is also not the same as physical. You know, map and territory, they are not the same thing, but both exist and both are real. When you are on a familiar territory, then the map is irrelevant, but when you are on an unfamiliar territory, the map is absolutely vital and it better not have some random premises.

  4. Erik: Otherwise, when said by a physicalist, you always stumble eventually on his assumption that actual=empirical=material=real. The most explicit example is Alan Fox.

    I do try to make my opinions clear! And I can confirm that for me, reality is the important concept, of which material and empirical concepts are subsets, but not the reverse.

  5. Woodbine: I can imagine all kinds of spectacular or subtle demonstrations a God might use to try and convince me – but like I said I’ve no idea whether any of them would work.

    Again I’m not asking how the demonstrations would work I’m asking which of those demonstrations would convince you that God exists.

    It’s a pretty simple request.

    The reasonable response it seems to me would be something like that in order for God to demonstrate his existence he could simply reveal himself so that his existence is the best explanation of the overall data you have.

    How does that sound to you?

    peace

  6. Erik: Change the “actual world” to “empirical world” and the maxim is just fine.

    you are my new favorite 😉

    peace

  7. Alan Fox: eality is the important concept, of which material and empirical concepts are subsets, but not the reverse.

    Can you elaborate on what else is in the set of things that are real in Alan Fox world?

    peace

  8. fifthmonarchyman: Again I’m not asking how the demonstrations would work I’m asking which of those demonstrations would convince you that God exists.

    It’s a pretty simple request.

    It’s a simplistic request. Woodbine says that, until facing some imagined scenario of “revelation”, it is impossible for anyone to know how they might react to that unprecedented situation. The answer is not evasive; it’s honest.

  10. fifthmonarchyman: Again I’m not asking how the demonstrations would work I’m askingwhich of those demonstrations would convince you that God exists.

    And again I’m telling you I don’t know.

    On Tuesday it might only take a frozen waterfall to convince me, whereas on Thursday it might need my name written across the heavens. And after a heavy Saturday night….well, good luck to him.

    The reasonable response it seems to me would be something like that in order for God to demonstrate his existence he could simply reveal himself so that his existence is the best explanation of the overall data you have.

    How does that sound to you?

    It sounds like an answer that’s trivially true.

    Q: What would God have to do to convince you of his existence?

    A: He would have to do something that convinces me.

    Well…yeah.

  11. Alan Fox: It’s a simplistic request. Woodbine says that, until facing some imagined scenario of “revelation”, it is impossible for anyone to know how they might react to that unprecedented situation.

    So basically you are saying that you could foresee nothing specifically God could do that would compel you to accept his existence? Is there any other proposed entity that is like that?

    For instance is there nothing that you could foresee that would convince you that the platonic forms are real?

    peace

  12. Alan Fox: For instance, the Higgs boson, prior to being demonstrated to exist.

    The Higgs bosom is a material and empirical concept. I asking about things not belonging to this subset

    peace

  13. Alan Fox: For instance, the Higgs boson, prior to being demonstrated to exist.

    Prior to being demonstrated to exist, it existed in what sense? In imagination like a unicorn? In faith and belief? Didn’t phlogiston exist the same way?

  14. fifthmonarchyman: So basically you are saying that you could foresee nothing specifically God could do that would compel you to accept his existence?

    Oh, sure I can imagine all sorts of scenarios. What I can’t possibly know is how I would react. Is your God in the business of compelling? He’s supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing. If he can do what he needs to bring about universal belief, why not just do it? Why have an earthly existence in the first place? Why not just skip this part and unite us all in Heaven?

  15. Woodbine: It sounds like an answer that’s trivially true.

    Q: What would God have to do to convince you of his existence?

    A: He would have to do something that convinces me.

    The “best explanation” is not the same thing as “convinces Woodbine”. God could be the best explanation and you could at the same time refuse to be convinced. Correct?

    peace

  16. Erik: Prior to being demonstrated to exist, it existed in what sense? In imagination like a unicorn? In faith and belief? Didn’t phlogiston exist the same way?

    The Higgs boson (or the underlying reality that fit the model) was there, we just didn’t know until the experimental work of confirmation was done. Phlogiston was a well-intended hypothesis. Oxidation supplanted it as an explanation. The underlying reality did not change.

  17. Alan Fox: If he can do what he needs to bring about universal belief, why not just do it?

    Because he does not want to.

    Perhaps he likes the irony of watching folks use the very cognitive faculties he has given them to try and deny his existence.

    I know from my perspective it’s kinda funny

    peace

  18. fifthmonarchyman: God could be the best explanation and you could at the same time refuse to be convinced.

    Obviously. If God spoke to me in the manner claimed by Neale Donald Walsch I might be convinced I was hearing God’s voice. I might also be deluded and be sane enough to realise it. All hypothetical, though, isn’t it?

  22. Alan Fox: I might also be deluded and be sane enough to realise it. All hypothetical, though, isn’t it?

    So you would hold to something similar to Shermer’s Last Law?

    peace

  23. Alan Fox: The Higgs boson (or the underlying reality that fit the model) was there, we just didn’t know until the experimental work of confirmation was done. Phlogiston was a well-intended hypothesis. Oxidation supplanted it as an explanation. The underlying reality did not change.

    Does the underlying reality ever change?

    You said, “…reality is the important concept, of which material and empirical concepts are subsets, but not the reverse.” Is there anything else there besides material and empirical as subsets of reality or do material and empirical exhaust all reality?

  24. fifthmonarchyman: So you would hold to something similar to Shermer’s Last Law?

    Not sure what that is and I’m not a fan of Shermer. I’m an apatheist. I’m not at all persuaded there is any reason to give the various “God exists” proposals any serious consideration. Everyone else is free to follow their own path.

  26. Alan Fox:I’m not at all persuaded there is any reason to give the various “God exists” proposals any serious consideration.

    I know that. What I want to know is if there is any reason at all that you could foresee that would persuade you to consider it. What I’m getting is that there is not. is this correct?

    peace

  27. Fwiw, I think Woodbine’s bearded man in the ski spouting Bible verses and setting sinners on fire would get 99% of xtian theists–including those who post here–to turn to everyone else and say, ‘See? I was right and you were wrong! The Christian God DOES exist. How else could Bible knowldge get up there? So HAH!’

    And failure to take just that position would obviously earn the scorn of people like Wood, who would quickly make another video, comparing the remaining doubters to the Scooby character who was so so wrong.

    Of course, he really already sort of made this point when he made fun of current doubters who take their positions even though (he claims) thousands(!) of people saw some man with a beard walking around after he’d died. Didn’t even need to set anybody on fire.

    The christians who say they agree with Wood could be a little more honest, I think. If you wouldn’t buy the bearded flame thrower (say because he’s not ‘immanent’ [ha ha ha], Wood would def come after you.

  28. Erik: Is there anything else there besides material and empirical as subsets of reality or do material and empirical exhaust all reality?

    Whilst human knowledge can be shared and stored, then on past performance it expands apparently with increasing pace. I’m assuming that the underlying reality envelopes this current state of affairs.

  29. fifthmonarchyman: I know that. What I want to know is if there is anything at all that you could foresee that would persuade you. What I’m getting is that there is not. is this correct?

    No, you should be getting that I don’t know. And unless it happens, I have no way of knowing.

  30. Alan Fox: No, you should be getting that I don’t know. And unless it happens, I have no way of knowing.

    “I don’t know what would persuade me” and “there is nothing I could foresee that would persuade me” are synonymous are they not?

    peace

  31. Alan Fox: Not sure. [The underlying reality] must change with time, I guess.

    Prior to being demonstrated to be the case as of yet, is the change of underlying reality real or not? You said that Higgs boson was real even before being demonstrated, so how about the change of underlying reality?

    Alan Fox: Whilst human knowledge can be shared and stored, then on past performance it expands apparently with increasing pace. I’m assuming that the underlying reality envelopes this current state of affairs.

    And this shared and stored human knowledge, is it material or empirical or both or is it some third kind of thing?

  32. walto: And failure to take just that position would obviously earn the scorn of people like Wood, who would quickly make another video, comparing the remaining doubters to the Scooby character who was so so wrong.

    I would agree that is probably what folks like me would probably do.

    What I’m interested to know is what something like that would make the “skeptics” here do.

    peace

  33. fifthmonarchyman: “I don’t know what would persuade me” and “there is nothing I could foresee that would persuade me” are synonymous are they not?

    If you like. I’m happier to say that I can’t imagine a scenario where some “revelation” or “miracle” happens and (consequently) I become a devout follower of some religion. But that may just be a failure of imagination on my part.

    It may also have something to do with not feeling anything missing in this world or my spot in it that needs to be filled with “God” ideas.

  34. fifthmonarchyman: What I’m interested to know is what something like that would make the “skeptics” here do.

    Live and let live. I support the idea that everyone should be free to follow their own beliefs or lack of them so long as they don’t use them to interfere with the personal freedom of others.

  35. Alan Fox: It may also have something to do with not feeling anything missing in this world or my spot in it that needs to be filled with “God” ideas.

    It sound like you have the same position as KN

    quote:

    For me to be in a position where I could conceive of evidence that would convince me of Gods existence, I would have to have epistemological views that are pretty much the opposite of what I think is true. I would have to be a completely different person in order to think it possible that there might be evidence for the existence of God.

    end quote:

    If so it sounds like we are all Presuppositionalists now. Perhaps Elizabeth needs to change the name of the site.

    😉

    peace

  36. fifthmonarchyman:The “best explanation” is not the same thing as “convinces Woodbine”. God could be the best explanation….

    Yes (with the caveat being the best explanation has no bearing on whether it’s the correct explanation)

    ….and you could at the same time refuse to be convinced. Correct?

    Change ‘refuse to be convinced‘ to ‘remain unconvinced‘ and I’m in agreement.

    I’ve no power to decide what will convince me or what won’t; stubborness doesn’t enter into it.

  37. fifthmonarchyman: I would agree that is probably what folks like me would probably do.

    What I’m interested to know is what something like that would make the “skeptics” here do.

    peace

    I’ve answered this question a half-dozen times here already. Lots of things would convince me. E.g. If somebody organized a Christian anti-cancer prayer rally, a good percentage of Christians attended and suddenly all Christian cancer patients were cured and there was no more cancer in the world for those who went to mass (or something). That’d do it.

    Lot’s of stuff like that. I’m not picky.

  38. Woodbine: I’ve no power to decide what will convince me or what won’t; stubborness doesn’t enter into it.

    Again that is textbook Presuppositionalism

    quote:

    But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
    (1Co 2:14)

    end quote:

    Are there any here that still claim to be skeptics?

    peace

  40. Woodbine: Yes (with the caveat being the best explanation has no bearing on whether it’s the correct explanation)

    Change ‘refuse to be convinced‘ to ‘remain unconvinced‘ and I’m in agreement.

    I’ve no power to decide what will convince me or what won’t; stubborness doesn’t enter into it.

    You’re right. I’m probably too definitive above. We’re not in control of what we believe. I do think though that I could be convinced. I mean never dying isn’t like being forced to drink battery acid. Resistance could be broken down.

  42. walto: You’re right. I’m probably too definitive above. We’re not in control of what we believe.

    not you too walto. Is there no one who would take up the mantle of skepticism?

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman: But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.

    Begging the question 101. I wonder why erik the self-styled philosopher doesn’t get mad when you do that….

  45. walto: I mean never dying isn’t like being forced to drink battery acid. Resistance could be broken down.

    If eternal conscious hell does exist I expect it’s an experment to determine the truth of that very proposition.

    peace

  46. walto: I wonder why erik the self-styled philosopher doesn’t get mad when you do that….

    Philosophers don’t get mad. They only occasionally act mad for didactic purposes.

  47. fifthmonarchyman: If eternal conscious hell does exist I expect it’s an experment to determine the truth of that very proposition.

    peace

    Posting on this board may seem llike that, but I’m sure it’s an over-reaction.

  48. Erik: Philosophers don’t get mad. They only occasionally act mad for didactic purposes.

    Well, don’t you think there might be some pedagogical value in teaching FMM not to beg questions? I mean it’s pretty clear by now that I can’t do it. Why don’t you have a go?

  49. walto:
    The christians who say they agree with Wood could be a little more honest, I think. If you wouldn’t buy the bearded flame thrower (say because he’s not ‘immanent’ [ha ha ha], Wood would def come after you.

    There’s a little problem here. The bearded flame thrower in the sky would not come to convert the believers. The believers are already converted. The bearded flame thrower in the sky is completely unnecessary to believers. Miracles are only necessary for those for whom it takes a miracle to be converted. And probably also for those for whom it takes a miracle to remain a believer, i.e. for those of little faith.

Leave a Reply