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.
I don’t get it? You mean Beardy would be like Santa’s helper? You wouldn’t believe in his divinity? He might have to set you on fire then for believing in a false god instead of him.
First, I know beforehand that I cannot teach him either. Second, his pedagogical value to you all is precisely in the way he is right now, a tireless scourge from Ken Ham Land.
The non-sequitur issue is not negligible either. How does one go about linking the miracle to the appropriate God and religion?
I wish I could learn to take that long view!
Anything smaller than God is a false god. God is, let’s repeat again, eternal, immaterial, omniscient, omnipresent, both transcendent and immanent. Miracles are His little helpers for those of little faith and to correct those of false faith.
Woodbine handled that by having him quote Bible verses. I think that makes sense.
We could let devout xtians like FMM be the judge of whether he’s getting everything right.
🙂
There’d be a huge schism in christianity then, I think. People would be put to death for not believing in his divinity–whether they’re skeptics or more like you and spinoza.
Nobody ever dictates beliefs to another and nobody ever puts another to death for believing this or that. Controversies only arise when you *express* contrarian beliefs.
No it isn’t.
It’s just a fact about how our minds work; yours included.
(Except WJM – this man has full command over what he believes – he trancends us all)
Blasphemy still carries the death penalty in Pakistan.
Q to the theists. What could make you change your mind about god’s existence?
For me one thing off the top of my head would be the discovery that the universe was absurd and that the pursuit of knowledge was a farce and simply a means to obtain exploitative power or reproductive advantage.
peace
How did I lose my skeptic badge?
Where did I go wrong?
If you accept that evolutionism is science that is where you went wrong
Skepticism should be in the pursuit of truth not as an aid in the denial of the same.
According to Wood anyway.
If your methodology is incapable at arriving at the truth of a proposition you are out of the club
peace
OK, how does that apply to me?
All I’ve said is I cannot reliably dictate the conditions of what I believe. How is that anti-skeptical?
What is anti-skeptical is the idea that there is no conceivable evidence that would convince you that you were wrong
peace
I agree that is anti-skeptical.
And that’s not my position.
I’m not claiming there is no conceivable evidence that could convince me I’m wrong – I’m saying I don’t yet know what that evidence is.
I’m confessing my ignorance – not anti-skepticism.
Again
I’m asking if you can conceive of any evidence that would convince you that you were wrong?
well can you?
peace
I can conceive of a million things that might convince me but I cannot know in advance whether they will.
Try this….
I have been happy in the past many times. And because of these experiences I can tell you the conditions that would reliably (though not infallibly) make me happy in the future.
On the other hand I have never in the past been convinced of the existence of God. Because I have no prior experience of being convinced I am unable to answer the question “what would convince you?”.
All I can do is point to examples of other people’s conversion stories and suggest something similar might happen to me. Maybe a frozen waterfall will do the trick. Or maybe a particularly beautiful day, a near death experience, an elegant philosophical argument….the list is endless.
But until that day I cannot say what evidence will suffice because I do not, and probably cannot, know.
Right on.
walto,
What are your thoughts on how the universe came into existence and how earth as we know it today emerged?
The reality of the Higgs boson didn’t change when its existence was confirmed.
It’s material and therefore real.
Alan Fox,
Umm what is the evidence that knowledge is material?
Well then there is no conceivable evidence that would convince you that you are wrong in this case.
It’s OK to admit that.
I’m not sure why lack of experience with something is relevant however.
I’ve never experienced a cancerous tumor but I can think of evidence that would convince me that such a thing exists in my colon.
The same principle goes for stuff that no one has experienced like extraterrestrials or teleportation
peace
Huh?
I wrote…
Do you want a list?
Not exactly, he saying that he does not know if there isn’t. Just as he does not know if there is. My guess is he does know that no evidence so far has convinced him.Perhaps you could provide your strongest argument that does not include revelation.
You realize setting the bar at being convinced of something is pretty subjective.
That is what not being able to conceive of something means.
Revelation is the only argument as far as I know. I can not know God exists unless he wants me to know that. That is part of what it means to be Sovereign and omnipotent.
But that is just me. I’m fine with you choosing any evidence whatsoever as long as it would convince you.
Yes that is why I’m not asking for evidence that is convincing but evidence that would convince you.
The vast majority of humanity is already convinced about this one.
peace
Only of those things that would convince you. “Might convince” does not a skeptic make.
peace
See above.
Nor does ‘will convince‘.
Just because somebody is unthinking enough to declare that “such and such evidence will cause me to believe in X” it doesn’t make them a skeptic. It just speaks to their lack of psychological insight and desire to appear open-minded (in my opinion).
Unless it is imparted to you via material means it is not imparted to you.
Knowledge of course is not material, but there are two other things that worry me about your statement.
First, are you saying it’s real because it’s material?
Second, is there anything else besides empirical and material that goes under the category of reality?
To again use Woody Allen’s quip, ‘You’re asking me? I don’t even know how this can opener works!’
But, fwiw, Carroll’s From Eternity to Here is fascinating on cosmology.
Then we agree, he doesn’t know if it is conceivable or not. It is unknown until you provide the evidence.
Since you have admitted you could be wrong, it seems to me the belief precedes revelation ,not as the result of it. In other words ,believe and you will find evidence for your belief. That doesn’t sound much like a skeptic either.
So a convincing evidence for the belief of the existence of God might be the vast majority of people believe in vastly different concepts of God ,each convinced their God is true and others are false?
I am easy, a 2017 red Porsche 911 with my name on the title in my driveway and I will convinced that version of God exists or at least should.
I agree it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition for skepticism
No it speaks to the reality of the possibility of being wrong. If you can’t conceive of how you could be wrong you are not being skeptical you are being dogmatic.
It’s not about appearing to be open minded it’s about having an appropriate methodology to arrive at the truth of a proposition.
What would science be like if we could not conceive of anything that would falsify our theories?
peace
That is what it means to not be able to conceive of something.
no it’s unknown till you conceive of it
wrong about what?
That is pretty much the opposite of what I claim about revelation. Revelation proceeds true belief necessarily.
You don’t “believe and you will find evidence for your belief”. God reveals and the proper response to that revelation is belief.
I wonder if you have any idea what my position is?
How about being serious for a minute? From an atheist’s perspective Lots of things could explain that with out appealing to God
If you have the desire and credit you could easily accomplish it on your own . If you don’t have the credit a little embezzlement would do the trick. An inheritance from unknown rich relative works as well
peace
walto,
Awesome 🙂
As I mentioned before I am almost certain we are dealing with a creation event.
When we break down the universe into its basic components (atoms) we can build all life on earth with only 24 different configurations. How could this incredible basic component be the result of a random accident?
And if instead it required thousands of components, the question would be, how could life be the result of such complex requirements?
That’s the problem of much of theism, whatever is the case just “couldn’t be a random accident,” only if it were otherwise it also “couldn’t be a random accident.” The real question: How could it be the result of God’s intervention?
And the answer would have to be an actual explanation, not some version of “God can do anything.”
Glen Davidson
No the real question at least as far as this tread is concerned what evidence would convince you that you are wrong and it was the result of God’s intervention.
peace
Thanks for the derail.
No, the real question is what evidence do you have that it was the result of God’s intervention. The fact that you can’t think of any is what you’re covering up with your demands that we come up with specific reasons why we’d be convinced that a nebulous concept explains anything. I can think of possibilities that would make me consider it, but there is so much that is necessarily contingent (at this early stage) that it’s difficult to give an exact answer.
You could clear it all up with good (in context) evidence for God, and not your reiteration that you’ve been given a “revelation” of it that apparently has no more relevance than any New Ager’s “revelation” that crystals contain magic.
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
There are two real questions not one. Can you explain it as a random accident or can you explain it as a intention creation event. I cannot explain the characteristics of the design elegance of the atom as a random event so the default option is a creation event unless you have another option.
Textbook God of the gaps. Is this thread some anthology of the fallacy?
How does “I cannot explain” amount to “the default is a creation event”?
Until you stop assuming what you want to be the case, you’re simply enjoying your prior beliefs and not making a meaningful argument.
Glen Davidson
The topic of this thread is skepticism and we have concluded that in order to be a skeptic you need to be able to conceive of evidence that would convince you that you are wrong.
So it’s not a derail it’s an attempt to keep you from derailing.
Once again what evidence would convince you that you were wrong and God did in fact intervene? If you can’t conceive of any you are not a skeptic you are being dogmatic about the topic.
Peace
What evidence would convince you that this is not a gap in our understanding but an actual artifact of God’s intervention.
If you can’t conceive of any then you know what that means……Fred
peace
You assumed that.
No one has to be able to conceive of evidence that would be convincing that one is wrong to be a skeptic, one merely has to be willing to entertain actual arguments and evidence for an idea in which the person has interest. One might well consider actual contingent facts that might prove the skeptic wrong, but the real issue is that one recognizes the kinds of evidence that might congruently point toward a God. Your failure to recognize this is part of your failure to have an understanding beyond your insipid presuppositions.
Your complete failure to provide any reason to begin to consider your repetitive assertations is the problem.
Glen Davidson
dazz,
The atom is not a gap argument. The atom is the whole show.
GlenDavidson,
Darwin’s argument was based on the competing hypothesis of creationism.
You criticize yet you can’t come up with a third competing hypothesis?
Without space, no atoms.