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.
Have you told us yet what evidence would convince you that God does not exist?
No, that’s your unsupported assertion.
But had he done so, so what? Evolutionary theory isn’t in the least predicated upon creationism being wrong, no matter how many times you assert or imply that fallacy.
You aren’t discussing the theory as it exists, but as IDists/creationists tendentiously and incorrectly assert that it exists, based on the laughably bad “argument” that Darwin once juxtaposed his theory against the major accepted belief. I’ve mentioned this before (and you ignore what you like), but Galileo did, of course, push for heliocentrism against geocentrism, yet this by no means indicates that the heliocentric solar system depends upon geocentrism being wrong (maybe the sun and planets orbit empty space, for instance). Nor does the spherical (oblate-spheroidal for the pedants) earth become true because the flat earth is false. Heliocentrism, the spherical earth, and evolution, must and do stand on their own evidence.
As for “third alternative,” what was the second? You’ve never come close to making a reasonable argument for creation at all.
Glen Davidson
In fact there are plenty more fallacies packed in a few words. Great job Bill
False dichotomy
Begging the question
colewd:
I cannot explain […] so the default option is a creation event unless you have another option.
And of course shifting the burden of proof plus argument from ignorance.
In fact, for all I know we have a pretty good idea of how hydrogen and helium atoms formed shortly after the Big Bang and then got bigger and bigger by nucleosynthesis in stars.
“Intentional creation” is no explanation at all, but we must somehow assume it’s the default explanation.
GlenDavidson,
From Van Frassen’s critique
So, Fifth,
If someone came to you claiming to be God in human form, what evidence would YOU need in order to believe they really were God, and not just someone (human, demon, alien, etc) trying to deceive you?
You WOULD be skeptical, right?
You CAN conceive of something they could do to convince you, right?
dazz,
In fact, for all I know 🙂
Exactly. Colewd can’t explain something, therefore God exists. That’s how cavemen got spirits from fire. A little humility would go a long way.
Let me guess. You don’t believe in nucleosynthesis, right?
walto,
Exactly. Walto and Dazz can’t explain something so God does not exist. There is God of the gaps and atheism of the gaps.
We are discussing competing hypothesis based on observed evidence.
Making “no God” the default hypothesis is a nice debating trick but is it really critical thinking?
BTW Dazz, I was begging the question:-)
Pathetic. Atheism is not an attempt to explain any phenomena or fill any gaps in our knowledge.
We’ve been though this a zillion times. “Special creation” is not a hypothesis, neither is “Intelligent Design”. No explanatory power, no competition
You wouldn’t know critical thinking if it hit you in the face
Are you proud of yourself?
Just so you know, that’s utter nonsense. Theists have the burden of proof. Nobody else.
Yes, did you notice that?
If he’d merely knocked down “design,” which is easy enough to do without positing evolution, then he’d merely have shown that there was no good theory at all. He did something quite different, he showed that evolution explains, and by constrast (and because it was a popular belief) that design did not explain at all well.
Had Darwin argued as fallaciously as you do he’d have gotten nowhere with his theory. Many biologists already recognized the flaws in Paley’s argumentation.
Glen Davidson
From the agnostic’s perspective, both theism and atheism face a burden of proof.
yes, I listed one piece of evidence that would convince me it’s up thread
I’m sure I could come up with others if I put my mind to it.
Peace
Really dumb.
Historically it’s a whole lot more that people believed their god(s) could do anything, then real explanations came along as well as contact with competing theisms, and no one could show why their god did things and not some other god, while, even more importantly, no one could actually indicate that any god did any thing at all.
Of course the null hypothesis (so to speak) is that there is not a god. People have to tell others about their god(s) in order for anyone to begin to think about them, but those being told have no reason to believe sans good evidence (or if they think it might benefit them socially, etc., naturally).
We’re actually more inclined to believe, it’s just that experience has shown that “god did it” doesn’t explain while science does, and we don’t ever seem to achieve adequate evidence to believe in such a being at all.
Glen Davidson
Well something like fulfilled prophecy would help and miraculous signs would would not hurt. I would want to see a coherent narrative for why this is possible and necessary and resurrection would also be nice Most important would be the testimony of the Holy Spirit and the harmony it has with the rest of god’s revelation
yes to both questions
peace
Only if you also think that the a-unicornists and a-faeryists also have a burden of proof.
A simple lack of belief is not equivalent to an existence claim.
Do aleprechaunists face a burden of proof?
Anyone who would categorically deny God would indeed face a burden of “proof,” however, those who merely withhold assent to an insufficiently-supported claim (as current thinking atheists typically do) no more have a burden of “proof” than I have in being skeptical that Burke Ramsey killed his sister (obviously it’s possible). What burden of “proof” does someone have who desires sufficient evidence before agreeing to an insufficiently supported claim?
Glen Davidson
GlenDavidson,
Get out of my head, psychic fiend!
It’s cozy in there.
Glen Davidson
That’s not quite right. The concepts of “unicorn” and “fairy” are a posteriori, which is why it is reasonable to conclude, from the absence of empirical evidence, that they don’t exist. But the concept of God is not a posteriori. It is a priori. Empirical evidence is irrelevant.
Fred could not have said it better.
The burden of proof is on those who think that zombies are real and everyone knows that you can’t convince Fred that zombies are real.
Problem solved crisis averted
peace
What evidence would convince you that unicorns and faeries are real? What about God?
peace
I’m not too interested in who has the burden of proof.
Right now I want to know who is skeptical and who is in denial
Right now it’s not looking too good for the other team 😉
peace
I must say I would also be convinced by deductive arguments like the cosmological one or the ontological argument if they weren’t chock full of fallacious reasoning. I tried to make a point before that nobody really is convinced by these arguments, only those who are already convinced find them compelling.
Exactly what would such a convincing argument look like? Be specific please
peace
I agree. My only point was that one would need to look at the a priori arguments, not that the arguments are any good.
What justifies it as an a priori claim? What if I decide that unicorns damned well are a priori anyhow? Seems as justifiable as the a priori God is said to be–and as little as well.
Anyway, this thread starts with David Wood implying quite the opposite, that God can be concluded with the right evidence and an open mind (while he reveals his closed mind), then Erik tells us that it’s just wrong to look for the kind of evidence that David implies exists, and FMM tries to claim that one has to know what would “prove God” to someone despite never supplying any entailments of that God, and you’re sure that God is a priori when it’s pretty clear that many theists don’t think so, or at least think that God can be a posteriori even if God is a priori.
It just gets back to the fact that God is a rather nebulous concept, that no one really thought of God as a priori until around the time the Greeks started developing formal logic, and no one really knows what’s supposed to be “proven” or “disproven” until a specific God is posited. Until then we’re just kind of dealing in ambiguous terms and getting nowhere.
Glen Davidson
But classical theists like Erik argue that there’s “deductive evidence” for God’s existence. What’s the point in putting forth deductive arguments when the very idea is an a-priori one? It’s almost like admitting the question begging before they even begin to present the premises
really? Do you think that a God who is
“in Himself most holy, every way infinite, in greatness, wisdom, power, love, merciful and gracious, long-suffering, and abundant in goodness and truth; who giveth being, moving, and preservation to all creatures”
has no entailments?
If God had no entailments then one way to convince me he exists is would be to demonstrate that it’s not necessary for beings to have entailments to exist.
see this is not difficult
peace
You’ve never acted like it did, excusing slavery and all.
We do mean “observable entailments” btw, not your unfalsifiable claims about God. And no, I should not have to spell out everything for you just because you don’t understand what someone writes that is not beholden to your presuppositions.
Glen Davidson
Just stupid.
Glen Davidson
It’s not about what would convince me but what would convince you
peace
Did you catch my definition? It’s pretty specific.
Even the God of the philosophers is pretty specific It’s not Thor or Krishna for example
peace
Why would you require these to confirm God’s identity, while you apparently do not require them to confirm God’s existence?
what?
I don’t follow I was talking about confirming the existence of an incarnated deity not his identity. That is another matter entirely
I clearly stated (I thought) that, in this hypothetical situation, you are trying to tell if someone really is God, or if they are just pretending to be. That is a confirmation of identity issue, with the assumption being that you are already convinced of God’s existence.
So what would you need to distinguish God from an imposter?
dazz,
You may be repeating yourself a zillion times but you are trying to disqualify a competing hypothesis without argument.
GlenDavidson,
This is why your argument is circular. In order to make it you declare atheism the null hypothesis. This what I saw Dawkins do in the book the god delusion and why I found his argument faulty.
LOL, what’s that hypothesis you’re talking about and how does it explain anything?
So a designer which is a thing can be not a thing. Thanks
OK without a God or an intelligent designer, how, besides sheer dumb luck, do you account for our existence?
Saying something was intelligently designed obviously has explanatory power or else we wouldn’t have so many investigative venues that do that exact thing- seek to separate natural from artifact. And once artifact is determined then that opens up new questions that we will seek answers for.
Saying there is a purpose to our lives beyond the mundane, ie that we are here for a reason beyond just our happening to be here, would be an impetus for further exploration into it. That may be a great unifying factor too.
dazz,
A creator explains a universe made up of around 100 different types of atoms that can make everything we can see including the computers we are communicating with plus Dazz and Bill.
What does atheism explain?
Nucleosynthesis explains that in great detail (look it up). “A Creator” doesn’t.
Again with that crap? I already answered that. Atheism is not meant to explain anything whatsoever
Of course the burden is on the zombie believers. It is met, whatever fred may think. Your burden has not been.
dazz,
Nucleosynthesis does not explain the origin of the basic components of atoms and the forces that allow them to exist. A creator explains their origin.
Hard to believe it is so popular 🙂
Why can’t you understand something as simple as the fact that the one claiming the existence of a phenomenon or entity has to provide evidence to show that it does exist, while aleprechaunists and atheists don’t need to provide evidence that leprechauns or Santa Claus don’t exist?
Do I have to “prove” that cold fusion doesn’t work before I doubt that it does work?
That’s the whole point of modern skepticism, that, for instance, one cannot begin with theistic presuppositions, rather theistic claims have to be justified, and aren’t really worth anything until they are justified.
It’s clear that you don’t argue non-fallaciously about these matters, but repeating your fallacies gets us nowhere.
Glen Davidson
In a practical sense, it could be said to be about explaining the failure of theism’s promises and claims.
That’s not part of the dictionary definition, but it is what people often consider it to be about, to be its “purpose” in debates and discussions.
Glen Davidson