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. colewd: A creator explains their origin

    How so? Enlighten us please. And while you’re at it, explain how that “creator” explains computers and everything else. A unified theory of everything that explains nothing

  2. dazz: How so? Enlighten us please. And while you’re at it, explain how that “creator” explains computers and everything else. A unified theory of everything that explains nothing

    Don’t you see, “Creator made.” It’s what creators do.

    Now if it actually meant anything without meaningful evidence of said “making,” it might be worth something. Sadly, not.

    Glen Davidson

  3. colewd: Nucleosynthesis does not explain the origin of the basic components of atoms and the forces that allow them to exist

    The fallacy factory just moved the goal posts right there

  4. GlenDavidson: Don’t you see, “Creator made.”It’s what creators do.

    Now if it actually meant anything without meaningful evidence of said “making,” it might be worth something.Sadly, not.

    Glen Davidson

    But Bill is a critical thinker, you know..

  6. GlenDavidson: 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

    We say we have done exactly what you ask. All you do is ignore it or go off on a rant.

  9. GlenDavidson,

    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.

    I am making the claim that atoms are evidence of the existence of a creator.

    You are assigning theistic pre conceptions.

    Do you believe atoms exist? Do you believe they can be assembled to produce extraordinary things? What would you hypothesize is the origin of their basic building blocks ( quarks leptons strong force etc)?

  10. colewd:
    GlenDavidson,

    I am making the claim that atoms are evidence of the existence of a creator.

    You are assigning theistic pre conceptions.

    Do you believe atoms exist?Do you believe they can be assembled to produce extraordinary things? What would you hypothesize is the origin of their basic building blocks ( quarks leptons strong force etc)?

    Do you believe in showing causation with proper rigor?

    Would it be fair for the court to consider it to be quite likely that, rather than the accused having assaulted you, it was demons instead?

    Glen Davidson

  11. dazz,

    The fallacy factory just moved the goal posts right there

    Is the atom evidence of a creator?

    Goal posts are still where they started.

    The point about how carbon may by synthesized from simpler atoms is hardly relevant to the argument.

  13. GlenDavidson,

    Do you believe in showing causation with proper rigor?

    Yes. This is the question. Is my argument reasonable? Is your skepticism reasonable?

  17. GlenDavidson,

    Not even close.

    As usual it comes down to the miracle-claimer making “arguments” about as illogical as it is possible to produce.

    Is this an assertion? How did I become a miracle-claimer?

  20. colewd: I am making the claim that atoms are evidence of the existence of a creator.

    Well, that’s ridiculous, but if you want to play that game, then I’ll say the absence of a one-armed, one-horned, flying purple people eater is evidence that there is no creator.

  21. walto,

    Well, that’s ridiculous, but if you want to play that game, then I’ll say the absence of a one-armed, one-horned, flying purple people eater is evidence that there is no creator.

    Why do you think that?

    I think atoms are evidence of a creator because of there incredible design flexibility. I can build humans, dogs, cats, trees, cars, houses and computers with them. They have incredible properties. Could those properties exist without careful forward thinking creation?

  23. colewd: Could those properties exist without careful forward thinking creation?

    If those properties can’t exist without a creator, how could a god exist without a creator?
    See the problem with your logic?

  24. Fair Witness: If those properties can’t exist without a creator, how could a god exist without a creator?
    See the problem with your logic?

    That doesn’t follow. Who says that God’s existence requires the properties of atoms?

  25. For atoms to exist you need, at a minimum, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the properties of electromagnetism. More happy accidents?

  27. Frankie:
    For atoms to exist you need, at a minimum, the strong and weak nuclear forces and the properties of electromagnetism. More happy accidents?

    So Frankie’s criteria for whether something could be an “accident” is whether Frankie thinks it is cool or not.
    Got it.
    Now I know why no one else is engaging Frankie.

  28. fifthmonarchyman: 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?

    Imagine I meet a man, Dave, on the road who claims he is ‘infinite in power’. As a good skeptic I want to be sure about this….

    a) What experiment can I perform to test whether he is in fact infinitely powerful?

    b) If it turns out I can conceive of no experiment to reliably test Dave’s omnipotence does this disqualify me as a skeptic?

  29. colewd: When we break down the universe into its basic components (atoms) we can build all life on earth with only 24 different configurations

    colewd: I cannot explain the characteristics of the design elegance of the atom

    colewd: A creator explains a universe made up of around 100 different types of atoms

    colewd: Is the atom evidence of a creator?

    Goal posts are still where they started.

    1. Spot the moving goalposts
    2. Find the invisible hypothesis

  30. Fair Witness,

    So Frankie’s criteria for whether something could be an “accident” is whether Frankie thinks it is cool or not.

    No, not even close. Why do evos think they can put false words in their opponents’ mouths, refute them and think they have actually done something?

    In the absence of ID or a special creation, accidents and luck are all that is left

  32. walto: Of course the burden is on the zombie believers. It is met, whatever fred may think. Your burden has not been.

    OK,

    tell me what it would take to meet the burden be specific. That is what a true skeptic would do.

    peace

  33. Woodbine: a) What experiment can I perform to test whether he is in fact infinitely powerful?

    For one thing you could attempt to kill him and see if he ceases to exist.

    Woodbine: b) If it turns out I can conceive of no experiment to reliably test Dave’s omnipotence does this disqualify me as a skeptic?

    yes

    peace

  34. fifthmonarchyman: OK,

    tell me what it would take to meet the burden be specific. That is what a true skeptic would do.

    peace

    I’ve already answered this question several times. Once on this very thread! I was specific.

  35. colewd: I can build humans, dogs, cats, trees, cars, houses and computers with them.

    Not according to most theists you can’t. You should talk to some of them sometime. They call the sort of materialism you’re pushing here absolute nonsense!

  37. walto: I’ve already answered this question several times. Once on this very thread! I was specific.

    Yes, but then you back peddled and said you were too confident about your choice.

    regardless

    I’m willing to say that you are indeed a true skeptic on this one. The only one on your side so far by the way.

    Perhaps when this thread dies down I will start another to discuss your chosen defeater and whether it makes sense as a confirmation of God’s existence. Also whether it has already been met.

    peace

    PS I had not intended to start anymore threads here but this one worked out better than I hoped

  39. Woodbine: That’s a test of mortality not omnipotence.

    So if you cannot kill a person that claims to be omnipotent that doesn’t help prove the point? Really?

  40. fifthmonarchyman

    PS I had not intended to start anymore threads here but this one worked out better than I hoped

    Well, I do think that the opening 9 minutes of that video is very good.

    But, of course, people don’t want to be simply reasonable. He want’s his God. And you can’t get THAT from the Scooby, only open-mindedness. He thinks that gets you to God, but even open-minded skeptics are going to deny that. We aren’t faced with head swapping ghosts and other examples of supernaturalism in the real world. That’s just cartoon stuff. Here in reality, we get a slice of toast with the image of Mary on it.

    So Wood’s attempt at burden tennis is nothing but a double fault.

  41. Woodbine,

    other tests would include things like
    1) The ability to raise other people from the dead
    2) The ability to command the weather
    3) The ability to walk on water

    These things would not confirm omnipotence but the inability to do them would falsify it.

    peace

  42. walto: . He want’s his God. And you can’t get THAT from the Scooby, only open-mindedness. He thinks that gets you to God,

    I don’t think he does.

    I think he believes that the evidence gets you to God but that is another video or perhaps the debate that he references

    peace

  43. fifthmonarchyman: omnipotence includes the ability to defeat death

    If you’re going to re-define terms for your own benefit you might at least try to be subtle about it. But let us grant that omnipotence includes the ability to defeat death….

    So what?

    Any non-omnipotent being with the ability to defeat death will produce the same experimental results.

    So you’re back to square one.

    How to prove Dave’s omnipotence?

  44. Woodbine: If you’re going to re-define terms for your own benefit you might at least try to be subtle about it. But let us grant that omnipotence includes the ability to defeat death….

    So what?

    Any non-omnipotent being with the ability to defeat death will produce the same experimental results.

    So you’re back to square one.

    How to prove Dave’s omnipotence?

    Wow, woodbine needs to buy a dictionary as omnipotence means having unlimited power, meaning it includes the ability to defeat death. And then woodbine introduces a strawman- who, besides someone who is omnipotent, can defeat death? (time to make up your own word here, woody)

  45. Woodbine: So you’re back to square one.

    How to prove Dave’s omnipotence?

    We are not trying to prove Dave’s omnipotence, We are trying to come up with tests that would disprove it.

    Falsification is the thing not proof. I’m not sure you can prove anything at all but you can disprove all sorts of things. That’s a point of the video.

    peace

  46. fifthmonarchyman:
    Woodbine,

    other tests would include things like
    1) The ability to raise other people from the dead
    2) The ability to command the weather
    3) The ability to walk on water

    Dave rubs his hands, mutters a few words and lo-and-behold Elvis hoves into view dancing on the waves surrounded by a ring of storm clouds.

    So what?

    All you’ve discovered is Dave is very powerful.

    These things would not confirm omnipotence….

    Then they’re not fit for purpose.

    ….but the inability to do them would falsify it.

    Unable or unwilling? Mmm…..

    Why do the people of this day ask for a miracle? No, I tell you! No such proof will be given to these people!

    So, we’re still left with trying to devise an experiment to prove Dave’s omnipotence. What’s next?

  47. fifthmonarchyman: For one thing you could attempt to kill him and see if he ceases to exist.

    unless you were omniscient you could never know if you actually killed anything other than a temporary physical manifestation.

    My guess is one would have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to defeat death if it is logically possible

  50. fifthmonarchyman: What evidence would convince you that unicorns and faeries are real? What about God?

    Unicorns are straightforward — produce one. Preferably a herd of them of various ages so that heredity can be demonstrated. I’d be happy with just the physical appearance, no need of any of the magical stuff.

    Faeries are more difficult because of the numerous, sometimes contradictory, descriptions of them. I’d first need a definition of what you mean by a faery then, assuming that definition is at least roughly aligned with the folklore, an actual physical example of a being that meets the definition.

    Gods are just further on the continuum of poor and contradictory definitions. If you could get to the point of having a rigorous definition with testable, unique entailments then the evidence would be that those entailments actually occur. If all you can come up with is entailments that could be the result of other processes, that’s not convincing. If your gods have no measurable entailments, I suppose a solid logical argument might be of interest but I don’t know why anyone would bother worshipping a god that doesn’t interact with reality.

Leave a Reply