Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  LittleToe

  Derek:Points well taken; though I didn't invent the phrase "god of the gaps".
• 

  funkyderek

  AuldSoul:

  You guys always accuse me of playing semantic games. Is that the last bastion of the poor communicators, or something? I wasn't playing games, semantic or otherwise.

  It just always seems to me that you have a particularly narrow definition of a word in mind, and spend more time making sure everyone strictly adheres to your interpretation than you do denating the subject. I understand that clarity is your intention, but I'm not sure you achieve it. In this particular case, you must have realised that Abaddon was using a different definition of the word "evidence" from you, given that all you were really saying was that some people have stated a particular belief, therefore there is evidence, whereas Abaddon was saying there was no proof (or valid evidence) for the proposition in question. You could surely have ended the confusion earlier if you had been clearer, even if the misunderstanding was not your fault. You also seemed to be using a different meaning of the word in some posts, which certainly didn't help.

  There is a certain connotation of evidence which is identical to a certain connotation of proof, but when both words are being used interchangably while using other connotations of each...how is anyone to know which connotation is being used when?

  Did you genuinely believe that Abaddon meant that nobody had ever declared a belief in God? Context can be used when the meaning of words is ambiguous.

  (1) Testimony is evidence which lends to a proposition. Anyone got a problem with that statement?

  Yes, and not just the obvious (but minor) grammatical one. Evidence as used in that statement means "that which lends to a proposition" making the statement redundant. It is also not a definition. It would better be stated: "Testimony is a form of evidence" with the caveat that it is not necessarily valid, useful, meaninful, admissible or true evidence.

  (2) For some people, testimony alone may be sufficient evidence to prove a thing true. Anyone dispute this claim?

  I do. Testimony alone can be sufficient evidence to make a person believe something is true. It does not prove it true - depending of course on which definition of proof you choose.

  (3) Testimony which forms a body of evidence that proves a thing true to a specific person can properly be termed "proof" in any context outside of science. Anybody objecting so far?

  Me again. A person can accept a claim as proven without it actually being proven in any significant sense. Someone's claim that they believe something because someone told them they believed it would not be considered proof by any rational person in any sphere, be it science, law or a casual chat in the pub.
• 

  AuldSoul

  Abaddon: 'Objective' means based on observed facts, relating to material objects, actual existence or reality, not influenced by the emotions or prejudices. All good things and the method that a qualified group such as those mentioned would strive to attain.

  Actuality without perception is moot. A perceiver without opinion is moot. Perception is always, at some level, influenced by emotions and prejudices. Objectivity is impossible for any human.

  ALL human perception is subjective. Without exception. And that includes human perception with regard to data collected by unbiased perceivers, such as cameras, radio telescopes, devices for monitoring particle states. All human perception, without any exception, is subjective. Even if my perceptions agree with your perceptions, and even if the whole world agrees with our perceptions, it is still subjective.

  The other thing I note here is the unquestionably subjective moral qualifier "good" attached to qualities humans have never acheived, this qualifier never being absent influence by emotions or prejudices. "Objectively" moral judgments such as good and bad do not exist from a human perspective because the eventual impacts (in the span of geologic time) can never be known in advance by humans.

  I hope you see what I mean by defining the terms, "labeling," being the mechanism that which determines what can and cannot be considered. I think most posters here get what I am driving at with that point.

  If reality includes more than what is physically observable, but science (like you) considers any consideration of that which falls outside that boundary as lacking objectivity, then any evidence put forward indicating reality includes more than what is physically observable will immediately be ruled biased and prejudiced. In other words, according to your definition of objective, if reality includes more than what is physical and material, then the definition for objective is an oxymoronic definition.

  By the by, if reality includes more than what is physical and material that does not make "reality" expand to include the supernatural. It makes "natural" expand to include more than just the physical and material. Reality always exists, we are just very slow to discover its existence.

  Abaddon: Testimony only becomes evidence to other parties when it is accepted as being submissable.

  Would you like precedent for testimony regarding a Creator that was ruled as admissable in a court of law? There is LOTS of precedent.

  Abaddon: Something that furnishes proof

  So if my sofa furnishes my apartment, my sofa is an apartment? Evidence furnishes evidence? Is that what you are suggesting?

  You have something mixed up if you are trying to define a word by itself, I have to think you only meant to bolster my point. I already said evidence and proof are not the same thing, but I do appreciate you proving my point.

  All testimony is evidence. You have not put forth anything to demonstrate otherwise, you have just stated otherwise. The merits of any evidence are weighed by those who review the evidence put before them. A thing is proved when the evidence is sufficient to compel an opinion or belief.

  In a laboratory or in a court there are certain rules to which such evidence must adhere. In the public, there are also certain rules. The rules for a court are more lenient than the rules for a laboratory. The rules for the public are far more lax than those for a court.

  In the public (like in this forum, for instance), ALL testimony is evidence that can be used (at the recipient's discretion) to inform opinions and beliefs. I never claimed to have evidence that would stand up to the scrutiny of what you would subjectively consider a qualified objective body. But then, I haven't made a lot of claims beyond pointing out your errors of statement.

  Abaddon: Because there is no evidence for a Creator.

  This would include personal experience. Meaning, if LittleToe has had personal experiences, LittleToe has evidence (for himself, to inform his own opinions and beliefs) that cannot be proven scientifically and are not privy to your examination. Therefore, since you adhere to the scientific method, to reasonably assert that there is no evidence, you would be required to falsify his claim.

  Logically:

  A makes claim P

  Claim P cannot be proved or disproved

  Therefore, claim P cannot be falsified.

  This whole thing started because I told you you MUST allow for the possibility that evidence for a Creator exists. Even if evidence ONLY exists in LittleToe's brain, evidence exists, thereby falsifying your statement. But that is because you used an absolute when there is a possibility you are wrong.

  As I said early on, if the Creator is a reality there is obviously some evidence of that reality. But while you allow for the possibility of a Creator, you are unwilling to allow for the possibility of evidence of a Creator. Even though I have demonstrated why you cannot rule the possibility out. Which was the intent I established in my first post to this thread.

  You have dredged up all sorts of side issues, and I have responded and allowed myself to be pulled into side arguments, but the fact remains: Evidence for a Creator exists, in the form of testimony. And the fact remains that you said, "There is no evidence for a Creator."

  You were wrong. Did it really grate so much to be caught in a misstatement?

  Actually, Argumentum ad Populum doesn't include imaginary people. Or imaginary "qualified objective bodies." Or imaginary courts-of-law. Or imaginary anyone else who agrees with you. Argumentum ad Populum is when there really is a group who agrees with you.

  Abaddon: My examples were not imaginary or specific, just groups selected for the qualities of the decison making process they employ.

  Is the selection process also objective, Abaddon? Who objectively selects these hypothetical groups of qualified objective folks who all agree with you regarding the non-existence of admissable evidence for a Creator?

  My point is, you are appealing to hypothetical groups of people in support of your claim in exactly the same manner that my father did. The prevalence of an opinion even among "qualified" people (another subjective factor, what qualifies someone?) is no guarantee of validity either. Look back at the history of the Royal Academy of Sciences. They have made some really stupid claims when reviewed in hindsight. In fact, some of the greatest advances of science would have never occurred had the prevailing opinions successfully held sway.

  Abaddon: Funny how you idolise subjectivity but elect to take a statement I make as not subjective (when you claim this is impossible) and insist on a special class of evidence (unknown evidence or mislabelled evidence)...

  Nothing odd about it. I am holding you to your standards. Feel free to hold me to mine. YOUR hands are tied by your notion of objectivity, I am unfettered on the other side laughing at your writhing attempts to fight while wearing a straight-jacket you willingly buckled yourself into.

  I insist on all possible evidence being considered as covered by your blanket statement. Including testimony, personal experience (which would only be externalized in the form of testimony, but serves undeniably as evidence for the experiencer), as well as potentially unknown or mislabelled evidence.

  Your statement was subjective. I knew that at once. You were speaking from your point of view, from your bias, your prejudices. It may be true for you, but may not be true for anyone else. Welcome to reality. You have a personal fact that you have proven to yourself, you have evidence sufficient to compel your belief. Just because others have reached the same conclusion does not in any way mitigate the subjectivity of their conclusion.

  I also said that anyone who claims objectivity is lying, and that I could prove anyone is not objective in very short order. You have never made the claim (to my knowledge), and I am perfectly willing to categorize you as one who is not objective, if you are willing to wear the label. As long as you make a pretense otherwise, or continue to write as though objectivity is possible for a human, well, I will continue stripping away the facade.
• 

  Abaddon

  TopHat

  Why not deal with the issue you quoted? So, do you think the pro-ID arguments had substance? Or were they ad hoc methods of dealing with the self-refuting nature of ID and semantics? State an opinon, cite evidence, go on, have some fun.

  Maybe us pro-evo people sound off. But the pro-ID argument smell off.

  You like to reduce GOD to a ROCK. HOW LAME an arguement is that?

  See? You even define your own argument as lame! Do tell us what you mean...

  stillajwexelder

  de minimus non curat

  ID: omne ignotum pro magnifico.

  Ex nihilo nihil fit; argumentum ad arguere

  I have no idea if that last one is right... still, illigitimati non carborundum, eh?

  Have you heard of argumentum ad delectamentum, by the way? It's something of a modus operandi.

  Dulce est desipere in loco

  derek

  Monkey spunk and turnips? Now I see why Irish cusine is not that well know...

  ... now it is time to go home...

  "Caespes hic lusionis simiusi, nunc est bidendum, amicitiae", as Cicero always used to say...

  I wish I could say for certain the first half said "Sod this for a game of monkies," but given the non-existant level of Latin I have I can't. The last half definately is "Now is the time for drink. friends".
• 

  LittleToe

  AS:

  This whole thing started because I told you you MUST allow for the possibility that evidence for a Creator exists. Even if evidence ONLY exists in LittleToe's brain, evidence exists, thereby falsifying your statement. But that is because you used an absolute when there is a possibility you are wrong.

  I have a brain?? I have a brain!!! Whooppee!!!!
• 

  AuldSoul

  FunkyDerek: or valid evidence

  I don't live in a laboratory. I am not bound by its constraints. I live in the reality that science examines. Out here, validity or invalidity is entirely in the eye of the beholder. If someone preaches the virtues of objectivity, they'd better be careful about making subjective statements, otherwise their posts might get stomped on by someone who (reasonably) took their statement to be objective and not subjective.

  The other factor that led me to believe that the comment was meant to be understood objectively is because it was in response to a question framed objectively.

  Spectrum: Something I don't understand is why evolutionist go apeshit when Creationists bring a Creator into the mix when all they are doing is exactly what evolutionists are doing which is observing facts and theorising around those facts.

  From Abaddon's subsequent posts in his discussion with me, and other posts in other threads, he has made it perfectly clear that he does not credit testimony as evidence from anyone he considers to be unqualified or lacking in objectivity. Since this is the comment he responded to, and he reasonably wanted his resopnse regarding it to be credited, he must consider himself qualified and objective on the matter. And he must have considered his response an objective one.

  The validity of testimony is not Abaddon's to determine for anyone except Abaddon. The testimony serves as evidence (valid proof) for people Abaddon does not consider qualified or objective. Millions of them (not that their number makes any difference regarding the validity). It serves as evidence for millions more who claim to have had personal experiences (lending to the propsition, adding to or furnishing proof, which was actually proved to them by their experience).

  If something happens to me it is a fact, no matter who else believes me. Spectrum wrote that Creationists observe (or experience) facts and theorize around those facts. Abaddon replied that evolutionists go apeshit about that (and he has repeatedly proven that some do) because there is no evidence for a Creator. I.e. no facts in support, no basis for belief. Which, in Boolean logic, is not true simply because he MUST allow for the possibility. It is also extremely subjective, on the part of himself and any other evolutionists he was speaking for, to assume that there is no evidence simply because they don't personally have any.

  Of course, as Abaddon has made very clear, this prejudice arises from his subjective opinion of believers: that they are unqualified and lacking in objectivity. I say this because believers accept testimonial evidence as valid evidence, and he said objective qualified people don't do that.
• 

  funkyderek

  AuldSoul:

  No. But I am suggesting more reality may exist in that which science will always refuse to consider because of its imposed self-limitations. Science never claimed to know everything, or to ever produce all knowledge, or to ever be able to examine all that is real, but its adherents attribute these claim to science (in effect) by automatically ruling out anything which science is incapable of proving.

  Are you saying that something other than science is capable of proving something? How would that work? You seem to think that taking someone's word for it should count as proof.

  Logically, that process of reasoning would look like this:

  P

  cannot be proved by method A.

  Therefore, P must be false.

  Not at all. If method A is the only way of proving something, and P cannot be proved by method A, then it is unknown whether P is true or false. If P can be disproved by method A, and method A is valid, then P must be false.

  This is clearly fallacious in that it places complete reliance on method A to "deliver the goods" whether or not method A is capable of examining P.For instance, personal experience cannot be tested by the scientific method. Plugging that into the fallacy formula, we get: Personal experience cannot be proved by the Scientific Method. Therefore, personal experience must be false. Or to make it real: The fact that you wore a pink shirt to work one year ago today cannot be proved by the Scientific Method. Therefore, you did not wear a pink shirt to work one year ago today. That is a mundane example, but it works with any personal experience that would not be recorded, and even many that are recorded.

  You are right that your formula is fallacious, but as shown above, does not in anyway correspond to the scientific method. The best we could say in your pink shirt case is that we do not know whether you wore it. We cannot say that it is definitely false because we have no proof either way. The only way we could know for sure is if there was some scientific evidence for it.

  I am also suggesting that, in effect, many posters here have said "God doesn't exist, because there is no evidence for God. Evidence for God is not among any of the evidence, and we know for sure because we invented names for everything in evidence and we didn't call any of it 'Evidence for God'."

  No, what we have said is that there is no proof for the existence of God. (OK, we said evidence but we meant proof, as you now know.) There is no reliable, valid, meaningful evidence for his existence, and based on the uncertain probabilities that we do have to work with, the default position is to assume that such an entity does not exist - pending further evidence. It's not simply a matter of labelling the evidence, despite what you've been trying to do.

  But the clinching point I have tried repeatedly to make is this: If you don't believe in God, so what? If I do believe in God, so what? Why do some seem to attach so much importance to getting rid of anything science hasn't yet proven or is inherently incapable of proving? Does science need to be omniscient in order to be worshipped according to its will? Is that why anything it doesn't know, must not exist?

  People make life and death decistions every day because of what they believe a god wants them to do. If there is no proof of the existence of such a being, those decisions are almost certainly wrong, and often demonstrably harmful. Isn't it better to base our beliefs and actions on what we do know, rather than what we do not or cannot know.

  You seem to have a rather caricatured view of science as men in white coats measuring things in test tubes. There is much much more to it than that. It is the method we use all the time for gaining knowledge with great effect, and it is only when it contradicts someone's deeply-held but unfounded beliefs that it becomes controversial.

  Reality exists whether scientists, or religionists, or believers, or atheists admit it or not. Reality isn't going anywhere. It was here long before us, and we will die while it looks on.

  Agreed.

  What does it matter to anyone else whether I believe a certain thing? I don't have very long to believe it, if FunkyDerek and Abaddon are right. So, if they actually have confidence in their stated beliefs, why can't they just smugly share the rock for the few years we have with an asshole who dares to publicly disagree, and holds them to account for the words they use and the ideas they convey?

  You can believe in gods or unicorns or fairies or whatever the hell you want, but I for one won't validate it by pretending it's based on anything other than wishful thinking. Why can't you just quietly believe in your god and smugly wait for your reward?
• 

  stillajwexelder

  Ingredere ut proficias
• 

  AuldSoul

  FnukyDerek: Testimony alone can be sufficient evidence to make a person believe something is true.

  Scientific proof is not everyday proof. This is a public discussion forum, not a science discussion forum. I have repeatedly claimed that science can never prove the existence of God.

  But, in the public, many people have the existence of God proven to them every day. When I believe something, it has been proven to me. I have been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief.

  Proof has this same meaning in science, because things that have been proved right have later been proved wrong, even though they were believed true by the vast majority for decades. However, in science, even though the rigors through which evidence is put has structure and rules that must be followed, the results are not necessarily correct, even though they have been proved. They may be falsified, at any time, later. In what way, exactly, does the result differ from a belief if it may be wrong, but will be treated as correct anyway?

  When sufficient evidence is amassed to compel belief (in the subject considering the evidence) a thing is proved. I really don't know how that statement can be assailed, it holds true even in the scientific model or in the court room model.

  I think you guys just chafe at the fact that I can believe something without testing it, if I choose to. Again, welcome to reality. This is what it is like outside the laboratory.
• 

  AuldSoul

  FunkyDerek: There is no reliable, valid, meaningful evidence for his existence...

  reliable: Subjective valuation.

  valid: Subjective valuation.

  meaningful: Subjective valuation.

  If every term you guys can come up with to discount the evidence are subjective terms to describe evidence that provably serves for others as reliable, valid, and meaningful, how can you then argue that there is no evidence? And if the evidence is sufficient for only one person, how can you argue there is no proof?

  I agree that there is nothing that proves it to you, but that is hardly an objective result that can reasonably be stated as a rule across the board.