Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

AuldSoul

Abaddon: You cannot provide ONE example of something that exists but is unprovable.
Would you settle for something that is TRUE, but unprovable?
AuldSoul

Abaddon: You also miss out the fact that at least the court would require a dead BODY or proof thereof, i.e. evidence of something having occured to link to the testimony. And where is your body?
Is it now your stance that there exists no precedent for conviction on testimony alone, absent the body? In other words, you believe that testimony + absence of person has never resulted in a murder conviction?
Why don't you check that out and get back to me. I made no claims as to the reliability of such evidence. I merely stated that you were flatly errant in your assertion that testimony is not evidence in a court of law. That is plainly not true, and no amount of dancing around it will turn your mistaken falsehood into fact. You might prefer that scientific standards of proof were required in court, but they are not.
You made the misstep, try not to embarass yourself by turning the argument into one regarding validity of testimony. Stick to the argument you stated, that no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law. That is not true. Testimony is evidence. Perceived credibility of testimony is in the eye of the beholder. Pretending to own everyone's set of eyes and hypothetically judging for them the impacts of testimony is beneath your own scientific standards. Surely you can rationally understand why you have no basis for claiming what would effect the believability of a particular claim for a particular person (outside yourself).
If the entire congregation of Westminster Abbey saw the Smurf, would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?

No, of course not.
Without question, it would be more believable. Because you would start from zero believability, even 0.000001% increase in credibility is "any more" believable. It would then be very difficult to sway those who heard the eyewitness accounts of the invalidity of what was reported by numerous people who experienced it firsthand.
But it would not be only slightly more believable. Because, as research shows, testimony from someone perceived as "normal" who personally experienced (or who simply claims to have experienced) something is very believable to quite a number of people. The more people who claim to have experienced the same or similar thing, or claim to have known someone who experienced the same or similar thing, the greater the credibility.
You doubt? Explain the sociology of urban legends without proving my point, I invite your attempt. You are very wrong. In many ways, in your last post, you are proven wrong by the very scientific endeavor you laud. You made claims about human nature that are flatly falsified by scientific research. Check me on that, prove me wrong. Please. I insist.
As a caution, you have ignored the stipulation that the perceived character of the person testifying is entirely subjective, entirely in the eye of the beholder. Yet, testimony is evidence. I never claimed to have more than that, but even that is far more than you have for the invisible purple kangaroo and is amply sufficient to provably squash your exaggeratedly braggadocio claims to equal evidence.
I think you seriously (mortally, in this debate) overreached yourself in your last post. Any sociologist (sociology is a science) would be embarassed to have you represent their science if that last post is an example of your scientific scruples.
AuldSoul

Abaddon: But is testimony that is unprovable and reliant upon unproven claims we know do not work in everyday life considered credible even if it comes from a credible person?
You have admitted (in other threads) that the existence or non-existence of a Creator or designer does not affect the way things work in everyday life. You cannot reasonably now argue that somehow the existence or non-existence of a Creator relies on claims that we know do not work in everyday life without explaining how such existence would do so.
LittleToe

Gyles:The god-of-the-gaps was "created" to explain things that evidently occured in this reality. While he is shrinking daily, he still exists.
Anyhow, you're an atheist too, I just believe in one less god than you...
On the contrary. As a Panentheist I include all that people call God[s][dess][es], including (in the words of Heinlein) thou art god
Abaddon
AuldSoul
Would you settle for something that is TRUE, but unprovable?
Nope. Why should I?
You wouldn't refuse what I ask for if you could give it and wouldn't offer what you offer if you couldn't supply it. My point is therefore made. Thank you. I only added the 'Thank you' after reading what you had to say below; nothing like a bit of facetious humour when you're being traduced.
Is it now your stance that there exists no precedent for conviction on testimony alone, absent the body? In other words, you believe that testimony + absence of person has never resulted in a murder conviction?
Why don't you check that out and get back to me.
I just point out a court-of-law would require "evidence of something having occured to link to the testimony". Whatever else you want me to say I won't say.
I made no claims as to the reliability of such evidence. I merely stated that you were flatly errant in your assertion that testimony is not evidence in a court of law.
Okay, back-up and read what I actually did say;
Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.
Where in the name of sweet Darwin did I use the words 'testimony' until you did? When you introduced the simplistic monochromatic idea a credible's witness testimony would be accepted I pointed out;
But is testimony that is unprovable and reliant upon unproven claims we know do not work in everyday life considered credible even if it comes from a credible person?
So please stick this;
That is plainly not true, and no amount of dancing around it will turn your mistaken falsehood into fact. You might prefer that scientific standards of proof were required in court, but they are not.
You made the misstep, try not to embarass yourself by turning the argument into one regarding validity of testimony.
... where the sun don't shine. I mean this in a nice way, a smile on face, "whoops wasn't that silly of you we all do it from time to time" way as I realise you've made a genine mistake in thinking I said that testimony is not evidence in a court of law.
Stick to the argument you stated, that no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law.
*Sigh*. Again;
Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.
Again you misstate what I said. I did not say 'no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law'.
Testimony is evidence.
But not all evidence is accepted, no matter how credible the witness, as it is the credibility OF THE EVIDENCE that determines whether a credible witness is believed, as a credible witness can be disbelieved if their evidence is not considered credible. The reverse is true; the most disreputable witness in the world would be believed if their evidence was considered credible;
(Interior, day, a courtroom)
(Medium shot of Lawyer and Smackhead crack smoking man; the later is in the witness box)
Smackhead crack smoking man; "Yup, I done see the a-lion whilst smoking a big rock".
Lawyer; "And can you identify the alien you saw?"
Smackhead crack smoking man; "Yuppa, he's the green critta with the tent akles up 'dere on the table" (points)
(camera cuts to CU of @#T'lko{098ghyt%)
@#T'lko{098ghyt%; "!!!!friii''ppppiiii<hjifghhh>" (waves tentacles in air vigourously)
(camera pans to Judge)
Judge; "Silence in court!!"
See?
Perceived credibility of testimony is in the eye of the beholder. Pretending to own everyone's set of eyes and hypothetically judging for them the impacts of testimony is beneath your own scientific standards. Surely you can rationally understand why you have no basis for claiming what would effect the believability of a particular claim for a particular person (outside yourself).
Now this is getting a little tiresome. Please realise I gave EXAMPLES, and to assert I was "Pretending to own everyone's set of eyes and hypothetically judging for them the impacts of testimony" is patently untrue. I was simply pointing out your initial statement;
I am shocked. You are apparently unaware that credible testimony (as determined by the testifier's character, not by their beliefs) is considered evidence in a court of law.
... utterly neglects to consider the credibility of a credible witness's testimony. Outside of pretty obvious examples I make no attempt to know what another person (i.e. juror) would find credible, just point out this is what you ignore, and this is what happens when ANY witness testifies.
If the entire congregation of Westminster Abbey saw the Smurf, would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?
No, of course not.
Without question, it would be more believable
So, because lots of people say they saw something it is more belivable? No. The impossible (see example, chosen for its impossibility) doesn't happen even if loads of people see it. If you are willing to believe otherwise you have a lot of believing to do; a sea of virgin Mary's, thousands of miracles, lord only knows how many Jesuses, a Loch full of Nessies, most of Canada up to the eyeballs in Bigfeet (sic), Yeti's posing for photos with Everest tourists, and that's even before we get to India where loads of people will tell you they see stuff that proves an entire pantheon of gods exists as a matter of course.
Oh, remind me not to use hyperbole in examples with you... sheeeesh...
Yet, testimony is evidence.
Argh!!
The testifier might consider his story of a walking talking smurf is evidence but a court wouldn't accept such evidence.
I never claimed to have more than that, but even that is far more than you have for the invisible purple kangaroo
Oh, now that's just RUDE. He is right here beside me, in fact he presses the shift key wheever I need it. Sadly he is shy and that is why no-one else can see him until the time is right. Or are you telling me you are not accepting my testimony as evidence of the invisable purple kangaroo?!!! I assure you I can probably get several hundred people to back up my testimony; such it was on USENET when a ridiculer doubted the invisible pink Unicorn (blessed be her holy hooves). Now look; http://www.palmyra.demon.co.uk/humour/ipu.htm See! Getting believers is easy!
I think you seriously (mortally, in this debate) overreached yourself in your last post. Any sociologist (sociology is a science) would be embarassed to have you represent their science if that last post is an example of your scientific scruples.
As you didn't have the courtesy to read what I wrote and consequently make yourself look silly by stating I said things I never said, I think we'll see what evidence your reaction to this being pointed out gives, eh? I think your little pee-pee dance of joy was a little too early...
You have admitted (in other threads) that the existence or non-existence of a Creator or designer does not affect the way things work in everyday life.
(mutters underbreath "I believe in god" and drops something out of window)
(mutters underbreath "I don't believe in god" and drops something out of window)
Same results both times, so, yeah... but joking aside, please, given your remarkable ability to get the wong end of the stick please QUOTE me so I can make sure I said what you say I said, and the context I said it in, and what you probably wished I would have said so you could get one over on me...
You cannot reasonably now argue that somehow the existence or non-existence of a Creator relies on claims that we know do not work in everyday life without explaining how such existence would do so.
Eh? Okay, pending you actually quoting me verbatum with a reference...
The Universe works the way it works with or without god. We do not see any paranormal input to keep things going, indeed, with study we can explain naturalistically why things the way they are without input from a class of special pleading called god-did-it.
How do you see this as contradicting me saying that if one states out of one side of their mouth;
- On the basis of my evert day exprience and my examination of the world complex design requires a designer
... and then says out of the other side of their mouth '
- Unless it doesn't suit my argument in which case a vastly complex entity DOESN'T require design
... they are contradicting themselves?
Both statements are valid; we don't see god at work in the Universe, and ID isn't (a particulary intelligent hypothesis).
Now, calm the heck down, this is meant to be fun...
AuldSoul

LittleToe, I predict your post is about to cause headaches...and possibly painful stomach cramps...I mean, where could you possibly corner a guy who is willing to consider anything? It really isn't fair, you know.
Spectrum: Perhaps only one is correct for the origin of life and only one for God the two that are the truth don't have to be related as perceived in human logic terms ie if we were created by god then who created god. Therefore one of these myriad of explanations could be that biological life requires a designer but the designer does not require a designer.
Abaddon: This is known as special pleading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading . You are basically saying 'I say that two different rules apply' in order to allow yourself to maintain hoding to a belief or an argument even when you cannot prove that two different rules apply.
Um, no...you are correct in what you define as special pleading, but you are incorrect in asserting that it applies to the portion of Spectrum's post you quoted.
Spectrum made the reasonable assertion that different basic kinds of life might have very different sets of rules. Biological life requires an origin, no one disputes that. But that says nothing of geological life. Or pneumalogical life. We identify as life that which is most similar to ourselves and label all else lifeless, but it is only lifeless because our scientific label says so. When, in reality, we have nothing but our own notion of what life is on which to base this conclusion.
Understandably, our notions are clouded by our experiences and limited perspective (including short life span, geologically speaking). It is impossible to achieve a purely scientific concept of what is and is not life simply because the parameters we attach to the constituency of life are themselves subjective. At the root of all human knowledge is an assumption that very well may be flawed. But we pretend our elaborate system of interdependent assumptions somehow combines to clearly explain reality, although, in time, we are proven wrong over and over again.
For instance, you say Spectrum is aplpying to sets of rules to LIFE but, in reality, Spectrum is simply acknowledging that she doesn't necessarily know enough about the various types of life to assume that they all require what biological life requires. You assume biological life is the only life, therefore your arguments against the specialness of humans can be brought right back to you regarding the specialness of biological life.
Why do you perceive biological life as the only possible kind of life? I hope you can honestly admit that it is solely due to your limitations of perspective. I don't expect such an admission, however. Can you not conceive that a different kind of life may have an entirely different taxonomy and set of rules accompanying it?
funkyderek

AuldSoul:
If there really is a Creator, then there obviously is some evidence of that reality, so the most likely true statement is that any evidence of a Creator we have discovered has been mislabeled, if we have discovered any.
That is not quite the same as making an unsubstantiable statement of fact that there is no evidence for a Creator.
It's very nearly the same though. So nearly, in fact, that the difference is insignificant. What you're actually saying is that there's no evidence that there's no evidence for a creator. You've stepped back from saying that a creator may exist even if there is no evidence for his existence to saying that evidence for his existence may exist even though there is no evidence for its existence, and presumably that that evidence may exist even though there is no evidence for it, and so on. Fortunately, we can easily stop the regression by rephrasing slightly and simply saying that we have no evidence for the existence of a Creator. Evidence that has been mislabelled is not really evidence we have, and it's debatable whether evidence we don't have is really evidence at all.
QED, personal testimony is perfectly admissable evidence. The weight of testimony is ultimately determined by the (subjectively) perceived character of the one testifying.
No, the weight of testimony is determined by the reliability of the testimony which may depend partially on the perceived character of the one testifying. There are many other factors to consider.
Why does the same not go for God? It does, in point of fact. Everywhere outside a science journal or laboratory, it does. Including in a court of law.
People of demonstrably good character believe many different things about the existence of God or gods, including that none exist. Clearly, there is a problem if we consider any or all of their beliefs to be "evidence".
LittleToe:
Until the last particle and process is labelled, at the very least there will always be a requirement for a "God-of-the-gaps", however you label it.
But why label it "God" when it so unlike any normal definition of the word?
AuldSoul

Abaddon: Getting believers is easy!
Getting testimony is easy. Getting believers is a damned sight harder. For instance, I don't believe you. I think you are lying about the kangaroo that you say you saw. I don't find your story credible, especially given the context from within which your story arose and the sarcastic way in which you recount your interactions with this kangaroo. Frankly, given our interaction in various threads, I would retain a goodly-sized dose of incredulity if you told me my shoelaces were untied, which is easily more likely true than your account of the kangaroo.
If, however, I knew you to be a serious person not given to incredibly imaginative farce to support your current rant, I might believe you more than I currently do.
See what I mean about character influencing credibility?
Abaddon: Well, I know what 'evidence' means. Obviously someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence, but that would not impress a court-of-law, a science journal, or me.
You say (1) you know what evidence means, but you didn't say that in a vaccuum to fill space in the discussion, you were responding to something I wrote. You say (2) that "someone" (contextually referring to me) "can semantically insist that something" is evidence which a court-of-law would not admit as evidence (contextually referring to any evidence admissable in a court-of-law, including testimony).
AuldSoul: That is not quite the same as making an unsubstantiable statement of fact that there is no evidence for a Creator.
Now, what in the world could have prompted me to write that?
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.
Abaddon: Because there is no evidence for a Creator.
But...as I have shown, testimony is evidence. Personal testimony is admissable in court-of-law as evidence; not just semantically, but in reality. There is actual evidence for a Creator, evidence that is admissable in a court-of-law. So, your assertion that there is no evidence for a Creator (the statement that launched this debate) is demonstrably false.
I didn't assert that "there is no" insible pink, purple, or blue unicorns, kangaroos, or elephants, therefore I am not required to prove non-existence.
I didn't assert that "there is no evidence for" any of them, either. Therefore, I am not required to eat crow when I have it established that my statement flatly contradicts demonstrable fact.
Testimony is evidence. QED, there is evidence for a Creator. QED, you were unequivocally wrong. There is no scientific proof, I grant you, but you went too far.
Abaddon: Now this is getting a little tiresome. Please realise I gave EXAMPLES, and to assert I was "Pretending to own everyone's set of eyes and hypothetically judging for them the impacts of testimony" is patently untrue. I was simply pointing out your initial statement;
Now, to be fair, you don't simply do anything on this forum. Complicating is your milieu. The example was given in the portion I quoted immediately after. You presumed the effect on the public of the entire congregation of Westminster Abbey saying they saw something. Were you speaking hyperbolically?
Why ever would you do so about an indisputable FACT that some people would believe the congregants, and the disbelief of those who don't believe would not change one bit, creating a positive net change in crediblity of Smurfs running? In other words, since your "hyperbole" is actually a valid and practical question with an actual, real-life answer, it was an extremely poor choice. I speak from having witnessed people who believe Smurfs ran through Knigdom Halls. I didn't believe before or after hearing the accounts. But the accounts definitely impacted the credibility of the tale.
An increase or decrease in "credibility" was the fulcrum on which you balanced your challenge. I had no reason to know you were speaking hyperbolically, since there is a full complement of urban legends regarding Smurfs that are believed with varying degrees of credulity. Should the circumstance you suggested occur, there would be a sharp increase in credibliity. It isn't my fault you chose your "hyperbole" poorly and that, as a result, your argument died in the very pit you dug for it.
Abaddon: But not all evidence is accepted, no matter how credible the witness, as it is the credibility OF THE EVIDENCE that determines whether a credible witness is believed, as a credible witness can be disbelieved if their evidence is not considered credible. The reverse is true; the most disreputable witness in the world would be believed if their evidence was considered credible;
There is evidence. You choose not to accept it because it is not compelling for you. You are incredulous. But the evidence remains. The evidence is considered credible for billions of people. Their acceptance of it does not and should not compel your acceptance of it. If the weight of evidence is not sufficient proof for you, and you have no personal experience to use as basis for belief, you should not believe.
Abaddon: As you didn't have the courtesy to read what I wrote and consequently make yourself look silly by stating I said things I never said...
However, the fact that you perceive the evidence for a Creator to be incredible is no basis for you to declare that "there is no evidence for a Creator." Which...is exactly what you did. Testimony is evidence.
Thus, my "pee-pee dance". I have been reading what you wrote, and I haven't been reading anything into it. If you meant more than you wrote, or you meant something different than you wrote (see hyperbole), whose fault is that, exactly? For instance, since the situation you used is very nearly actual (unfortunately) how could it possibly be "hyperbole?"
AuldSoul

FunkyDerek: People of demonstrably good character believe many different things about the existence of God or gods, including that none exist. Clearly, there is a problem if we consider any or all of their beliefs to be "evidence".
I said their testimony is evidence. I did not say their beliefs are evidence. How can someone testify to the non-existence of something? Please explain.
Logically, it seems to me, the most they could hope for is to testify they have never personally experienced or encountered something. But that is not evidence of anything beyond their personal inexperience. It says nothing about the personal experiences of anyone else, one way or the other.
If I personally experience something that I cannot objectively prove, guess who gets to label it? ME! So, I do. The same goes for you. I'll allow you the freedom to do just that. You don't have to make me see the Virgin Mary in your cheese toast in order to believe she's there, go right ahead.
Likewise, you don't have to believe I have ever had any personal experience with God. Go right ahead.
You said there is clearly a problem, but I don't see where considering testimony about personal experiences to be evidence that can be weighted by every individual who examines it presents any problem at all. Can you please explain the problem? Or maybe you simply meant to confine your discussion of the problem to "beliefs to be 'evidence'" (which I didn't really raise as an issue).
lovelylil

Hey guys.....interesting thread........but really.......I need an aspirin. Love, Lilly

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

Share this