Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

funkyderek

Abaddon:
So, because lots of people say they saw something it is more belivable? No.
Well, it helps. Something unlikely that's witnessed by only one person can be more easily dismissed than one that is witnessed by many people.
The impossible (see example, chosen for its impossibility) doesn't happen even if loads of people see it.
But many things can happen which were once believed impossible. Of course, for unusual events, it's possible and even likely for many people to misinterpret the same event in the same way - especially if they share a cultural background. One example was an experiment performed on tourists visiting Loch Ness. A stick was raised out of the water and quickly lowered some distance from their boat. Many of the toursists saw this, and were asked to draw what they had seen. Most drew something resembling the pleiosaur-type head of traditional Nessie representations, despite the fact that they had only seen a piece of 2 by 4. [Caveat: I saw this on a documentary, can't remember the source. Details may be slightly inaccurate]
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.
Exactly. Lots of people believe lots of things that are incompatible with the beliefs of lots of other people. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong!)
The only way larger numbers of similar testimonies make a proposition more likely is if the testimonies are independent. The fact that a billion people believe Jesus of Galilee was the son of God doesn't make it any more true, because the majority of those people believe it merely because their parents taught them that as a fact, and the rest were persuaded by the testimony of others. Compelling evidence for the proposition would have been if Columbus had sailed to the New World and found that the natives were already Christians. But, of course, they believed in different gods - unsurprisingly the gods of their parents and grandparents. They had independently discovered agriculture and metallurgy, and some quite advanced science, but Jesus Christ had apparently never attempted to have a personal relationship with any of them.
Abaddon

LittleToe
Ah, okay, if we're being serious I do not believe in paranormal entities but am very interested in the concept intelligent life might be greater than the sum of it parts. In other words, thou are god, but the bloke/s/tte/ttes with a white beard/elephant head/quintuple sets of mammaries etc. aren't. Although there might be some shit going on with rainbows...
AuldSoul
In my opinion;
Therefore one of these myriad of explanations could be that biological life requires a designer but the designer does not require a designer.
... is special pleading as it accepts complexity can arise without design in one instance, but refuses to accept it in the next. Try drilling down to the subtext and ignoring the fancy window dressing that hides the fact special pleading is going on.
Re. the purple kangaroo; I would like to introduce to to the concept 'thought experiment'. Why not experiment with thinking? LOL, cheap joke I know, but I enjoyed it which is the point. I took most of the other jibes out but had to keep that one in... I'm gonna have to call out PETA and the Humane Society on this one but it is too late. The horse you're flogging is already dead.
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).
Oh my god. Or should that be oh your god? Or oh Little Toe ? Do you really think it is all about YOU? We are having a discussion about absract concepts and logical arguments regarding the existence of god, and I say 'someone' and you think I mean specifically you. And there was I thinking I was big-headed. You also should realise the sentence in question revolves around whether a qualified objective body would consider evidence acceptable. Ignore the point and pull at threads by all means.
To me it simply shows you have nothing better to say regarding your own argument. And obviously no evidence (or evidence of the existence of unknown evidence). Just a determination to argue that (please, ah go on go on, please, look fuck logic the idea is important to me) there is the possibility of a god... not that anyone has said otherwise... If this is your idea of showing "Logically consistent theories of ID exist." I'm glad you're on the opposite side.
What you are obviously doing is trying not to say; "I said you said things you didn't".
You stated quite clearly I was "... flatly errant in your assertion that testimony is not evidence in a court of law." I made no such assertion. You stated quite clearly "Stick to the argument you stated, that no evidence exists sufficient for a court of law". I made no such argument.
So ignoring you make false claims regarding other people's posts and don't have the character to admit this when it is pointed out, we see I said;
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.
Look at the sentence. Step away from your hissy-fit. See the words 'someone can semantically insist that something that a court-of-law or science journal would NOT consider as evidence is evidence'.
If it isn't clear I am saying a person might consider the evidence they submit to a court-of-law or science journalis valid, but that does not mean that a court-of-law or science journal would consider it as evidence, let me say a person might consider the evidence they submit to a court-of-law or science journalis valid, but that does not mean that a court-of-law or science journal would consider it as evidence. There; any clearer?
By all means find fault with the above.
You miss out bits to make your position in this increasingly silly discussion more credible. Like where I say "would a court-of-law use this as a basis of convicting someone?" when talking of a single credible witness to the Smurf and then say "would the reality of what they saw be any more belivable?" when talking of many witnesses to the Smurf, you ignore we are talking in context of whether something we know is impossible becomes more possible if the number of witnesses goes up.
You ignore I am fairly obviously (never thought of you as stupid and don't intend to start now) talking about evidence used in an attempt for a qualified body to objectively draw a conclusion, thus "court-of-law or science journal", not whatever individuals use to determine their subjective opinion.
Thus your characterisation;
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."
... is sloppy as I'm obviously (look at my examples) talking of how objective opinion forming groups would be unable to determine there was a creator based on what they would consider as evidence.
If you want to vent some personal beef please take this to PM; if it isn't that, can we have the old AuldSoul back please? The one who actually thought before he posted?
funky
I chose something that was impossible in an attempt to illustrate that the quality of the evidence not the quantity of people supplying it was important. I know there are somethings that were considered impossible and now aren't. I am fairly certain I will go to my grave without a stuffed Smurf walking up the aisle of Westminster Abbey whilst talking, unless someone pimps the smurf with some nice tech... in which case it wouldn't be what was meant to be indicated by 'smurf' as the system of signs would be different.
Exactly. Lots of people believe lots of things that are incompatible with the beliefs of lots of other people. They can't all be right. (But they can all be wrong!)
Exactomundo. One of the biggest reasons for disbelief is what the believers believe in. Or don't.
funkyderek

AuldSoul:
I said their testimony is evidence. I did not say their beliefs are evidence.
OK, then. You're saying their expression of their beliefs is evidence.
How can someone testify to the non-existence of something? Please explain.
I can testify that in my experience delusional beliefs in non-existent deities are quite common for a variety of evolutionary and cultural reasons.
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.
Agreed. But neither does a person's account of their alleged personal experience in itself tell us anything real about the world.
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.
So, essentially what you're saying is there is evidence for each and every belief that someone holds - or at least expresses. So the word "evidence" in such a context is meaningless. There is "evidence" for the existence of thousands of gods, of ghosts, of monsters and dragons and unicorns and aliens
Likewise, you don't have to believe I have ever had any personal experience with God. Go right ahead.
I'll go further. I actively believe - and this is my testimony - that you have had no such experience. Is that evidence?
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).
I suppose they are evidence in the legal sense of the term, but most of them would be dismissed as hearsay or be otherwise ruled inadmissible. I suppose what I mean is that it is not in any way compelling evidence. It's evidence in the sense that it is data provided in support of a proposition, but not in the sense of something that actually lends support to a proposition. Sheer numbers of self-proclaimed witnesses don't help for the reasons outlined in my previous post.
ackack

Nice Ken Miller lecture about ID http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8937189243168103522&q=intelligent+design
AuldSoul

Abaddon: ...qualified objective body...
And herein lies the fallacy of your entire argument. This is actually the nugget I have been waiting on, for I knew that your argument was baseless without this as an element.
Who, pray, determines (objectively) what constitutes a "qualified" body and whether they are "objective"?
See, here's the rub. You are assuming what would and would not be credible to others, yet, the fact is that your "qualified objective body" would be full of people who think like you, otherwise they would surely be dismissed as unqualified. And you, you are very much in the minority when it comes to incredulity regarding everything you can't scientifically prove.
Abaddon: You ignore I am fairly obviously (never thought of you as stupid and don't intend to start now) talking about evidence used in an attempt for a qualified body to objectively draw a conclusion , thus "court-of-law or science journal", not whatever individuals use to determine their subjective opinion.
You ignore that "qualified bodies" are made up of individuals, who use their subjective perception to determine their opinions even in their role as a constituent of a qualified body. Their biases collectively form majority opinion. I submit that there is not now, nor has there ever been, an (objectively assembled) "qualified objective body" of humans chosen to render an opinion on any subject whatsoever.
Can you prove me wrong? Show me a human who claims to be objective and I can quickly prove him or her a liar. I doubt you would really have any problem doing so, yourself. If I am right about that, where would you find enough objective people to form this hypothetical body?
Bodies of people have sat in a room in silence while it filled with smoke, burning down around them, cooking them alive. They are highly susceptible to the process sociologists have labeled "Group Think." They have proven to irrational in the extreme in some very basic ways. Why would you place more confidence in what a group of individuals opine than a single individual? If the body is wrong and the individual is right...it doesn't really matter what the group says, does it?
But, lets use your hypothetical "qualified objective body" in a way you would probably not prefer.
If it contains a member who says, "There is no evidence for a Creator" is he qualified as an objective participant in the body, or has his stated bias disqualified him?
Suppose another believes that a pink kangaroo named &*()785(&%&*^( from the star system Yxmalcan near the Kloznix nebula presses the shift key for him whenever he asks, but he has never said so to a single person, his pink kangaroo friend is a secret...is he qualified as an objective participant in this august assemblage? On what basis? Who qualifies him?
Your "qualified body" is a variation on one my father used to an excess. As is your "court-of-law or science journal" farce. Here's his, I bet you can detect the similarity in style:
"If you took 100 people and..."
The 100 people always agreed with dear old dad. They were his imagination, of course, but they were always unaminous in their conclusions.
The name I gave that fallacy is Appeal to Imagination. There may be already a name for it, but I am sure someone will be along to educate me if so. The reason it is fallacious, as a point in logical argument, should be readily apparent. If not, here goes nothing: If hypothetical group A would not agree that P is X, then P is not X. It is this fallacy that gives rise to the false consensus effect, from which you appear to suffer.
The "qualified objective body", the "100 people"...they don't exist, except in your imagination. In your imagination everyone gets to play by your rules. Everyone understands exactly what you mean all the time, in your imagination. But, not anywhere else.
AuldSoul

I don't have any personal beef with you, Abaddon. But you do have a reputation for holding poster's feet to the fire when it comes to their statements. Turnabout is fair.
(1) There is no evidence for a Creator.
(2) Testimony is evidence.
(3) There is no testimony for a Creator.
This was the fallacy I addressed as an error I discovered. All I did to disprove your statement regarding absence of evidence for a Creator was introduce the fact that testimony is evidence, whether or not it is perceived as credible.
Now we can examine my problem with your later statements, if you prefer.
(1) There is no evidence for a Creator that any body I would consider qualified and objective would find credible.
(2) I consider a court-of-law or science journal (review panel, presumably) to be qualified and objective.
(3) There is no court-of-law or science journal that would consider the evidence for a Creator credible.
(4) If there is a court-of-law or science journal that would consider the evidence for a Creator credible, then it is obviously not a qualified and objective body (by virtue of the fact that it disagrees with you).
I think you can plainly see that circle.
ackack

AuldSoul: Are you expecting science to deal with the exists/non-existence for a creator/designer? If you are, you are fundamentally misunderstanding science.
ackack
AuldSoul

FunkyDerek: So, essentially what you're saying is there is evidence for each and every belief that someone holds - or at least expresses. So the word "evidence" in such a context is meaningless. There is "evidence" for the existence of thousands of gods, of ghosts, of monsters and dragons and unicorns and aliens.
Evidence does not constitute proof, and it seems like a line is being blurred between the terms that ought not be blurred. But, yes, testimony...ALL testimony is evidence.
Proof is in the eye of the beholder, however much anyone wishes to believe otherwise proof is subjective. A thing has been proved to someone when sufficient evidence is presented to compel belief.
The scientific method intentionally introduces unnatural constraints on that which can be considered compelling, becoming self-limiting in that which it allows to inform its resulting opinions. The individual is under no such constraints. Nor is any body of individuals, outside the arena of science.
To borrow from the Bard, there is "evidence" for the existence of more than is dreamt of, in your philosophy. But much of the "evidence" might not compel your belief, so much of what is believed might not be proven to you.
FunkyDerek: I'll go further. I actively believe - and this is my testimony - that you have had no such experience. Is that evidence?
Yep. You are catching on faster than Abaddon. That is evidence. But it doesn't compel me in any way. It might compel someone else, though. So, feel free to share your evidence as often as you like. Perhaps your evidence will be all the extra evidence they needed to have proved to them the non-existence of a Creator, or at least that I never had any experience with a Creator.
I'll let go your last remarks except to say, in my last paragraph I make clear that what is or is not compelling evidence is subjective, not objective. You cannot rule for someone else what will compel them to belief. It is impossible to make those decisions for others. Except for hypothetical "others" who think just like you.
funkyderek

AuldSoul:
(1) There is no evidence for a Creator.
(2) Testimony is evidence.
(3) There is no testimony for a Creator.
I think this is the crux of the matter. You're claiming that any data that could or would be used in support of a proposition is evidence. Abaddon is using a slighlty different but equally valid meaning of the word; namely, that evidence is that which actually lends support to a proposition. Hence the disagreement. All you are actually claiming is that some people have stated that they believe in God. Abaddon is claiming that this doesn't tell us anything about whether a god exists. For the sake of this argument, can we ban the word evidence, and use "claims" for what you mean and "proof" for what Abaddon means.
ackack

AuldSoul: I can see now you do fundamentally misunderstand science. You wrote: "The scientific method intentionally introduces unnatural constraints on that which can be considered compelling, becoming self-limiting in that which it allows to inform its resulting opinions. The individual is under no such constraints. Nor is any body of individuals, outside the arena of science."
Unnatural constraints? Do you know why science limits what evidence can be introduced? Science works on making a hypothesis, and proving or disproving that hypothesis. The hypothesis needs to be provable or disprovable. If you call that "unnatural" so be it. There is no place for a creator in evolution, and as it stands, there is certainly nothing about evolution that requires a god so far. Observed evidence fits evolutionary theory very well.
ackack

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

Share this