Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  AuldSoul

  AuldSoul: 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.

  FunkyDerek: 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.

  I would agree to that, FunkyDerek, except that proof has a meaning separate and distinct from the connotation contained in "proofs" (evidences) for which I do not know a different word substitute.

  Also, there is the problem that testimony does lend support to propositions. Frequently, it lends compelling support to propositions. In fact, jurors frequently testify (but it is only their claim) that the testimony of the witnesses (or a specific witness) at trial were the deciding factor in their reaching a verdict or guilty or not guilty.

  If you can explain how we can get around the subjective humanics of the thing by changing word choice, I'm game to try it out. I really don't see a way for any human to objectively do ... well ... anything. Humans can't. We aren't wired that way.
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul: are you saying that your arguments for ID rely on testimony evidence?

  ackack
• 

  funkyderek

  AuldSoul:

  We cross-posted but I'll leave my previous post up anyway as it still has some relevance.

  Yep. You are catching on faster than Abaddon. That is evidence.

  I think he would have caught on a lot faster if you had told him you were just playing a semantic game, and that what you were actually arguing for was a trivial tautology that used a different meaning of a word.

  But it doesn't compel me in any way. It might compel someone else, though.

  Perhaps I shouldn't have used the word compelling, given that all sorts of invalid evidence has compelled people to believe all sorts of demonstrably false or unprovable nonsense.

  I'm not sure I can find a word that won't allow you to play the games you've been playing so far, and wriggle out of the far more interesting (to me, at least) examination of the claims being made for the existence of gods. "Evidence" is no good - anything anyone has ever said is evidence. "Compelling evidence" isn't much better - some people are easily compelled. "Proof" is slightly better, but there are plenty of definitions that would allow you to reduce it to your definition of evidence. "Verification", "validation", "corroboration" - I'm sure you can find similar workarounds for each of them. In any case, there is some quality or strength of a claim that is sufficient to establish it as an actual real honest-to-goodness fact of reality - albeit sometimes with a degree of uncertainty (which may or may not be measurable or estimable). I say that your claims for the existence of a god do not have that quality - semantics be damned.
• 

  AuldSoul

  ackack: Do you know why science limits what evidence can be introduced?

  Of course. But the dispassionate fact remains, science limits itself. Period.

  Whatever the reasons, it does not allow considerations for informing its results that every individual on the planet may freely allow for themselves in every setting outside of science.

  Is it natural to test and then prove or disprove everything one examines, or imagines, ackack? To...for instance, create a hypothesis. Then test the hypothesis. Then develop a theory. Then submit the theory to others for testing as to whether it can be proven or disproven. Then, after sufficient testing to be reasonably confident it won't be proved wrong within your lifetime, call it a fact.

  If not, I would call that "unnatural" because it is a self-imposed constraint not occurring naturally. A contortion of nature, if you will.

  I would say, the natural course of things is that if I pick up horse dung and sniff it and declare "This stinks!" I could not care less who agrees or disagrees with my statement of fact. That's what I would call the natural course of things. Of course the scientific method is unnatural. I never expected anyone to suggest the possibility it was otherwise. Do you believe it is a natural method? If so, why does it have to have rules to make sure it works? And people who enforce the rules prior to publication?

  Evolutionary theory does not explain origin, nor does it attempt to do so. If it did, there would be a place for God. Also, the fact that transitions occur does not negate the need for a catalyst for the mutation.
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul, you wrote, I would say, the natural course of things is that if I pick up horse dung and sniff it and declare "This stinks!" I could not care less who agrees or disagrees with my statement of fact. That's what I would call the natural course of things. Of course the scientific method is unnatural. I never expected anyone to suggest the possibility it was otherwise. Do you believe it is a natural method? If so, why does it have to have rules to make sure it works? And people who enforce the rules prior to publication?

  Though you certainly could get people to rate the smell of horse dung in a blind study, and conclude, horse dung stinks for the majority of people. :) A more natural method for arriving at "truth" is personal anecdotes, confusing separate events for causation. This is certainly the method that truth has been arrived at by most people for a very long time. It's interesting how many people in America believe in astrology, esp, homeopathy, naturopathy, ufo visitations etc, despite the negative proof against them. Science is more rigorous. We can apply that sort of rigor to other beliefs as well, even if what we're doing is not strictly science.

  Testimony is inherently flawed because of how flawed our own perceptions are. Memory, experience is personal, but as you correctly point out, not objective. Personal experience might be very moving, but I think generally we need to be cautious about accepting our own personal experiences as "true".

  True science limits itself, but shouldn't we have some constraint about accepting new information as true? As to personal experience, how can anyone agree or disagree with you that horse dung stinks? How could you validly ask anyone else if horse dung stinks for you or not? This is a straw man to advance your argument that whatever you personally hold to be true is true regardless of outside information from others I guess. Science can inform our beliefs, but there is no scientific theory that something will stink or not stink for us personally.

  I guess I just don't quite understand what you're getting at. Are you saying the process of science is flawed because it limits what information can be used as proof? Are you saying that science misleads us from getting to all sorts of truth? Do you believe there is "proof" for God's existence that is testable, or is it simply a matter of faith? Is the same true for ID?

  ackack
• 

  AuldSoul

  FunkyDerek,

  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.

  As far as I know, other than "proof" there is no other word for "evidence which proves a thing true." Meaning either a single piece of evidence or a body of evidence. Using "evidence" interchangably with "proof" is very poor communication, especially when talking about beliefs in the same breath.

  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? However, there is a connotation of each which excludes the other from interchangability. I guess I assumed we would not be playing guessing games with each others posts and that I could trust scientifically minded folks to differentiate between the two (since there is a possible point of reasonable confusion).

  "The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim" is only true in Science. It is not natural to impose this rule outside a laboratory. Making a claim, any claim, does not require proof (as long as it is not defamatory, libelous, or slanderous). Certainly not claims deriving from subjective, personal experiences. To insist otherwise an unnatural set of laws and rules and maxims outside their environment of usefulness where they can actually cause harm if enforced. Asserting that a claim is wrong requires proof out here in the real world. That is the natural order.

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

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

  (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?

  If not, why did anyone have a problem with me objecting to the demonstrably erroneous statement "There is no evidence for a Creator." The body of evidence may not compel Abaddon to believe, it may not be proof for him, but it is unquestionably evidence and it certainly exists.

  However much disdain he may feel toward those who use this body of evidence for themselves as personal proof, such people do exist. Even among ones who review science journals and among jurists.
• 

  ackack

  "The burden of proof is on the one who makes the claim" is only true in Science. It is not natural to impose this rule outside a laboratory. Making a claim, any claim, does not require proof (as long as it is not defamatory, libelous, or slanderous). Certainly not claims deriving from subjective, personal experiences. To insist otherwise an unnatural set of laws and rules and maxims outside their environment of usefulness where they can actually cause harm if enforced. Asserting that a claim is wrong requires proof out here in the real world. That is the natural order.

  It's also true in a court of law. Why shouldn't it generally be true in life? Asking for proof for a claim in unnatural? This statement in nonsensical. Asking for proof arose naturally. Subjective experiences never require proof. To claim that I find ice cream repugnant would require what sort of proof? This is not a statement that is provable in any meaningful sense.

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

  Testimony has been shown to be highly unreliable, and as far as I know, courts don't convict people on only testimony evidence.

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

  Some people find tarot cards and tea leaves sufficient to prove a claim. Does that make tea leaves and testimony on par with each other?

  (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?

  Testimony only beliefs are on very shaky grounds. Some people have very shaky beliefs.

  If not, why did anyone have a problem with me objecting to the demonstrably erroneous statement "There is no evidence for a Creator." The body of evidence may not compel Abaddon to believe, it may not be proof for him, but it is unquestionably evidence and it certainly exists.

  So is this the bar upon which we judge if evidence is good or not, its mere existence? I grant you this "evidence" exists, but I should hope there is something a little better than people "testifying" to a belief, especially such an extraordinary belief as the existence of God.

  However much disdain he may feel toward those who use this body of evidence for themselves as personal proof, such people do exist. Even among ones who review science journals and among jurists.

  So is credulity a virtue? I find it very scary that anyone would offer only testimony as proof. This manner of reasoning has led people astray so many times now. My litany of examples (homeopathy, astrology etc) above is evidence of that.

  ackack
• 

  ackack

  I should also mention that you are equivocating "proof". Proof should be testable on some level. Just because something might lead you to a conclusion, it is not also unnecessarily proper to call that "proof". The statement, "a belief in God is unprovable" is certainly true, as there can be no test devised to test for the existence of God. I'm happy though to hear how you think we could test for the existence of God or not.

  ackack
• 

  AuldSoul

  ackack: Are you saying the process of science is flawed because it limits what information can be used as proof?

  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.

  Logically, that process of reasoning would look like this:

  P

  cannot be proved by method A.

  Therefore, 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.

  (This assumes an understanding that consensus does not constitute proof.)

  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'."

  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?

  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. 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?
• 

  AuldSoul

  ackack: So is this the bar upon which we judge if evidence is good or not, its mere existence?

  No. And I never suggested it. The valuation of evidence is a subjective exercise, at least to some degree, and there is no way for any human or body of humans to 100% objectify it. It is a limitation of the species that no amount of methodology can, in the end, erase.

  Ultimately, each individual arrives at proof for everything he or she examines. It happens thousands of times a day, probably billions of times or more. What two individuals consider compelling will always differ, to a degree. But at whatever point belief is compelled, the thing considered is proven to the person.

  ackack: Proof should be testable on some level.

  "Scientific proof should be testable on some level." (<--- TRUE statement, and in accord with the rules of the scientific method)

  Whether my first dog's name was Gretchen need not be testable on any level. It is fact. You need not believe me on the strength of my testimony alone, but you will never dissuade me from my belief. It is proven, to me. I don't have to test it. However, you would not necessarily be unreasonable to believe me without me providing any stronger evidence than my testimony.

  Again, this isn;t about testing the validity of the evidence. It is arising because Abaddon stated "Because there is no evidence for a Creator." That set it in motion. I was disinterested in the discussion until that point. He is wrong. Without any doubt.

  ackack: I grant you this "evidence" exists, but I should hope there is something a little better than people "testifying" to a belief, especially such an extraordinary belief as the existence of God.

  So, you agree that the original contention I had with Abaddon's erroneous blanket statement is valid? I would believe in its validity either way, but your agreement lends to the proposition.

  As a matter of fact, the ones who have had personal experiences rarely have scientific proof of their personal experiences (as is usually the case even with mundane personal experiences), however these cannot be quickly dissuaded from their convictions that are based in personal experience.

  As you have said, it is an extraordinary belief. Having a personal experience that confirms that belief is no less extraordinary. I mean, I am unflinchingly loyal to my claim regarding my first dog's name. I cannot be dissuaded from it. Despite the fact that I have no proof whatsoever, you will never convince me otherwise. I'm sure you can imagine how much more strongly such an extraordinary experience would motivate someone.

  Have all believers had a personal experience? No. Should they believe anyway? If the evidence available to them compels belief, why not? If the evidence available to them does not compel belief, they aren't believers, even if they profess to be.

  Why are scientists and the scientifically inclined to be so skittish about the notion that someone somewhere might believe something that science never approved?