|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Peanut Gallery | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Why? Semantic pedantic bollocks. Science can and does answer "why questions" all the time.
But if you are referring to a specific sort of nonsensical "why question" here is Dawkins on that subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LSZ_fsG5uMg
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Panda writes: Can I ask both yourself and Xongsmith to agree that 'why' and 'how' are interchangeable in common parlance. Yes. And very often in scientifc parlance too.
Panda writes: I think that you both agree that science doesn't answer 'why?' in the 'meaning of life' sense. Indeed. But what does? Philosophy maybe....? Theology? I don't think so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
Panda writes: I think the discussion will head towards ignosticism next... Oh we have been there with RAZD before. Message 453 Those of us who have been round the houses with RAZD are also very familiar with the idea of the god that has no description. Otherwise known as the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. Where the gap in question is the human notion of god itself. It is (apparently) "unknowable". Although how anyone could know this remains a mystery.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
CS writes: Sure, but the theory that that is all there is, is unfalsifiable. Too, if a supernatural source could be shown, then it wouldn't supernatural. At the end of the day, its a non-theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural concepts known to science. That some other un-evidenced alternative might conceivably exist is irrelevant to this. Evolution from common descent is the only source of different species known to science. That some other un-evidenced alternative (e.g. omphalism) might conceivably exist is irrelevant to this. When are you going to grasp the idea that un-evidenced alternatives have no bearing on the strength or validity of scientific theories whatsoever?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
RAZD writes: One of the problems that I have is that I cannot see a way to distinguish imagination from an unverified subjective experience (if you remember the discussions with Straggler) of the supernatural, particularly where one does not fully understand the experience.... I remember the discussions with Straggler very well. I remember your multi-thread "liar liar" tirade equally well. Once again it seems you feel the need to raise the issue of subjective "evidence" in the context of a discussion about deities. I find it remarkable that you keep feeling the need to raise such "evidence" in the context of discussions about supernatural beings given your rather forthright stance on the absence of any link between the two. Not to mention the rampant accusations of "lying" that were made by you when it was suggested you might be making just such a connection to support your pro-supernaturalist arguments.
In the context of the great debate at hand the question of course is whether or not supernatural beings can legitimately be concluded to be the cause of such experiences. To conclude supernatural causes for such human experiences is in itself an evidentially baseless conclusion. And one that flies in the face of all of the historical and psychological evidence regarding mankinds tendencies in this area. In fact the whole "subjective evidence" argument amounts to nothing more than citing belief itself as a form of evidence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
CS writes: Its not that we simply have an absense of evidence for the pen, its that we have evidence of the empty desk. Its not that we simply have an absense of evidence for supernatural beings, its that we have positive evidence of the human ability and inclination to invent such things. Do you understand the difference between the theory that all supernatural concepts are derived from human imagination and the assertion that no supernatural beings exist? Can you see how Bluegenes is talking about positive evidence for the former rather than playing the silly 'disprove' one god at a time that RAZ and Xongsmith seem determined to impose as necessary? Can you see why the former approach is based on inductive scientific reasoning whilst the latter is just a debate tactic that amounts to nothing more than demanding that unfalsifiable beliefs be disproved?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined:
|
X writes: That is why Straggler's and bluegenes' hypothetical imagined beings are off topic. Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Would you like to give us an example of a being that is not hypothetical or imagined and therefore is 'on-topic'? X writes: Jesus Christ I am certain there are some here in EvC who would argue that he is not hypothetical or made up. Firstly do you understand that bluegenes theory is first and foremost a theory about human behaviour? And that demonstrations of human capabilities and proclivities are therefore very much on topic - Do you "get" this? Secondly - Is there a shred of evidence to suggest that any supernatural element of the Jesus concept is anything other than derived from human imagination?
X writes: But there are some here who disagree with us. Do you consider belief itself to be a form of evidence for that which is believed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
jon writes: If not, what makes you think his 'subjective evidence' talk has anything to do with 'deities'? Can you tell us what RAZD's current discussion with Bluegenes is about if not deities? I know you love your definitions Jon:
Link link writes:
deity (d-t, d-)n. pl. deities 1. A god or goddess. 2. a. The essential nature or condition of being a god; divinity. b. Deity God. Used with the.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
BluJ writes: But, ignoring the fact that this is incidentally just such a case, I still declare you guilty. As charged.
BluJ writes: Side Note: When stuff that happens in the Peanut Gallery thread draws gallery-style commentary itself (e.g., this post), maybe it's time to consider the possibility that the Peanut Gallery is no longer acting as a peanut gallery. I think this peanut gallery needs a peanut gallery. And so we crack shells in a orgy of infinite regress with no peanut to sate us at the end of our quest.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: I have not seen any myself. Now - note that right there you did NOT specify objective scientific evidence published in peer-reviewed journals, so, for example, Iano's subjective evidence would qualify for him. How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whetever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this expereince?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
10 out of 10 for art appreciation......
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Jon writes: What does their current discussion have to do with whether or not RAZDs comments on 'subjective evidence' were meant to relate to 'deities'? The fact that in his current discussion (which this peanut gallery is following) RAZD is quite indisputably citing subjective evidence of deities. Duh!!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Actually I think you will find it is the continual references to subjective evidence in threads debating the existence of deities that is the clue here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 96 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
X writes: Straggler writes: How does Iano's subjective "evidence" for the existence of Jesus (or whatever) differ from Iano's belief that Jesus caused this experience? I have no idea, but I would venture to guess that there is no difference. Then he is to all intents and purposes citing his belief as evidence upon which to justify his belief. As is the case with all this "subjective evidence" nonsense.
X writes: Anyway, I doubt that you & I have a different value attached to such "evidence" in the matter at hand: zero. Then the evidence that any supernatural aspects to the Jesus concept are more likely to originate in the minds of men than be real would seem to be an obvious conclusion. Or are you and RAZ going to demand a peer reviewed paper on the ability to walk on water or raise people from the dead?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024