Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3687 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 31 of 638 (713793)
12-16-2013 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 30 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 4:06 PM


You're right we don't. And that's why I don't believe in God, there is no evidence for him. I don't need evidence against his existence. I would say that the details are important. I think what you are saying is that i had no evidence to think that there was a man behind me, but I acted as such. I've already outlined the evidence for why it was a good guess that a man was behind me. What is the problem, again? Yes, it could have been a cat, but that was not as statistically likely. Therefore, I go with the most likely solution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:22 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 638 (713794)
12-16-2013 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 4:10 PM


You're right we don't.
ABE: wait, upon re-reading I think that you might be saying that I was right that we don't have the luxury of good data, rather than saying I was right that we don't always operate as though things don't exist until shown otherwise. That's why its a good idea to use the quote function.
That's all I was trying to get you to acknowledge.
You said that you operate as if something does not exist until you have evidence that it does. That's all fine and dandy for online discussions about the existence of god, but I was trying to get you to see that it doesn't really apply that well out in the real world.
I think what you are saying is that i had no evidence to think that there was a man behind me, but I acted as such. I've already outlined the evidence for why it was a good guess that a man was behind me. What is the problem, again?
A good guess isn't evidence. But the details of the scenario don't really matter. I was just trying to get you to see that sometimes we act on little to no evidence in ways that are counter to disbelieving that something is there until shown otherwise.
I thought if I could walk you through a scenario where you'd be afraid of the unknown, then you would see what I was talking about.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:10 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:27 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3687 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 33 of 638 (713796)
12-16-2013 4:27 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 4:22 PM


I never said that a good guess was evidence. I said that, presented with the statistical likelihood of what would be knocking over cans in a city and knowing something about the neighborhood (maybe there are a lot of kids who stay out late, maybe there's a lot of cat-owners, etc.). Acting on little or no evidence...do you mean like our fight-or-flight instinct? There's evidence backing up our decisions there as well! Something large popped out and (at least millions of years ago) we statistically could assume that it would be dangerous. Of course, that isn't what people back then would've actively be thinking. It's similar to how we know where to put our hand to catch a thrown ball, even though we don't calculate the physics of it first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:22 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:34 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 34 of 638 (713797)
12-16-2013 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 4:27 PM


Well, I can't think of any language I could use to more explicitly state my point, and I don't feel like you've actually addressed it. So I guess I'll just try to state it again:
Out in the real world, people don't operate as though things don't exist until they are shown that they do. That position is used in online discussion about the existence of god, but that's not how people actually behave.
Acting on little or no evidence...do you mean like our fight-or-flight instinct?
I mean like when you get scared in a dark alley even though you don't have any evidence suggesting that there is something there.
Nobody walks around like a boss without any fear. People behave as though there may be something there despite the lack of evidence that there is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:27 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3687 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 35 of 638 (713798)
12-16-2013 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 4:34 PM


I understand your point. What my point is is that, whether we are aware of it or not, there are underlying and rational reasons for what we think. And where did the whole "no evidence that someone was there" come from? What about the can? Even without the can, our culture and our movies have so ingrained in us the eerieness and terror of a dark alleyway that we begin to feel it in the real world. I never said I felt no fear. I am only saying that, whether I am aware of it or not, I don't feel unwarented fear.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 5:03 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 36 of 638 (713800)
12-16-2013 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 4:36 PM


I understand your point. What my point is is that, whether we are aware of it or not, there are underlying and rational reasons for what we think.
Even for the belief in god?
Too, there's underlying irrational reasons.
And where did the whole "no evidence that someone was there" come from? What about the can?
The can was part 2. Part 1 was just:
quote:
Let's say that you're walking down a dark alley in a big city at night. Are you really totally fearless of being mugged, or do you still kinda get scared a bit?
.
Even without the can, our culture and our movies have so ingrained in us the eerieness and terror of a dark alleyway that we begin to feel it in the real world.
Our culture also has ingrained in us the belief in god. Would you say that belief in god is an evidenced postion as well then?
I suppose you wouldn't. Why then does it count for the dark alley? Seems contradictory to me.
I mean, sure, there's reasons for being scared of an empty dark alley, but in that sense there's reasons for believing in god.
Given that there's no evidence for god, and thus you have disbelief in its existence, then given that there's no evidence for anything in the alley, you should be free from fear because you'd disbelieve that there's anything there.
But you won't be free from fear, because people don't operate under the position of disbelieving that something is there until evidence shows otherwise. That's my point.
I am only saying that, whether I am aware of it or not, I don't feel unwarented fear.
So now its a questions about how belief is warranted, regardless of the evidence.
So are you saying that you will believe in something without evidence if it is warranted?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 4:36 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 5:10 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3687 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 37 of 638 (713802)
12-16-2013 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 36 by New Cat's Eye
12-16-2013 5:03 PM


For the last time
Our culture hardly ingrains us with belief in God as we are discussing here. Have you listened to the most popular artists and seen the most popular songs and gone to the most popular movies? All either openly mock Christianity (well, Jehovah's witnesses) and are distinctly un-Christian/Jew/Muslim in their morality. Either way, I never called it hard evidence, at least I did not intend to.
I've outlined the evidence for why there might be someone in the dark alley if the can was there. And I've outilned why I might think (although less firmly) why I might think there was a man in a quiet, dark alley.
Nothing is warrented without evidence or reason, although the two go hand in hand. It is not an opinion, it is objective.
Are you reading my comments? You are asking the same question of "in the real world we don't act like this" and I've kept giving you an answer. It's not worth typing it anymore.
For the last time, and I won't reply to another comment like this, I HAVE GIVEN EVIDENCE FOR BEING AFRAID IN BOTH ALLEY-GORIES (you see what I did there?)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-16-2013 5:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 9:17 PM PlanManStan has replied

  
dadman
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 45
From: wichita Kansas USA
Joined: 02-19-2014


Message 38 of 638 (720036)
02-19-2014 9:17 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by PlanManStan
12-16-2013 5:10 PM


Re: For the last time
well .. before you give up .. you might think about (aside from the evolution debate) how it is now scientifically proven that all life is triune and derives from a source of intelligence . . . I would call this going from point A to B
Edited by dadman, : No reason given.
Edited by dadman, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by PlanManStan, posted 12-16-2013 5:10 PM PlanManStan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 9:26 PM dadman has replied
 Message 40 by PlanManStan, posted 02-19-2014 9:27 PM dadman has not replied
 Message 53 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2014 1:25 AM dadman has not replied
 Message 126 by Ed67, posted 04-17-2014 12:06 AM dadman has not replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 39 of 638 (720038)
02-19-2014 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by dadman
02-19-2014 9:17 PM


Re: For the last time
it is now scientifically proven
Science does not deal in "proof." The highest level of explanation in science is the theory.
So, could you please explain which theory you are referring to so that we may discuss it?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 9:17 PM dadman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 11:02 PM Coyote has replied

  
PlanManStan
Member (Idle past 3687 days)
Posts: 73
Joined: 12-12-2013


Message 40 of 638 (720039)
02-19-2014 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by dadman
02-19-2014 9:17 PM


Re: For the last time
How? Where? Who? These are all important questions

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 9:17 PM dadman has not replied

  
dadman
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 45
From: wichita Kansas USA
Joined: 02-19-2014


Message 41 of 638 (720044)
02-19-2014 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by Coyote
02-19-2014 9:26 PM


Re: For the last time
"So, could you please explain which theory you are referring to so that we may discuss it?"
first of all .. you have to display the three elements of life .. matter / energy and ... xxx

This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 9:26 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:14 PM dadman has replied
 Message 45 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-19-2014 11:24 PM dadman has not replied
 Message 52 by Pressie, posted 02-20-2014 1:22 AM dadman has not replied
 Message 71 by frako, posted 02-21-2014 9:15 AM dadman has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 42 of 638 (720046)
02-19-2014 11:14 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dadman
02-19-2014 11:02 PM


Re: For the last time
first of all .. you have to display the three elements of life .. matter / energy and ... xxx
So what is your theory?
And perhaps a refresher on the definition of a theory might help:
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses. Theories do not grow up to be laws. Theories explain laws.
Theory: A scientifically testable general principle or body of principles offered to explain observed phenomena. In scientific usage, a theory is distinct from a hypothesis (or conjecture) that is proposed to explain previously observed phenomena. For a hypothesis to rise to the level of theory, it must predict the existence of new phenomena that are subsequently observed. A theory can be overturned if new phenomena are observed that directly contradict the theory. [Source]
When a scientific theory has a long history of being supported by verifiable evidence, it is appropriate to speak about "acceptance" of (not "belief" in) the theory; or we can say that we have "confidence" (not "faith") in the theory. It is the dependence on verifiable data and the capability of testing that distinguish scientific theories from matters of faith.

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 11:02 PM dadman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 11:16 PM Coyote has replied

  
dadman
Member (Idle past 3661 days)
Posts: 45
From: wichita Kansas USA
Joined: 02-19-2014


Message 43 of 638 (720047)
02-19-2014 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by Coyote
02-19-2014 11:14 PM


Re: For the last time
don't make this more difficult than it needs to be . . . truth is very simple
do you know the third element of life ??

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:14 PM Coyote has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by Coyote, posted 02-19-2014 11:20 PM dadman has replied

  
Coyote
Member (Idle past 2106 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 44 of 638 (720049)
02-19-2014 11:20 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by dadman
02-19-2014 11:16 PM


Re: For the last time
truth is very simple
Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source
do you know the third element of life ??
Presumably you will enlighten us?

Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
Belief gets in the way of learning--Robert A. Heinlein
How can I possibly put a new idea into your heads, if I do not first remove your delusions?--Robert A. Heinlein
It's not what we don't know that hurts, it's what we know that ain't so--Will Rogers
If I am entitled to something, someone else is obliged to pay--Jerry Pournelle
If a religion's teachings are true, then it should have nothing to fear from science...--dwise1

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 11:16 PM dadman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 11:24 PM Coyote has replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


(3)
Message 45 of 638 (720050)
02-19-2014 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by dadman
02-19-2014 11:02 PM


Re: For the last time
first of all .. you have to display the three elements of life .. matter / energy and ... xxx
I looked up xxx on the internet. Well, that was interesting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by dadman, posted 02-19-2014 11:02 PM dadman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024