A Modest Thought Experiment...

[Sunstone]

Would you care to join me in a modest thought experiment? If so, proceed...

Let's suppose there are two people, both of whom happen to be standing outside a bank at the moment an alarm goes off quickly followed by a heavily masked individual bolting from the bank as fast as a sprinting sperm cell. The two people -- let's call them "the witnesses" -- observe the man run around the corner of the bank and disappear out of sight.

Next, a squad car of donuts-armed police officers shows up to interview the witnesses. The first witness -- we'll call him, Mr. First -- states that the identity of the robber is a mystery because he was heavily masked.

The second witness -- we'll call her Ms. Second -- states that robber was none other than "Crazy Spuds Gallagher, the infamous bank robber and connoisseur of fortified wines". Furthermore, Ms. Second immediately advances her opinion that the police officers ought to believe her because she "is the only witness to the robbery who actually knows who the robber was, given that Mr. First has already admitted he himself does not know."

Now, the officers proceed to ask Ms. Second how she managed to recognize Crazy Spuds, given he was masked. But Ms. Second only responds that she knows because Mr. First has admitted that he does not know.

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

Please ponder that question for a moment before proceeding to the second post in this thread where I shall reveal the point of this remarkably fascinating exercise...

 

[Sunstone]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began? that, because the scientists have not explained how life began, life must have been created?



EDIT: After reading some of the comments in the thread, I have come to the conclusion that I did not make clear Ms. Second's position. I have edited the thread in an effort to clarify it.

_________________________
And now for some music...

 

[SalixIncendium]

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

Of course not.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Scientists offer theories, whereas Mr. First simply said he didn't know. He offered no theories as to who the robber might have been.

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began?

I see no difference.



Now a question for you... Why do your characters have the same names as your questions?

 

[Sunstone]

Now a question for you... Why do your characters have the same names as your questions?

Only the Good Lord knows for sure how that happened.... but mere coincidence? I think not! I strongly suspect DESIGN!!!!

 

[dianaiad]

Would you care to join me in a modest thought experiment? If so, proceed...

Let's suppose there are two people, both of whom happen to be standing outside a bank at the moment an alarm goes off quickly followed by a heavily masked individual bolting from the bank as fast as a sprinting sperm cell. The two people -- let's call them "the witnesses" -- observe the man run around the corner of the bank and disappear out of sight.

Next, a squad car of donuts-armed police officers shows up to interview the witnesses. The first witness -- we'll call him, Mr. First -- states that the identity of the robber is a mystery because he was heavily masked.

The second witness -- we'll call her Ms. Second -- states that robber was none other than "Crazy Spuds Gallagher, the infamous bank robber and connoisseur of fortified wines". Furthermore, Ms. Second immediately advances her opinion that the police officers ought to believe her because she "is the only witness to the robbery who actually knows who the robber was, given that Mr. First has already admitted he himself does not know."

Now, the officers proceed to ask Ms. Second how she managed to recognize Crazy Spuds, given he was masked. But Ms. Second only responds that she knows because Mr. First has admitted that he does not know.

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

Please ponder that question for a moment before proceeding to the second post in this thread where I shall reveal the point of this remarkably fascinating exercise...

No.

She has given them enough evidence to ask Mr Spuds where he was, and to ask Ms. second what she has against Mr. Spuds, but the logic doesn't follow.

 

[dianaiad]

Two further questions.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began?

_________________________
And now for some music...

But that's different.

In the first instance, you are claiming that Ms. Second claims that she knows BECAUSE Mr. First did not.


As far as I am aware, theists in general do not base their belief in someone else's non-belief. (I certainly don't.)

I come up against the opposite, more often than not; those atheists who claim that there is no possibility of a God because no theist can prove the existence of one TO THE ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION.

Both cases are illogical in the same way, but you have just presented a different illogical view; a non-sequitur or something close, by claiming that Mrs. Second claiming that she KNEW the identity of the thief BECAUSE mr. First DID NOT KNOW.

Er...do you know anybody who thinks that way, really?

 

[dianaiad]

Of course not.



Scientists offer theories, whereas Mr. First simply said he didn't know. He offered no theories as to who the robber might have been.



I see no difference.

You should. There is a huge difference.

A more likely scenario would be : mrs Second says 'I know this guy and he is thus and so because of this or that, and the fact that Mr. First says he doesn't know just proves I'm right."

 

[sun rise]

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

The answer to both is contained in the word "science". Because science is all about the testable.

If someone comes up with an idea it has to be falsifiable to be scientific.

I could say, for example, that Great Green Arkleseizure sneezed out the universe, but there's a vast difference between that thought and the "we don't know but we have a method of finding out". The later part of that sentence is, naturally, the key point.

 

[Sunstone]

But that's different.

In the first instance, you are claiming that Ms. Second claims that she knows BECAUSE Mr. First did not.


As far as I am aware, theists in general do not base their belief in someone else's non-belief. (I certainly don't.)

I come up against the opposite, more often than not; those atheists who claim that there is no possibility of a God because no theist can prove the existence of one TO THE ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION.

Both cases are illogical in the same way, but you have just presented a different illogical view; a non-sequitur or something close, by claiming that Mrs. Second claiming that she KNEW the identity of the thief BECAUSE mr. First DID NOT KNOW.

Er...do you know anybody who thinks that way, really?

Interesting criticism. I disagree, but I am grateful to you for raising it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

You should. There is a huge difference.

A more likely scenario would be : mrs Second says 'I know this guy and he is thus and so because of this or that, and the fact that Mr. First says he doesn't know just proves I'm right."

Yes, but that wasn't the scenario as presented, so I'll stick by my response.

But let's go a step further. Just because she "knows...he is thus and because of this or that" does not at all prove that she's right. She has zero evidence that it was him running out of the building.

 

[sun rise]

As far as I am aware, theists in general do not base their belief in someone else's non-belief. (I certainly don't.)

Me either. My idea is that God created the universe with certain physical laws that inevitably led to life. Science can tell us how the laws of the universe work and why they lead to life starting and I assume that they will eventually.

People and questions can postulate this exclusively or that exclusively, but I'm on the side of both.

 

[Sunstone]

As far as I am aware, theists in general...

But I am not arguing "theists in general", am I?

 

[SalixIncendium]

But that's different.

In the first instance, you are claiming that Ms. Second claims that she knows BECAUSE Mr. First did not.


As far as I am aware, theists in general do not base their belief in someone else's non-belief. (I certainly don't.)

I come up against the opposite, more often than not; those atheists who claim that there is no possibility of a God because no theist can prove the existence of one TO THE ATHEIST'S SATISFACTION.

Both cases are illogical in the same way, but you have just presented a different illogical view; a non-sequitur or something close, by claiming that Mrs. Second claiming that she KNEW the identity of the thief BECAUSE mr. First DID NOT KNOW.

Er...do you know anybody who thinks that way, really?

In my experience, there are those who say they know God created the universe because science doesn't know how the universe was created.

 

[Nimos]

Question, then. Has Ms. Second presented the officers with sound reason and cause to arrest Crazy Spuds for bank robbery?

No, just because the Mr. first didn't know, doesn't mean that she then does.

First, how does Mr. First's response differ in principle from that of scientists who say they do not know for certain how life began?

It doesn't as far as I can see, from what information you give. Assuming that Mr. first have nothing to go on at all, like whether it was a man or a female, based on their body type, how they were running etc.

Second, how does Ms. Second's response differ in principle from that of some (but not all) believers who say they know better than the scientists how life began because -- unlike the scientists -- they have an answer to the question of how it began?

In regards to those that think, that if X can't explain it, then Y must be true. Then I see little difference.

 

[Sunstone]

In my experience, there are those who say they know God created the universe because science doesn't know how the universe was created.

That's been my experience too. As well as I can recall, I've seen it at least several times over the years on this Forum alone. However, I did not bookmark those threads, and I have no intention of digging through thousands of threads to find examples of it, so please don't ask me too. You're free to trust my memory or not.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In my experience, there are those who say they know God created the universe because science doesn't know how the universe was created.

I recall more than a few Christian literalists mocking mocking science, but I can't seem to recall a singe case of someone postulating:

Science does not know how the universe was created therefore Christianity is true.​

Perhaps you could point me to an example or two?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

In retrospect, I think the thought experiment needs more thought.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That's been my experience too. As well as I can recall, I've seen it at least several times over the years on this Forum alone. However, I did not bookmark those threads, and I have no intention of digging through thousands of threads to find examples of it, so please don't ask me too. You're free to trust my memory or not.

Just visit the EvC forum.

 

[Nimos]

I recall more than a few Christian literalists mocking mocking science, but I can't seem to recall a singe case of someone postulating:

Science does not know how the universe was created therefore Christianity is true.​

Perhaps you could point me to an example or two?

This is basically what the fallacy know as "God of the gaps" is all about.

Quick explanation if you aren't aware of it:
The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

• There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
• Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.

It is important to note that while "God-of-the-gaps" refers to an argument from ignorance regarding natural phenomena (e.g., That volcano is erupting because the god of the earth is angry"), intelligent design arguments (e.g., A mousetrap is irreducibly complex and did not evolve by natural selection causes) are not necessary identical to the "God-of-the-gaps" fallacy. Irreducible complexity is an argument from knowledge, not ignorance.

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

This is basically what the fallacy know as "God of the gaps" is all about.

Quick explanation if you aren't aware of it: ...

I am.

GotG asserts God as an answer for the unexplained. It does not, as far as I can tell, claim that the unexplained is proof of God.

Put differently, it simply asserts that science does not falsify god,