Evolution, maybe someone can explain?

[leroy]

I have given them multiple times now.
I'm done playing your silly games.

You where asked to provide a criteria or test that all fishes pass and all non fishes fail.


Even by your own admission you failed to provide that test.

Learned more; gained an understanding of the mechanisms involved.

There was a time we didn't understand day vs night, the seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis. We attributed them to divine magic.
Now we've "worked out the details," and God has retreated as a factor. Religious apologists have abandoned these "proofs" and moved on to the current vanguards of science.

Yes theist where wrong with volcanos in the past..... Therefore they must also be wrong with the FT argument and other modern arguments.

Can any expert in logical fallacies tell me what is the name of that fallacy?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Given that you keep circumventing my y point I must be making a very good argument

Given that you keep talking about mere hypotheticals as if they aren't hypotheticals, I'm guessing the opposite is true.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You where asked to provide a criteria or test that all fishes pass and all non fishes fail.
Even by your own admission you failed to provide that test.

I 'admitted' to no such thing and provided you with ample definitions and links.
You are arguing in extremely bad faith again. Everybody here knows it. Except a handful of posters who like you suffer from selective amnesia.

Yes theist where wrong with volcanos in the past..... Therefore they must also be wrong with the FT argument and other modern arguments.
Can any expert in logical fallacies tell me what is the name of that fallacy?

"FT and other modern arguments" are themselves cesspools of logical fallacies.

 

[YoursTrue]

Learned more; gained an understanding of the mechanisms involved.

There was a time we didn't understand day vs night, the seasons, volcanoes, earthquakes, tsunamis. We attributed them to divine magic.
Now we've "worked out the details," and God has retreated as a factor. Religious apologists have abandoned these "proofs" and moved on to the current vanguards of science.

At this point there is simply nothing a person can say (that includes people like Hawkins and similar others) that can demonstrably show or prove there is no God or Intelligent Force enabling life. And I thank you all for your comments.

 

[Valjean]

At this point there is simply nothing a person can say (that includes people like Hawkins and similar others) that can demonstrably show or prove there is no God or Intelligent Force enabling life. And I thank you all for your comments.

None of us is trying to prove there is no god. Being unconvinced entails no burden of proof. You're the one claiming the thing exists. The burden is yours.
The rational position regarding an unevidenced claim is deferred belief.
Belief in an unevidenced thing is not rational.

 

[YoursTrue]

Given that you keep talking about mere hypotheticals as if they aren't hypotheticals, I'm guessing the opposite is true.

Given that I can follow what scientists may surmise about evolution does not mean I accept everything they say about the process as true.

 

[YoursTrue]

None of us is trying to prove there is no god. Being unconvinced entails no burden of proof. You're the one claiming the thing exists. The burden is yours.
The rational position regarding an unevidenced claim is deferred belief.
Belief in an unevidenced thing is not rational.

Actually it is not my burden to prove or demonstrate that God exists. I certainly did not until certain things happened in my life. Yes, the question of evolution does not take into account whether there is or is not a Higher Intelligent Power. But from what I have read in these posts here as well as others, I have come to better recognize that there IS a God with power, not all can or will ever be (in my opinion) explained by science.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Given that I can follow what scientists may surmise about evolution does not mean I accept everything they say about the process as true.

Your posts indicate that you actually are unable to follow what science knows and understands about evolution.

Why else would you insist on repeating the same mistakes that have been corrected ad nauseum for at least 3 years by yours truly and plenty of others...........

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Actually it is not my burden to prove or demonstrate that God exists.

It actually is, if you wish to use it as a counter argument, or plain argument, for or against anything.

Yes, the question of evolution does not take into account whether there is or is not a Higher Intelligent Power.

And neither does it take into account undetectable gene fiddling pixies.
No scientific theory takes undetectable entities with no measurable manifestation whatsoever into account.
Because there is no reason to.

But from what I have read in these posts here as well as others, I have come to better recognize that there IS a God with power

How so? See, it's when you say stuff like this that you take on a burden of proof.

, not all can or will ever be (in my opinion) explained by science.

Yeah, neither will the undetectable pixies without detectable manifestation.
The reason is that there is nothing there to explain.

 

[leroy]

I 'admitted' to no such thing

Yes and I acknowledge your admission in my previous post………….so where does your accusation of arguing on bad faith come from

The implication of what you already admitted is that there is a subjective component to the definition of fish “a fish is what we decided subjectively to call fish” ………. You know and agree with it, but we both know that you will pretend to disagree and then change the topic and refute a straw man

"FT and other modern arguments" are themselves cesspools of logical fallacies.

grate
1 read this article on the FT argument
please A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument

2 quote the alleged logical fallacy

3 explain why is it a logical fallacy

Can you do that? ……………No? because you are just making things up , you reject the FT argument not because you note a mistake or a fallacy in the argument, but because you have a natural inclination to reject anything that contradicts your view……….

 

[leroy]

None of us is trying to prove there is no god. Being unconvinced entails no burden of proof. You're the one claiming the thing exists. The burden is yours.
The rational position regarding an unevidenced claim is deferred belief.
Belief in an unevidenced thing is not rational.

Sometimes it seems to me that avoiding the burden proof is more important to you (plural) that being correct (or holding the view that is more likely to be correct)

I agree that showing that there is no God is an impossible task , but you could in theory be capable of showing (at least to your satisfaction) that naturalism is more likely o be true than theism otherwise why do you hold naturalism rather than theism?.........................And honestly I think that this leads to a more interesting conversation rather than useless discussions on who has the burden proof

A theist could also use creative language to avoid the burden proof , I could say things like “I am not convinced that naturalism is true” and thus avoid the burden proof, but I see no benefit in doing that.

 

[Valjean]

Sometimes it seems to me that avoiding the burden proof is more important to you (plural) that being correct (or holding the view that is more likely to be correct)

My citation of burden, facts, and logic is a part of my effort to be correct and discover truth.

I agree that showing that there is no God is an impossible task , but you could in theory be capable of showing (at least to your satisfaction) that naturalism is more likely o be true than theism otherwise why do you hold naturalism rather than theism?.........................And honestly I think that this leads to a more interesting conversation rather than useless discussions on who has the burden proof

I've never hesitated to defend my opinion that naturalism is more likely than magic. Evidence for naturalism, evidence against magic, and reason/logic are all useful epistemic processes.

A theist could also use creative language to avoid the burden proof , I could say things like “I am not convinced that naturalism is true” and thus avoid the burden proof, but I see no benefit in doing that.

It invites the intellectual to proffer evidence for naturalism, just as the intellectual's skepticism invites evidence for god/magic.

 

[leroy]

My citation of burden, facts, and logic is a part of my effort to be correct and discover truth.

I've never hesitated to defend my opinion that naturalism is more likely than magic. Evidence for naturalism, evidence against magic, and reason/logic are all useful epistemic processes.

It invites the intellectual to proffer evidence for naturalism, just as the intellectual's skepticism invites evidence for god/magic.

Good to know, perhaps my impression about you and the burden proof is wrong, but my opinion remains, it seems to me that many atheists (perhaps not you in particular) make an effort to describe their worldview such that they avoid the burden proof, and thus “win” by default

It invites the intellectual to proffer evidence for naturalism, just as the intellectual's skepticism invites evidence for god/magic.

well what is your evidnece for naturalism ?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes and I acknowledge your admission in my previous post………….so where does your accusation of arguing on bad faith come from

The implication of what you already admitted is that there is a subjective component to the definition of fish “a fish is what we decided subjectively to call fish” ………. You know and agree with it, but we both know that you will pretend to disagree and then change the topic and refute a straw man

I can only repeat myself. I "admitted" no such thing.

grate
1 read this article on the FT argument
please A Reasonable Little Question: A Formulation of the Fine-Tuning Argument

2 quote the alleged logical fallacy

3 explain why is it a logical fallacy

Can you do that? ……………No? because you are just making things up , you reject the FT argument not because you note a mistake or a fallacy in the argument, but because you have a natural inclination to reject anything that contradicts your view……….

Create a thread about it and I, as I'm sure several others, will be happy to point out the flaws in it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I agree that showing that there is no God is an impossible task , but you could in theory be capable of showing (at least to your satisfaction) that naturalism is more likely o be true than theism otherwise why do you hold naturalism rather than theism?

Personally, I don't "hold" to naturalism per say.
At best I would say that my current views are compatible with it. But only in the sense that I currently see no reason or evidence to believe that there is something else going on then mere natural forces in the universe.

So it's not so much a position of arguing that "naturalism is more likely true then theism". It's more like a position of "I have no reason to believe theism".
Naturalism though, in the sense that "only natural forces are at work in the universe" becomes the stance by default if and when you have no beliefs in non-natural things or forces in the universe.

But again, I wouldn't say that I have a dogmatic commitment to it.
It just so happens that I currently have no reason to believe in any non-natural things or forces in the universe (be it theism or anything else).

Meanwhile, natural things / forces are demonstrably at work in the universe.
And if I currently have no beliefs in any non-natural things / forces, then this currently means that I presently only accept natural things / forces to be at work.

But again, I don't reject them a priori at face value. So insofar that I am a naturalist, I'm currently only a naturalist by necessity, not by dogma.

.........................And honestly I think that this leads to a more interesting conversation rather than useless discussions on who has the burden proof

It's not useless at all. See above.
Naturalism is something we all agree on, at least to the extent that there ARE natural things / forces at work in the universe.
So to move on from that, one necessarily has to claim that there is something EXTRA present in the universe.
So it is naturalism + theism. Natural forces PLUS theistic forces.
The one who proposes that "extra" stuff, has a burden of proof to support that extra stuff.

I would say that the idea that there are natural forces at work in the universe, has been demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction by now, wouldn't you?
The claim has already met its burden of proof.

So if you wish to add to that, you're going to have the burden of proof for those extra things.
Failing to meet that burden, means we fall back on only the natural stuff being properly supported.

A theist could also use creative language to avoid the burden proof , I could say things like “I am not convinced that naturalism is true” and thus avoid the burden proof, but I see no benefit in doing that.

Likely because it is a pretty silly thing to do, to deny that there are natural forces and things at play in the universe.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Good to know, perhaps my impression about you and the burden proof is wrong, but my opinion remains, it seems to me that many atheists (perhaps not you in particular) make an effort to describe their worldview such that they avoid the burden proof, and thus “win” by default

This is probably because you don't actually understand the atheist position. Or insist on strawmanning it, off course.


My atheism is not defined by any particular claim.
It is defined by me not being convinced by the claims of theism. That's it.
My atheism is not a claim by itself.

 

[Valjean]

Good to know, perhaps my impression about you and the burden proof is wrong, but my opinion remains, it seems to me that many atheists (perhaps not you in particular) make an effort to describe their worldview such that they avoid the burden proof, and thus “win” by default

You're not actually wrong in this point, though I disagree with the evasive intention. The logical default position for any claim is skepticism or deferred belief.
You start out a blank slate. Only when convincing evidence is adduced is it reasonable to believe. That's where the burden comes in. The believer is the one making a claim. The non-believer is maintaining the default. If the claimant can make a good case the skeptic will believe. If not, the skeptic maintains the original default position of non-belief He has nothing to prove and nothing to defend.

well what is your evidnece for naturalism ?

Chemistry works. it's mechanisms are observable and known to be responsible for all the physiological processes we know of. We can manipulate chemistry and watch cellular components form.
Natural selection and the other mechanisms of evolution are familiar, observable, productive, and have been used for millennia in farming and husbandry. They work.
No other workable mechanisms are known; certainly not the magic poofing proposed by creationists.

 

[leroy]

I can only repeat myself. I "admitted" no such thing.

Yes a few post ago you admitted that there is not an objective test o criteria that all fishes pass and all non fishes fa

 

[leroy]

Personally, I don't "hold" to naturalism per say.
At best I would say that my current views are compatible with it. But only in the sense that I currently see no reason or evidence to believe that there is something else going on then mere natural forces in the universe.

So it's not so much a position of arguing that "naturalism is more likely true then theism". It's more like a position of "I have no reason to believe theism".
Naturalism though, in the sense that "only natural forces are at work in the universe" becomes the stance by default if and when you have no beliefs in non-natural things or forces in the universe.

But again, I wouldn't say that I have a dogmatic commitment to it.
It just so happens that I currently have no reason to believe in any non-natural things or forces in the universe (be it theism or anything else).

Meanwhile, natural things / forces are demonstrably at work in the universe.
And if I currently have no beliefs in any non-natural things / forces, then this currently means that I presently only accept natural things / forces to be at work.

But again, I don't reject them a priori at face value. So insofar that I am a naturalist, I'm currently only a naturalist by necessity, not by dogma.



It's not useless at all. See above.
Naturalism is something we all agree on, at least to the extent that there ARE natural things / forces at work in the universe.
So to move on from that, one necessarily has to claim that there is something EXTRA present in the universe.
So it is naturalism + theism. Natural forces PLUS theistic forces.
The one who proposes that "extra" stuff, has a burden of proof to support that extra stuff.

I would say that the idea that there are natural forces at work in the universe, has been demonstrated to everyone's satisfaction by now, wouldn't you?
The claim has already met its burden of proof.

So if you wish to add to that, you're going to have the burden of proof for those extra things.
Failing to meet that burden, means we fall back on only the natural stuff being properly supported.


Likely because it is a pretty silly thing to do, to deny that there are natural forces and things at play in the universe.

You are confirming what I said....you designed your world view such that you avoid the burden proof at all cost


But I mostly agree with your comments. If you personally haven't seen any good argument or any good reasons to believe in God or any other supernatural entity you are intellectually justified in not believing in such things

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes a few post ago you admitted that there is not an objective test o criteria that all fishes pass and all non fishes fa

I did not.