Facts vs evidence

[Dan From Smithville]

He makes tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could that one day help solve birth defects in humans?

Biologist Michael Levin manipulates electric currents to make odd creatures like tadpoles with eyes on their tails. Could his experiments one day lead to medical cures?

www.statnews.com

You should check out the work done with Drosophila. Antennaform legs are legs growing where the antennae should.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

It's huge and glaring procedural bias. Yet for those who engage in it, it's blinding.

You made that claim already, and it was rebutted. If you don't care to address that rebuttal with counterargument of your own, that part of the debate is over. Debate ends with the last plausible, unrebutted claim or argument. If you wish to revisit the issue, I'll gladly field whatever you have to say about my argument and the specifics you provide for why you think its flawed.

Because it renders any evidence that does not fit into their preferred method of drawing conclusions, moot.

Critical thinkers don't ignore evidence. There is no evidence that does not fit into critical thinkers' preferred method of drawing conclusions, which is to evaluate all relevant evidence for its rational implications. When they reject unsound conclusions drawn from it, it's because they're unsound.

It's a choice that serves the ego and protecting "belief"

It protects from false belief, which is what makes the standards for critical analysis a rational bias to apply to questions about what is true in the world.

I think what they mean is that there is no evidence at all

I don't.

it puts them in the "cat-bird" seat. Allowing them to presume that all proposed evidence has to meet their subjectively determined criteria for what evidence even is, or they can reject it as not being evidence at all.

It does. All argument has to meet the criteria of critical analysis, but it is not subjective. The method reliably generates correct ideas, and no other does. The only other method for coming to belief is faith, belief by which I consider irrational and subjective.

Yes, I see it happening often.

What I see happen often is you and others making claims for some other way of knowing that reveals to them (in their words) spiritual truths, followed by them being able to name any when asked. That describes you, too. You imagine some better way of knowing without which others are blind, but can't show others a single one of these wondrous sights he sees and truths he learns. Moreover, when I look at the lives of people who think like that, they're unenviable and undistinguished. They don't seem happy or at peace. Many seem to be endlessly searching for something that they never find, and consider that a virtue.

I chose a different path, and am quite content with that choice, which is why it always seems like hubris to me when others are suggesting how to think instead as you are. Why do you presume to have anything of value to teach to others? Where's the wisdom of your words or the magic of their rendering in your life? Have you accomplished your goals? I have. All I ever wanted was a life characterized by love, beauty, respect, purpose, achievement, satisfaction, and leisure in the absence of anxiety, guilt, shame, remorse, fear and insecurity. I have zero incentive to try out what you recommend, and no reason to think that your advice wouldn't be bad for me if I took it.

Where would I start? With a belief in hell? Or angels? Or magic?

What for? For the world to make more sense? To make it seem more significant? To be able to navigate it more successfully? To feel more connected to reality?

Have you noticed that I never try to give you life advice like you do others despite feeling that I found my answers long ago? Why? You didn't ask for my advice.

That we can ask the question, "Does God exist?" but we cannot answer this question, demonstrates that it is logically possible that God exists.

Why would that matter? Do you think not being impossible is a reason to believe? If so, why stop there? Vampires haven't been shown to be impossible. Shall we go get some garlic, or should we wait for a better reason than "not impossible" first?

All our arguments are arguments from ignorance.

You're going to have to speak for yourself here. I never do that, and neither do most other experienced critical thinkers. I'll leave that to those who think that if gods haven't been shown to be impossible that that is an argument that they exist. That's an ignorantiam fallacy.

Science cannot investigate anything beyond what physically exists. And yet even the universe itself shows us that there is more to it then that.

That's a self-contradictory statement. The universe doesn't show us anything that isn't physical. You're claiming that physical evidence is evidence that there is more than physical evidence, which is an incoherent comment like married bachelor or belief via a combination of evidence and faith.

Nothing posited to exist that is also said to not manifest phenomenally, whether directly like the sun does or indirectly like dark matter does, deserves a second thought. That defines the class of unfalsifiable statements about unseen alleged realities - the ones that make not testable predictions - which are neither correct nor incorrect, but rather, "not even wrong" and fit to be dismissed without further consideration in accordance with Hitchens' Razor.

 

[osgart]

You should check out the work done with Drosophila. Antennaform legs are legs growing where the antennae should.

That's cool! Is that done with bioelectricity, or turning genes on or off?

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Yes. We humans are not comfortable with the unknown, because we have no control in the face of it. The idea that "reality" is something far beyond what we think we know and can maybe control, or anticipate more or less, is a revelation that a lot of people will fight hard to reject.

Some people, like me, are comfortable with what is considered unknown because it is an integral part of our lives. It is something that we experience every day, and most of us have experienced it for the majority of our lives. Conventional science cannot disprove what we experience, and neither can the Bible nor any other form of religious objection to our experiences. We can see, hear, and sense what is unseen by most other people. However, I'd like to point out the fact that believing in ghosts has become more acceptable in contemporary society, as have more people admitting to seeing the dead (see my post here for current statistics). In fact, it affords me the opportunity to share my experiences on RF, which provides me with a platform to share my experiences and is the only online forum where I've discussed my paranormal experiences, as I've done in several other threads (such as here and here).

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't know that you need science to be an atheist and I don't really see too many pure atheists here.

All I can say is that so far, we haven't found any evidence corroborating the actions or the presence of God in the universe. While I believe in God, I cannot demonstrate to you or to anyone else that God exists through any unambiguous evidence.

The existence of God is a possibility. But is a possibility enough evidence to render it an actuality? Is that the argument I would want to use?

The non-existence of God is also a possibility from that position. One that is equally likely as far as I can tell.

It is possible that a man accused of murder is a murderer that committed the crime he is accused of. It is also possible he is not the murderer and is falsely accused. Other possibilities exist. Perhaps he is a man of such guile and audacity that he committed the murder and placed himself in a position to be accused in some effort that will lead to the false conclusion of his innocence. In any case, we have only the evidence and the weight applied to that evidence to guide us.

Perhaps some questions cannot be answered and the only answer is in the looking.

Yeah, you are not answering.
"Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."

So how do you do that with science: Aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
What happens when you try to do establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method?
You know that answer, right?
Well, you look up the science theory of life-style and ethical outlook, right? Well, I google that and I got science sites just like the science theory of biological evolution.
In other words natural science is physics, chemistry, biology and life-style and ethical outlook.

So if it is a mental attitude you don't need to be an atheist, you just mean to do what it says: unreservedly accept the supremacy of reason and aim at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
So you are a scientist, so you know how to do that as science, right?
If it is science, it can be replicated by other scientists. That is the beauty of science. It doesn't demand on the individual so it doesn't depend on being an atheist. It depends if it can be done as science.

Now here is the problem. It has already been tried to do that in philosophy and it is not possible, because of what you already know. A human is physical and in part subjective, but what they claim, is that it is possible, because everything can be done objectively.
So theists believe they can do God objectively in effect. Some other people believe they can do what I have quoted. That is all.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Why would that matter? Do you think not being impossible is a reason to believe? If so, why stop there? Vampires haven't been shown to be impossible. Shall we go get some garlic, or should we wait for a better reason than "not impossible" first?

Vampires and any other creature or concept is irrelevant.
There is a reason why people prefer to ignore a "possible" God.
..just like there is a reason why people prefer not to.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Vampires and any other creature or concept is irrelevant.
There is a reason why people prefer to ignore a "possible" God.
..just like there is a reason why people prefer not to.

Yeah and your God is the correct one. I don't ignore that God is possible, I just get another result, when it comes what God is.
So consider this. If there is a God, it might be the case, that this God is not your God and in fact you are wrong. Now what that God then do, could be the standard of Heaven and Hell, but not like you believe it would be.

Can you even consider that as possible for a possible God?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Vampires and any other creature or concept is irrelevant.

Agreed, and for the reasons given, which apply to gods as well. That was my point. Mere possibility is not enough to justify belief.

There is a reason why people prefer to ignore a "possible" God. ..just like there is a reason why people prefer not to.

Likewise with vampires. There are reasons most people ignore them and reasons that some don't, but the reasons aren't equally reasonable.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

Agreed, and for the reasons given, which apply to gods as well. That was my point. Mere possibility is not enough to justify belief.

Likewise with vampires. There are reasons most people ignore them and reasons that some don't, but the reasons aren't equally reasonable.

It's my belief that no one—not me, you, or anyone else—can empirically or independently demonstrate whether God or any deities are real or not. No human being has ever searched across all of space and time to give verifiable and empirical proof for the existence of deities since human beings lack omniscience, omnipotence, and the capacity to exist everywhere at once. In my opinion, we (meaning you, me, and everyone else, including Christians) make decisions on whether or not to believe in God, in other gods, or in anything else supernatural based on the limited knowledge that we have. I also believe that any claims made by Christians that "God saved me and changed my life" or "I sense God's hand in my life, so I know he is real" are anecdotal evidence and don't meet the criteria for empirical and verifiable proof, just as my belief in multiple deities is only supported by anecdotal evidence and doesn't satisfy the criteria for empirical and verifiable evidence either. I believe in many different deities, while Christians choose to believe in one God.

As a Wiccan , I believe it's possible that multiple deities could exist, but I know that I can't provide sufficient empirical and verifiable evidence of their existence. By the same token, I can't provide empirical and verifiable evidence that the God of the Bible doesn't exist, just as, when I was a Christian, I couldn't provide empirical and verifiable evidence that he exists. And this is why I'm an agnostic, not an atheist, when it comes to the existence of God.

I can't say with certainty that I know that any deities exist or don't exist because I'm not all-knowing and all-powerful, and I can't transcend time and be in all places at once to prove or disprove the existence of deities. I wouldn't be honest with myself or with others if I said that there aren't any gods that exist.

In my opinion, if God doesn't exist, then my sincere belief and devout faith as a Christian were in vain, and I prayed to thin air. However, if God does in fact exist, then as far as I'm concerned, he is a cold-blooded, sadistic, insane, genocidal, and abhorrent monster—exactly the antithesis of what Christians claim he is and believe about him (loving, just, merciful, and a "heavenly father"). I believe that if God is real, then he obviously doesn't give a damn about me or think I'm worth the trouble of saving because he allowed me to suffer many years of abuse, neglect, mistreatment, and bullying while I was growing up or helped me cope with the PTSD and trauma that I've dealt with for more than 30 years as an adult. If God exists, he can go to hell, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah and your God is the correct one.

Do you think so?
Are you sure you don't mean my creed is the correct one..
..I assume that you agree that God created the universe?
We are talking about the same thing here?

So consider this. If there is a God, it might be the case, that this God is not your God and in fact you are wrong. Now what that God then do, could be the standard of Heaven and Hell, but not like you believe it would be.

Can you even consider that as possible for a possible God?

Of course it is possible that I believe the wrong creed .. but for the last 45 years,
I haven't found another creed that makes as much sense TO ME.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Likewise with vampires..

..but we are not discussing the reason why people prefer belief or disbelief in Vampires.
We are discussing GOD. A completely different concept.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Do you think so?
Are you sure you don't mean my creed is the correct one..
..I assume that you agree that God created the universe?
We are talking about the same thing here?


Of course it is possible that I believe the wrong creed .. but for the last 45 years,
I haven't found another creed that makes as much sense TO ME.

Yeah, that is the point. TO YOU as an individual. but that is it, it is you as an individual and then there is the rest of us as other individuals.

And, well if even a god created the universe it doesn't mean that is the God with all the rest that you believe in.
A creator god is not the same as the God you believe in.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..but we are not discussing the reason why people prefer belief or disbelief in Vampires.
We are discussing GOD. A completely different concept.

Not, it is actual a lot of different concepts. We just use the same word.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Not, it is actual a lot of different concepts. We just use the same word.

No.
There is more in common with various Abrahamic creeds than differences.
..such as perceived morality and sovereignty.

 

[Yerda]

Not without evidence of it. You don't even need science to be unable to support a conclusion when there is no evidence for it.

Ok, so my point is that science won't tell us anything about "guidance". Guidance or no guidance is an assumtion we make before we look at the evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No.
There is more in common with various Abrahamic creeds than differences.
..such as perceived morality and sovereignty.

Well, the problem is that there are other versions of God than the Abrahamic creeds.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

That's cool! Is that done with bioelectricity, or turning genes on or off?

Loss of function mutations in the regulatory pathway of the Hox genes that determine leg or antennae development.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yeah, you are not answering.
"Atheism involves the mental attitude that unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."

So how do you do that with science: Aims at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
What happens when you try to do establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method?
You know that answer, right?
Well, you look up the science theory of life-style and ethical outlook, right? Well, I google that and I got science sites just like the science theory of biological evolution.
In other words natural science is physics, chemistry, biology and life-style and ethical outlook.

So if it is a mental attitude you don't need to be an atheist, you just mean to do what it says: unreservedly accept the supremacy of reason and aim at establishing a life-style and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds.
So you are a scientist, so you know how to do that as science, right?
If it is science, it can be replicated by other scientists. That is the beauty of science. It doesn't demand on the individual so it doesn't depend on being an atheist. It depends if it can be done as science.

Now here is the problem. It has already been tried to do that in philosophy and it is not possible, because of what you already know. A human is physical and in part subjective, but what they claim, is that it is possible, because everything can be done objectively.
So theists believe they can do God objectively in effect. Some other people believe they can do what I have quoted. That is all.

People claim lots of things. Bigfoot. Dracula. Thor. OBE. Spontaneous human combustion. Pixies. The list is endless and only limited by our imagination.

If an urn containing the remains of someone's dear departed rested on the fireplace mantel for 10 years without being disturbed and suddenly falls off, is that a miracle? The supernatural? Natural? Did the spirit of the dear departed suddenly become enraged and cause the urn to be pitched to the floor, because it found out that the family was selling this precious place where the urn resides and the person that urn represents lived out their life?

We might consider gravity as the explanation given what we know. But how does a person that concludes the supernatural eliminate all the other possibilities, natural and supernatural, to arrive at their conclusion of a specific supernatural cause? How have they eliminated natural causes? How have they eliminated interference from other dimensions? Demons? Time travelers? Maybe there exists a supernatural agency that doesn't want to be seen, recognized, identified. How might that be eliminated.

All of those conclusions require evidence to come to in the end. Otherwise, it is just a belief system that has been rationalized into existence and sustained on faith.

If there is physical evidence or evidence that can be shared, then science could be employed to examine that evidence.

Pure atheism is no different, since it is claiming knowledge without evidence. In that form it is the closest atheism gets to be a religion as I understand it.

Agnostic atheism, that exists on evidence is not pure atheism, since the follower would believe if there was evidence to persuade them so.

Otherwise, I am not sure I follow you point.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..but we are not discussing the reason why people prefer belief or disbelief in Vampires.
We are discussing GOD. A completely different concept.

Actually, we are discussing evidence, the different types and that some things do not have objective evidence that can be used to unambiguously demonstrate their existence to others.

Vampires and gods are some of those things.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Ok, so my point is that science won't tell us anything about "guidance". Guidance or no guidance is an assumtion we make before we look at the evidence.

We believe in things even without evidence. Sure.

Attempts have been made to use science to demonstrate guidance, design and purpose in nature. They have not been fruitful attempts.