Science and God

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

*** Blind Post ***

Somehow, I knew it was Prager U before I even clicked the video. A pure fountain of religious indoctrination and scientific illiterates promoting pseudoscience, logic errors and indoctrination at its finest.

I can't even begin to wrap my head around the logic that "if it is astronomically unlikely that we are here, and we are here, then god is the reason". I can't even begin to wrap my head around the logic that SETI found nothing, so that means there's nothing out there. I can't wrap my head around the logic that we have no idea how many planets there are in our galaxy (let alone the universe) -- thus we don't know how many planets out there can support life -- so therefore, there is no other planet out there that can support intelligent life, so voila, God! The entire argument is utterly nonsensical. Prager U at its finest.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Testimony is not evidence.

I disagree. Testimony is evidence. However, it is not conclusive evidence as it is highly subjective. It is also the lowest and least reliable form of evidence. But it is still evidence.

For example, if I tell you that I experienced being slain in the spirit back when I was a fundamentalist, that testimony is evidence. It is evidence of something (Power of Suggestion? Mass hypnosis? Self-induced state?) though not necessarily evidence of an holy spirit, let alone that this holy spirit entered, touched, or anointed me. But all the same, that subjective experience and that "testimony" is, indeed, evidence of something.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Of course there is.. the internal 'wiring" the poster mentioned. It is personal and subjective, but it is evidence. Why would you demand that people deny their internal evidence, just because you don't believe in it?

In the case of experiences, I agree that our subjective religious experiences (and even non-religious experiences) are evidence. The error, here, is conflating "evidence" with "proof". Our religious experiences are evidence of "something" at work. The error is the assumption that the "something" at work is a foregone conclusion this "proof" of the supernatural. Moreover, the human mind is very faulty. I recently witnessed a shooting at the convenience store where I work. The thing is,what I remember is not what actually happened. My memories were faulty due to many factors, including emotional stress. Personal and subjective experiences ... testimonies ... are only valid or credible when they can be independently validated and verified.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Would you please explain that?

Not responding with the equivalent of stuffing your ears and screaming "lalala, can't hear you, lalala" when someone presents you with data or arguments that go counter your beliefs.

What evidence do you have for that?

The definition of "closedminded".

closed-minded
[ klohzd-mahyn-did ]
adjective
having a mind firmly unreceptive to new ideas or arguments: It's hard to argue with, much less convince, a closed-minded person.

How do you know it?

I am aware of the definition of the word "closedminded".

Have you honestly evaluated the evidence for that?

It's not something in need of evidence. It's just what the word means.

You know, been skeptical of it?

Why would I be sceptical of a definition of what a word means?

And been open-minded about how you know that?

When your argument concerns redefining words or ignoring the definition of words, then you really have nothing to argue about.

Go look up the word in a dictionary.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I disagree. Testimony is evidence. However, it is not conclusive evidence as it is highly subjective. It is also the lowest and least reliable form of evidence. But it is still evidence.

I disagree. At least, I disagree in it being evidence as the religious use it.
Religious testimony isn't evidence. Instead, it's claims.

Testimony can become evidence under certain specific circumstances. Like when 2 independent witnesses, without contact, both recount the same event with sufficient matching elements. However, as you said, it's also unreliable. This is why a single piece of independent objective physical evidence (like finding DNA samples somewhere), will instantly refute 100 contradicting testimonies.


But in religious circles, a guy claiming to have seen the virgin Marry appear to him, is called "testimony" and that word is then used in pretending that it is synonymous to evidence in support of the virgin Marry being real and that she appears to people. It is not. It is just a claim, in need of evidence.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It's not something in need of evidence. It's just what the word means.
...

https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
Even the word truth have different meanings and not just one.
Truth is not just the correspondence theory of truth.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
Even the word truth have different meanings and not just one.
Truth is not just the correspondence theory of truth.

The word under discussion was "closedminded". Not "truth".

Again, please at least try and keep some focus.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The word under discussion was "closedminded". Not "truth".

Again, please at least try and keep some focus.

So you are closeminded about the fact, that truth have several meanings and not just correspondence.
I know, you want to limit the debate to be on your terms about how to evaluate other humans behavior. But I don't play according to your rules, because it is fact that we can both do it differently.
So here it is for truth again:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
And for cognitive relativism since that is what we are doing:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

So you are closeminded about the fact, that truth have several meanings and not just correspondence.

Of course he isn't. But the meaning of "truth" is based upon its context. [Most birds fly. Most fish swim. Allah is real. The Death Penalty is wrong]. While "truth" may have several different meanings, the meaning of "truth" in each of these instances and these definitions are not interchangeable from one context to the other.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So you are closeminded about the fact, that truth have several meanings and not just correspondence.

No. It's just not what the point under discussion is, which is the definition of the word "closedminded".

I'm fully aware words have multiple meanings when used in different contexts.
The point under discussion however, is a specific word in a specific context.
In fact, the word under discussion happens to even be one with only one meaning in all contexts.............................

I know, you want to limit the debate to be on your terms

No, I just don't allow you to play your dishonest games of moving goalposts and obfuscating points into oblivion.

Well, I can't "forbid" you to do so, off course. But rest assured, I will call such dishonest practices out every single time.

about how to evaluate other humans behavior

The point under discussion is the definition of a specific word. Not human behavior.

But I don't play according to your rules

Or any rules, for that matter...

, because it is fact that we can both do it differently.

No. The word "closedminded" has only one definition. I copy-paste it from an online dictionary as well.
The word means what it means.

So here it is for truth again:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/
And for cognitive relativism since that is what we are doing:
https://www.iep.utm.edu/cog-rel/#H3

Not relevant to the point at hand.
Moving goalposts again.
Changing topics.
Obfuscating.
Dodging.

Dishonest.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course he isn't. But the meaning of "truth" is based upon its context. [Most birds fly. Most fish swim. Allah is real. The Death Penalty is wrong]. While "truth" may have several different meanings, the meaning of "truth" in each of these instances and these definitions are not interchangeable from one context to the other.

Well, from another thread, this post:

...
Which is basically what I said: wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality.

I pointed out that this is a rule and not a fact. Indeed the word "wrong" doesn't correspond to the commonly observable reality.
So some people use a rule for wrong, which doesn't correspond to the commonly observable reality.

That is my point in a nutshell.
It is a fact, that humans can do religion and can do "Allah is real". That you use a rule for evaluating that doesn't mean that I can't use another.
BTW "wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality." is semantics, because it describes how a word works.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

So back to this:

...
Which is basically what I said: wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality.

That is not a fact of the commonly observable reality. "Wrong" is not a fact. It is a subjective rule in your head for which I use another rule.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Of course he isn't. But the meaning of "truth" is based upon its context. [Most birds fly. Most fish swim. Allah is real. The Death Penalty is wrong]. While "truth" may have several different meanings, the meaning of "truth" in each of these instances and these definitions are not interchangeable from one context to the other.

No, not even that because truth doesn't have one meaning when it comes to reality, whatever that is.
https://www.iep.utm.edu/truth/

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Well, from another thread, this post:


I pointed out that this is a rule and not a fact. Indeed the word "wrong" doesn't correspond to the commonly observable reality.
So some people use a rule for wrong, which doesn't correspond to the commonly observable reality.

That is my point in a nutshell.
It is a fact, that humans can do religion and can do "Allah is real". That you use a rule for evaluating that doesn't mean that I can't use another.
BTW "wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality." is semantics, because it describes how a word works.

It's not a rule. It's just what the word "wrong" (as in "incorrect") means.

If "incorrect" doesn't mean: that which does not correspond to reality, then what does it mean do you think?

How do you differentiate correct from incorrect, if not by contrasting it against reality?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So back to this:


That is not a fact of the commonly observable reality. "Wrong" is not a fact. It is a subjective rule in your head for which I use another rule.

If by "incorrect", you don't mean "that which doesn't match reality", then I have no idea what you mean by it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Well, from another thread, this post:
"wrong are those things that don't correspond to commonly observable reality."

"Give me a hand, will you?"
"You hurt your hand."
"Deal me a hand!"

Its not that hard to understand that words have different meanings within different contexts. We ... you included ... do it every day. Refusal to do so is the insistence to engage in argument and be "right" rather than honest discussion.

"Abortion is wrong" vs. "Evolution is wrong" and "They serve the wrong god" have different subtle meanings, where one infers morality, another infers fact and the third infers belief.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Communication here is impossible.

I think I'm going to go teach my room mate's cat basic algebra. It would be more constructive than this.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

How do you differentiate correct from incorrect, if not by contrasting it against reality?

Where are correct and incorrect if you contrasts them against reality? If you contrast them against reality, then they are not in reality, because otherwise you couldn't contrast them against reality. Are correct and incorrect in non-reality, un-reality or what ever? If that is so, then what is that, not reality, and where is that?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

"Give me a hand, will you?"
"You hurt your hand."
"Deal me a hand!"

Its not that hard to understand that words have different meanings within different contexts. We ... you included ... do it every day. Refusal to do so is the insistence to engage in argument and be "right" rather than honest discussion.

"Abortion is wrong" vs. "Evolution is wrong" and "They serve the wrong god" have different subtle meanings, where one infers morality, another infers fact and the third infers belief.

I don't accept your version of truth and I accept that you don't accept mine.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't accept your version of truth and I accept that you don't accept mine.

Wauw....

This is a new low. Even for you.
How on earth can you argue that post without blinking and pretend to being serious?