The "something can't come from nothing" argument

[ImmortalFlame]

Are testimonies used as evidence in court testable and repeatable in totality?

No, but they usually have to be supported with good evidence, corroboration and reason.

Are an affidavit's claims known to be true?

No.

Are multiverse testable or observable?

Ask a theoretical physicist.

Is abiogenesis?

Possibly?

Is macro evolution?

Yes.

If you want to be technical (as apparently was your only escape) is any claim ever made a certainty?

Did he say it needed to be a certainty? He just asked if they were testable.

If consistent you must credit claims of experience with the weight their numbers deserve or abandon thinking anything is known.

Wrong. Weight of numbers is irrelevant - what matters is accuracy and veracity. If a million people are all wrong, they are not suddenly right because there are a million of them. Or even a billion. Or several billion. Numbers don't matter. How many people believe something is irrelevant to whether or not that thing is actually true.

The truth of a claim should be established entirely separate from the testimonies of those that believe it. I.E: if something is worth believing to be true, it should be easy to demonstrate. Without demonstration, belief doesn't indicate anything - especially religious belief, considering religious beliefs are not mostly spread through investigation or rationalization, but through indoctrination, personal experience/revelation and by ingraining themselves into a culture or society.

There are doubtless many theists who believe what they believe for what they feel are good reasons - but to use the weight of numbers argument ignores the many millions who believe what they believe purely because they were brought up that way, are emotionally dependent on those beliefs, or live in a location/society where those beliefs are not only expected of them, but required.

In other words, your argument falls down on two major counts. Firstly by simply being a logical fallacy, and secondly by making the assumption that every (or even most) people of faith believe what they believe for good, logical reasons.

 

[SkepticThinker]

If truck and a drunk driver were not in sight just what sensory inputs were there. This is a naturalism of the gaps claim.
We could simply ask the person who's story it is. ...

Are testimonies used as evidence in court testable and repeatable in totality? Are an affidavit's claims known to be true? Are multiverse testable or observable? Is abiogenesis? Is macro evolution? If you want to be technical (as apparently was your only escape) is any claim ever made a certainty? If consistent you must credit claims of experience with the weight their numbers deserve or abandon thinking anything is known. Dang a double standard. They have wasted at least 10,000 words of mine responding to.

This:

No, only that he had sensory indications (conscious or otherwise) of the possibility that a wreck was going to occur. There have been plenty of occasions as a passenger when I have prepared myself for that possibility (either because of my driver's indifferent skills or hazardous driving conditions) without it actually occurring, and I suspect this is true for the teller of this story and everybody else. Most times the "premonition" is forgotten as soon as the journey has safely ended; only when an actual crash occurs does it in retrospect appear spooky and supernatural.

And this:

No, but they usually have to be supported with good evidence, corroboration and reason.

Plus, we actually need to do more than just ask the person who’s story it is, as we need more than just the one account from just the one perspective in order to begin to make any kind of determination either way.

Psychologists and neuroscientists are well aware of the various perceptual and cognitive biases our brains are capable of, as well the many ways in which our brains respond to and interpret various external and internal stimuli. So there’s no actually naturalism of the gaps claim happening here.

 

[Thief]

Psychologists and neuroscientists are well aware of the various perceptual and cognitive biases our brains are capable of, as well the many ways in which our brains respond to and interpret various external and internal stimuli. So there’s no actually naturalism of the gaps claim happening here.

And you are aware that all of your memory is actually a playback?

The short term memory fades fast.
The long term memory is a playback....with your influence of what you think you saw, felt, and otherwise perceived.

That's right.
Your entire collection of memory is a copy.
And it's not a pure copy.
It's adulterated by your spirit.....the way you think and feel.

There is a natural gap.

 

[McBell]

And you are aware that all of your memory is actually a playback?

The short term memory fades fast.
The long term memory is a playback....with your influence of what you think you saw, felt, and otherwise perceived.

That's right.
Your entire collection of memory is a copy.
And it's not a pure copy.
It's adulterated by your spirit.....the way you think and feel.

There is a natural gap.

Have you come up with a useful or meaningful definition of "spirit" yet?

 

[shawn001]

Maybe hitting the spirits?

 

[idav]

Not instinct.
Instinct...as per the typical animal...is a response to a sense.
They don't rationalize it....they just respond.
But none the less.....to a sense.

A scent on the breeze....a small movment at the periphery....another animal jumps....

What I responded to had no sensory input.
'something' from 'Nothing'

Not everything we do is going to be a conscious thought as it shouldnt be. We dont have to be consciously aware of the body constantly fighting for survival. That is instinict, humans are animals.

 

[shawn001]

Not instinct.
Instinct...as per the typical animal...is a response to a sense.
They don't rationalize it....they just respond.
But none the less.....to a sense.

A scent on the breeze....a small movment at the periphery....another animal jumps....

What I responded to had no sensory input.
'something' from 'Nothing'

If you responded to it, it had to have sensory input.

 

[Thief]

If you responded to it, it had to have sensory input.

Nope.....sorry....

Nice summer night....taking the long way home......no hurry...no worry....

 

[1robin]

No, but they usually have to be supported with good evidence, corroboration and reason.

And because of those requirements some of the greatest experts in testimony and evidence in history claim hey meet every standard of modern law and could even be submitted under the ancient documents procedures.

No.

Yet we accept them as valuable testimony used even in cases on life and death, so why are they only throw out if concerning faith.

Ask a theoretical physicist.

No need. I have heard them say as much at least for the time being.. With one possible exception that is based on assumption piled on guesses, piled on speculation there is no evidence for anything natural beyond this universe.

Possibly?

It is not impossible that it occurred but not a single piece of evidence or a single observation indicates it occurred. They could not even cheat and force it to occur.

Yes.

Nope, mico evolution is a reasonable deduction for the evidence but has never ever been observed or tested.

Did he say it needed to be a certainty? He just asked if they were testable.

He placed sciences burdens (which much of science betrays) on faith. My point was the standard demanded does not apply to faith yet faith in many cases can meet it, it does apply to science but in many cases it can't be met.

Wrong. Weight of numbers is irrelevant - what matters is accuracy and veracity. If a million people are all wrong, they are not suddenly right because there are a million of them. Or even a billion. Or several billion. Numbers don't matter. How many people believe something is irrelevant to whether or not that thing is actually true.

Will this mistake never end. Numbers do not prove they do indicate. Your going straight for no proof to of no use which is the exact opposite of what occurs in countless areas of study, law, and government. It is not proof or nothing. If it were no claim of any kind including science would be of any use, since they are not proven. No claim beyond that you think is certain. Quit shooting holes in your ship trying to hit my life raft.

The truth of a claim should be established entirely separate from the testimonies of those that believe it. I.E: if something is worth believing to be true, it should be easy to demonstrate. Without demonstration, belief doesn't indicate anything - especially religious belief, considering religious beliefs are not mostly spread through investigation or rationalization, but through indoctrination, personal experience/revelation and by ingraining themselves into a culture or society.

There are doubtless many theists who believe what they believe for what they feel are good reasons - but to use the weight of numbers argument ignores the many millions who believe what they believe purely because they were brought up that way, are emotionally dependent on those beliefs, or live in a location/society where those beliefs are not only expected of them, but required.

This does not even apply. My numbers were associated with experience not an intellectual consent to a proposition. If there were 6 billion people along the beech of a nation. 4 billion stick their hand in the water and almost get frost bite, 3 billion look at the ocean and determine it looks frigid, 1 billon turn away and insist there is no ocean at any temperature. Which group is in the best position to know. The claim from the data that there is no ocean is the worst possible claim unless you then add that the numbers of those who felt it do not matter. That is not how companies that survive based on accurate statistics operate either.

In other words, your argument falls down on two major counts. Firstly by simply being a logical fallacy, and secondly by making the assumption that every (or even most) people of faith believe what they believe for good, logical reasons.

None of that is true. If two reports go to a game. One said team X one by ten points and the other side team y lost by seven they are not accurate yet the fact a game occurred is a certainty or at least eh best conclusion. You attempting to use an amplification of uncertainty in order to dismiss in totality fallacy. Your claiming that since they disagree a little of the score no game occurred. That is what bias causes.

I say it over and over and it never ever gets through. I am not talking about those that believe. I am talking about those that have experienced. 10 people who went to the north pole and claim it is cold are of infinitely more value than 1000 people who theorize it is cold and believe their theory with going there. I have hundreds of millions of people who went to the N pole and say it is cold. You have a team who didn't bother to go trying every trick in the book to dismiss the claims of those that did.

 

[1robin]

It doesn't matter to evolution whether people are mistaken or not or whether what they believe exists actually exists as long as the belief enhances chances of survival. We have a survival instinct. Gather irrational and immoral "sheep" in "flocks" or "congregations" led by "shepherds". Have the "shepherds" tell the "sheep" there's a god with the power to grant them eternal survival but only if they keep this gods commandments and behave morally. Hence all the different beliefs in different gods and different religious scriptures. Whatever belief, if it enhanced chances of survival for the believers it was selected for. We even evolved a brain wired for belief so as to encourage gathering in these flocks.

Every single claim you made is unjustifiable speculation. Regardless I have no idea to what purpose it was made. It seems to be some invented premises lacking a conclusion.

 

[1robin]

No, only that he had sensory indications (conscious or otherwise) of the possibility that a wreck was going to occur. There have been plenty of occasions as a passenger when I have prepared myself for that possibility (either because of my driver's indifferent skills or hazardous driving conditions) without it actually occurring, and I suspect this is true for the teller of this story and everybody else. Most times the "premonition" is forgotten as soon as the journey has safely ended; only when an actual crash occurs does it in retrospect appear spooky and supernatural.

You must show that he by natural means sensed increased danger. Why don't you ask him instead of speculating.? If I lined up the hundreds of millions with claims similar to this would you actually sit down and figure some not impossible natural explanation even for those that have none. Non-theists spend a lot of time explaining away thing after thing without any justification for doing so. Only a bottomless cognitive dissonance would explain the effort to always find or created a way to dismiss a billion claims to the only eternal hope for man. Unless you and others are right for ever single one of the billions of claims I cannot think of a more wasted effort.

 

[1robin]

Not instinct.
Instinct...as per the typical animal...is a response to a sense.
They don't rationalize it....they just respond.
But none the less.....to a sense.

A scent on the breeze....a small movment at the periphery....another animal jumps....

What I responded to had no sensory input.
'something' from 'Nothing'

This is what I had told them your story concerned. As I said you not up against evidence. Your up against preference. Even if you had filmed ever aspect of this event they would still incessantly look for some way to deny only it's spiritual significance. The same way the documents on unexplained medical recoveries are done. The other day I was told Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was epilepsy even though it required several peoples conspiratorial agreement and one guy was miles away and restored his sight as per the same instructions Paul had received. Apparently mass epilepsy that was tuned to a dozen individuals occurs even if there are no evidence for it according to the skeptic.

 

[idav]

Nope.....sorry....

Your just being stubborn now. That's how brains work. We get input to move. Even if you think some Great Father spirit made you move still requires sensory input. When we are not conscious of why we take a certain action then it could just be anything? Hardly.

 

[idav]

You must show that he by natural means sensed increased danger.

Yeah, a person putting on a seatbelt is a good indication. A premonition would've been to say "stop the car" instead of "drive the car" as the person quickly straps themselves in.

edit: Did the person unnaturally put a seatbelt on. That's common sense and instinct, first thing I do when I get in a car without thinking. Must be angels.:sarcastic

 

[johnhanks]

You must show that he by natural means sensed increased danger. Why don't you ask him instead of speculating.? If I lined up the hundreds of millions with claims similar to this would you actually sit down and figure some not impossible natural explanation even for those that have none.

In the case of "claims similar to this" the natural explanation is a very good one. The way our brains work makes us very prone to (1) seek agency and purpose in whatever happens to us, even where there is none, and (2) select and elaborate memories of experiences that confirm our biases. Are you suggesting that people never have premonitions of misfortunes that fail to materialise? Claiming that the ones they felt when a mishap did occur are evidence of supernatural agency is to paint bulls-eyes around random bullet-holes.

 

[1robin]

Yeah, a person putting on a seatbelt is a good indication. A premonition would've been to say "stop the car" instead of "drive the car" as the person quickly straps themselves in.

Oh come off it. I have been in a hundred cars when I was younger that were going to fast and I without supernatural intervention put on the seat belt and did not say stop the car. Premonitions are not certain knowledge they are dreadful feelings, simple instructions, or fear. In this case it seems a dread of something unknown or quantified resulted in fishing a seat belt out of a hard place to retrieve it from and a general apprehension of a un named and un detectable problem. It turned out it was a wreck. Virtually no one would normally feel a bit of fear, and then stop a car on the side of the highway. Why are you so danged determined to appeal to anything that is not impossible to dismiss what is almost unmistakable. An objective atheist would say well that is interesting but not in it's self convincing and move on. The fact a non-theists must deny everything is a sign that if one ray of light is ever allowed in the whole house of cards might fall. It never ceases to amaze that nothing is ever given the benefit of the doubt even if all the evidence is in it's favor if it in any way makes God slightly more likely.

edit: Did the person unnaturally put a seatbelt on. That's common sense and instinct, first thing I do when I get in a car without thinking. Must be angels.:sarcastic

I don't. I do not think that state has the right to tell me how to be safe in that way. If I for no apparent reason do put it on, especially if I have to go through abnormal trouble doing so and then survive a wreck no argument you made is relevant. I knew another girl that in the dead of winter rolled her window down and she to this day can't think of why she was caused to do so. The car a few minutes later went off an over look. She was thrown out and every one else died. There are billions of claims that seem to make the supernatural the best answer going. What is it that would drive you to find a far less evidenced but natural cause for them all. It certainly is not the lack of a bias.

 

[1robin]

In the case of "claims similar to this" the natural explanation is a very good one. The way our brains work makes us very prone to (1) seek agency and purpose in whatever happens to us, even where there is none, and (2) select and elaborate memories of experiences that confirm our biases. Are you suggesting that people never have premonitions of misfortunes that fail to materialise? Claiming that the ones they felt when a mishap did occur are evidence of supernatural agency is to paint bulls-eyes around random bullet-holes.

I am saying there exists no natural explanation for actions that seem to anticipate unknowable future events. That is exactly hat I would expect if God exists and not what I would expect except on a miniscule coincidence level if he did not. It gets even worse with claims that have an entire series of events that must multiply together to determine the naturalistic probability.

I at one time was desperate for a correct interpretation to a core biblical concept. I prayed hours about it. In the middle of a long prayer I suddenly had the urge to turn on the TV. I thought that about the most ridiculous and inappropriate desire possible but I was tired of praying so either way I turned it on. It happened to be on a bible network channel and a preacher was speaking on the same subject I wanted clarity on. I thought that had to be chance. So weeks later I am back to praying for an answer and got the same urge but it was in the morning this time. I gave up resisting and turned it on. It was the same preacher on the same subject. Now I am starting to wonder but thought maybe some viewing habits I had were causing this. I mean I did not even have to change channels. I decided to do this one final way for certainty. I prayed in my car outside a Christian book store that I would ask the first employ I saw for a book on the issue. The person I met instantly gave me one by Charles Stanley (the exact person who had been on the TV both times). No win order to get rid of the only eternal hope for mankind you can concoct using intellectual gymnastic some ridiculously improbable natural explanation for this. However it would not be even fractionally as good as a supernatural one. It would be a travesty or logic but could still be used as a shield against faith if you started the story having already determined the conclusion based on bias.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And you are aware that all of your memory is actually a playback?

The short term memory fades fast.
The long term memory is a playback....with your influence of what you think you saw, felt, and otherwise perceived.

That's right.
Your entire collection of memory is a copy.
And it's not a pure copy.
It's adulterated by your spirit.....the way you think and feel.

There is a natural gap.

Memory is not just a recorded playback. That's the point.

Your memory of an event is subject to your own perceptions, experiences, world view, brain functioning, etc. and these are things we're not even usually conscious of. Or as you said, it's subject to your own influence. That's the problem.

 

[SkepticThinker]

And because of those requirements some of the greatest experts in testimony and evidence in history claim hey meet every standard of modern law and could even be submitted under the ancient documents procedures.

What? When did the greatest experts in testimony and evidence in history examine Thief's claims?

 

[SkepticThinker]

This is what I had told them your story concerned. As I said you not up against evidence. Your up against preference. Even if you had filmed ever aspect of this event they would still incessantly look for some way to deny only it's spiritual significance. The same way the documents on unexplained medical recoveries are done. The other day I was told Paul's experience on the road to Damascus was epilepsy even though it required several peoples conspiratorial agreement and one guy was miles away and restored his sight as per the same instructions Paul had received. Apparently mass epilepsy that was tuned to a dozen individuals occurs even if there are no evidence for it according to the skeptic.

First of all, that's a story in an old book that is not verifiable or testable in any way. It could be completely fictional for all we know.

Secondly, I posited epilepsy or any other number of medical conditions that are KNOWN (as in testable, demonstrable and repeatable) to cause temporary blindness, indicating that there's no reason to jump to supernatural explanations when there are perfectly reasonable naturalistic explanations available to us.

Thirdly, your story, if true, wouldn't require any conspiratorial agreement between players. The people involved in the story could simply be mistaken, and given what we know about the intricacies of the human brain, that's not such a far-fetched assumption to make either.

You want the story to be true (and contain supernatural elements), and are looking for ways to make it so. Why should we believe it even occurred in the first place?

I mean, take whatever you want from the story, that's up to you. But just because everybody else doesn't jump on the theological bandwagon with you, don't assume they're just pulling things out of their rear ends to disprove it. We have naturalistic explanations available to us, that we can apply to the situation with no need to bring in supernatural explanations. Why jump to supernatural explanations when we can't even verify the existence of it?