What evidence for God

[Commoner]

No need to apologise to me. If you can’t/won’t answer the pertinent questions nor meet, rebut and refute the core points...that’s fine by me.

I’m just wondering if the (collective) propensity to repeatedly declare “how poor” and “logically flawed” this argument is” gives added weight to the inability to provide rational refutation?

The "work" of refuting it? Yea....if you want to claim with any credibility that it is “poor” or “flawed” then, yea, it is your job/work to provide arguement/evidence thereto.

Otherwise it's just an undeserved and hollow victory dance over something you have done no 'work' to diminish or defeat. " Please, you should know better".

(Have you noticed... the single most common feature of the preceeding posts is the propensity of non theists to put up a pov and then steadfastly refuse to respond to subsequent pertinent questions? )

Wombat, when your argue that this thing is somehow significant, you have to show how that's so, not ask me to show you that it isn't significant. Neither is it up to me to look at your list and add and substract from it or replace it all-together to make it a valid sample when I know your methodology (that is, copy pasting it from another source, right?) was flawed to begin with. That's game over right there, do you not understand that? I've shown you the flaws in your argument - hell, I've anticipated them before you'd even made the argument, I can't help that you are the only one that does not seem to understand them.

 

[atanu]

Imagine I set up an interstellar lottery, ---- Attempting to argue that it's proof of God that we won won't actually get you anywhere.

But you have set yourself up as that Supreme God.

 

[Wombat]

Commoner....Watch carefully....I will continue to answer your >every< point issue and question directly/explicitly....while you and every other respondent steadfastly ignore every point and question I put to them and then bung on about how 'poor' my argument is.

Wombat, when your argue that this thing is somehow significant, you have to show how that's so, ..

Done...With your reluctant heel draging assistance I showed the significance of the odds against any sequence ....1.....1.......1......1......1........1......in dice, horseracing, science or history of religion.

The “significance” was established way back in with you dragging your heels to agreement #915-
The >improbability< of two- three- four- five- six+ races in succession in which all horses running fall bar one in each race is >ASTRONOMICAL<. Stewards would be shutting down the race meeting by the second or third race and searching for the trip wire on the track or the guys with dart guns in the trees!

"Have I disagreed with you?" Commoner-
conceeding the significance of >ASTRONOMICAL< odds

The “significance” was established and clearly stated by Dan4reason-
“ What we do know is that this sort of thing is extremely unlikely in normal conditions. So therefore there must be abnormal conditions that are affecting all horses...” #927

...not ask me to show you that it isn't significant..

Not asking you to “show you that it isn't significant”...the odds/probability of such events occurring are already established and the significance thereof already known- “this sort of thing is extremely unlikely” the odds against it are astronomical.

You (all) are being given the opportunity to rebut and refute the evidence...and all anyone has to offer so far is lame facepalm, unsupported declarations of “poor” argument and evasion of all key points and pertinent questions.

Neither is it up to me to look at your list and add and substract from it or replace it all-together to make it a valid sample....

LOL!
>You< complain the list of religious greats was not “random” I offer you the opportunity-
Neither are they random. Numero quatro, your sample there was hardly randomly selected...

Go for it...Pick some religion runners that are up there with Moses, Jesus, Mohammed...and expose how the field could have been more diverse.#978

You ignore/refuse to answer that or >any other< point/question in #978 and now loop back to same issue. You bemoan ‘poor argument’ and provide nothing but dogged evasion.

Then resort to new evasive gambit expecting answers while you ignore my every question-

... when I know your methodology (that is, copy pasting it from another source, right?) was flawed to begin with. ..

1/ What alternative “methodology” is there when selecting the Greatest/most influential figures in the history of religion than to take >all< the founders of The Major Living Faith Traditions?
(expose the “flaw”- show the alternative)
2/ The >only< things I copied and pasted were a list of dead gods/dead religions (and doing so prompt the truly bizarre allegation- “You've taken H.L. Mencken's essay ridiculing the "dead gods"...” #964....??WTF??)....and the dates of the major religions...So again- WTF? and What’s the ‘flaw’?

That's game over right there,..

“Right there” with what? Asking a question to which the answer is- “No...my methodology was definitely not to “, copy pasting it from another source”.

What a cheap shot, baseless diversionary >FAILED< gambit that is.


“ do you not understand that? I've shown you the flaws in your argument”

No...What you have repeatedly done is TRUMPET how ‘flawed’, ‘failed’, ‘waste of time’ my argument is without once touching the core points/issues or answering pertinent questions...and I “do not understand” how you can think repeated declarations of how ‘flawed’ an argument is >without demonstrating or identifying the flaws< constitutes any kind of rational response or rebuttal.

- hell, I've anticipated them before you'd even made the argument, .

Can only assume this oblique reference attempts loop back to already thrice covered and resolved issues of odds/probability.

When asked and given the opportunity to explain and validate subsequent issues (“predetermined value” #978) you throw you hands up, refuse to answer, walk away...then walk back and repeat the process............Why?
If you have a valid objection stand and articulate it.
If you perceive a flaw clearly state it.

But trumpeting over and over again Facepalm, Doublefacepalm, ‘flawed’, ‘poor’, ‘waste of time’,'the game is over' ‘I saw this coming’, “I’m leaving, I’m back, I’m still not answering points/questions, I’m gone again’..........

Your >entire< arguement is a string of declarations >WITHOUT SUBSTANCE<....why bother?

I can't help that you are the only one that does not seem to understand them.

Ow...Ooo..Auch...I must be dumb...pain.

Let me know when you are finished trumpeting how flawed my argument is without being able to say a word as to how and why....if ever.

 

[Wombat]

Attempting to argue that it's proof of God that we won won't actually get you anywhere.

That's very good to know PolyHedral.

If I ever see, hear of or encounter anyone "Attempting to argue" >anything like that< I will be sure to let them know......:run:

 

[Commoner]

Your still trying to argue that my Che-Guevara shaped coffee stain means something, I don't know if you just don't realize it or if you simply don't care. Probability =/= significance.

I'll have to end this here because of your affinity to make half page long responses when qouting a couple of sentences.

 

[Wombat]

Your still trying to argue that my Che-Guevara shaped coffee stain means something,.

If my argument re probability/odds (previously conceeded by you/others) made mention of/bore resemblace to or had anything to do with your "Che-Guevara shaped coffee stain"...you might be onto something.

Alas...tis just one more of an endless stream of irrelevant evasive tangents that attempt to stand in for the absence of reasoned argument and rebuttal.

"I don't know if you just don't realize it or if you simply don't care. Probability =/= significance. "

You have, since conceeding the "significance" of such an outrageous anomoly in probability, had every oportinity to explain why it would not be significant in the given instance. You decline/refuse to do so even when questions are put seeking elaboration/explanation of your own pov.

I'll have to end this here because of your affinity to make half page long responses when qouting a couple of sentences.

Ah huh...When I respond in explicit detail to each and every point and question you put the complaint and reason for abandoning the field is that my argument is too big.
?
And some say size doesn't matter

You allways had the option of responding only to key points/question...but you chose to doggedly cut and ignore those, argue hollow "fail" and repeatedly advise your giving up/leaving.

Ok...........I will wait for the next Atheiest/non theist to propose- "There is no evidence for God.Period" and refer/link them back to this point and preceeding posts to see how Atheists ignore and flee the evidence.

Happy Trails Commoner.

 

[outhouse]

Ok...........I will wait for the next Atheiest/non theist to propose- "There is no evidence for God.Period" and refer/link them back to this point and preceeding posts to see how Atheists ignore and flee the evidence.

so far, I have not seen a shred of anything that resembles any sort of evidence.

Im not sure a open ended statement or a question can be regarded as evidence

 

[Commoner]

Awaiting the stream of support for Wombat's "argument"...

...meanwhile, Che-Guevara stain still not drawing any attention despite its improbable nature, strange...

 

[Wombat]

so far, I have not seen a shred of anything that resembles any sort of evidence.

#953-
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2412450-post953.html
#954-
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/2412452-post954.html

You can all make all the facepalms and "I can't see it" that you like....no one has stepped up to explain the two profound anomalies in probability nor to refute/rebut the argument.

All you all offer so far is lots of puff and wind and no substance.

[/quote]

Im not sure a open ended statement or a question can be regarded as evidence[/quote]


I'm certain that the evasion, obfuscation, refusal to adress the core points/questions cannot be regarded as anything other than as evidence of intellectual weakness

 

[Wombat]

Awaiting the stream of support for Wombat's "argument"......

What?.....You think tribal support from theists or tribal nay saying from Atheists is the denominator that will replace rational argument and save the day?

Typical....The "argument" is reduced to HeccleFest from the Sidelines and the Gallery....Drive by BlipVerts and OneLiners and facepalm emoticons.

...meanwhile, Che-Guevara stain still not drawing any attention despite its improbable nature, strange...

Many young males use their socks to avoid the Che-Guevara stains drawing any attention....perhaps you should consider?.

 

[outhouse]

so far, I have not seen a shred of anything that resembles any sort of evidence.

and so far your post are not evidence of any kind

open ended statements and questions are not evidence

 

[Commoner]

So much experience with young males and their socks, must be an interesting life you lead. Not my style though...

 

[RitalinO.D.]

What?.....You think tribal support from theists or tribal nay saying from Atheists is the denominator that will replace rational argument and save the day?

I'm sorry but neither your off the wall "Probability rant", nor your unsettling affinity for horses comes anywhere close to a "rational argument"

You (all) are being given the opportunity to rebut and refute the evidence...and all anyone has to offer so far is lame facepalm, unsupported declarations of “poor” argument and evasion of all key points and pertinent questions

Funny, cause after I gave you what you asked for in the list of musicians, all I got was "evasion", and then when you finally responded, dismissing the list as not up to your approval, you quoted a musician from the rollingstone list, apparently not realizing that 5 of the artists I listed were listed as more influential on the same tally. And guess what? You ignored that post too. Convenient? Yes. Surprising? No

You are guilty of doing the same thing you are accusing others of doing, and I think we both know what that makes you.

 

[Wombat]

I'm sorry but neither your off the wall "Probability rant", nor your unsettling affinity for horses comes anywhere close to a "rational argument"

If it is so far from rational argument then >one of you< should have no trouble in rationally knocking it on the head.
But thus far-
Quote:
You (all) are being given the opportunity to rebut and refute the evidence...and all anyone has to offer so far is lame facepalm, unsupported declarations of “poor” argument and evasion of all key points and pertinent questions

Funny, cause after I gave you what you asked for in the list of musicians, all I got was "evasion",

No...that is demonstrably false...if you like- a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts...a 'lie'.

An assertion that is substantiated by the clear evidence you ignore-
(Context...Established pattern of ignoring all pertinent questions even those seeking clarification of >your own< pov see #896.....all ignored.)

#958 response to musician list with emphasis on “Musicians in >all history<.”

“I took your advise and did with it “what I will”. Deemed it to be in interesting insight into your taste in music...but a begrudging belated narrow shallow limited and near useless insight into “greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in >all history<.”

Point and emphasis ignored in #959 with threat to take ball and go home-

“Interesting. You ask for something, you get it. It doesn't fit your idea of influential (I'm sure as hell curious what your list would look like), so you dismiss and insult it.
I'll remove myself from the thread before I lose my cool. Way to have an open mind.” RitalinOD

Respose #961-
“No. it doesn't fit >any idea< of influence over "history"...”

Still harping on about “influence” and steadfastly ignoring “over "history”...” in >all history”
RitalinOD #974-
“I'm not real sure of your train of thought here, as every single person I listed has had major influence on music

So tell us again about the “evasion” you got when you provided a list of Musicians from one period in history. Then go back and find your answers to #896.

Can you say ‘Clinical Narcissism’?

How about ‘Hypocrisy’?

 

[RitalinO.D.]

If it is so far from rational argument then >one of you< should have no trouble in rationally knocking it on the head.
But thus far-
Quote:
You (all) are being given the opportunity to rebut and refute the evidence...and all anyone has to offer so far is lame facepalm, unsupported declarations of “poor” argument and evasion of all key points and pertinent questions





No...that is demonstrably false...if you like- a deliberate misrepresentation of the facts...a 'lie'.

An assertion that is substantiated by the clear evidence you ignore-
(Context...Established pattern of ignoring all pertinent questions even those seeking clarification of >your own< pov see #896.....all ignored.)

#958 response to musician list with emphasis on “Musicians in >all history<.”

“I took your advise and did with it “what I will”. Deemed it to be in interesting insight into your taste in music...but a begrudging belated narrow shallow limited and near useless insight into “greatest, most popular and influential, Musicians in >all history<.”

Point and emphasis ignored in #959 with threat to take ball and go home-

“Interesting. You ask for something, you get it. It doesn't fit your idea of influential (I'm sure as hell curious what your list would look like), so you dismiss and insult it.
I'll remove myself from the thread before I lose my cool. Way to have an open mind.” RitalinOD

Respose #961-
“No. it doesn't fit >any idea< of influence over "history"...”

Still harping on about “influence” and steadfastly ignoring “over "history”...” in >all history”
RitalinOD #974-
“I'm not real sure of your train of thought here, as every single person I listed has had major influence on music

So tell us again about the “evasion” you got when you provided a list of Musicians from one period in history. Then go back and find your answers to #896.

Can you say ‘Clinical Narcissism’?

How about ‘Hypocrisy’?

Explain to me how Muddy Waters is more influential than any of the artists I posted then? You were the one that mentioned him, so I can only assume that you find him influential.

 

[elcazador]

che guevara coffee stain? what the **** are you trying to say?

 

[Commoner]

che guevara coffee stain? what the **** are you trying to say?

That the improbability of something does not imply significance even if after the fact our minds can find some sort of pattern in that particular event/distribution/whatever. A hand of texas hold'em consisting of cards of all red suit with each subsequent card being exactly two ranks above the preceeding one (2h 4d 6h 8d Th) is still just a junky hand, no matter how many (actual) patterns we can find in it and no matter how improbable that exact hand is (that exact hand (or any other exact hand) is actually 4 times less likely than a royal flush), because the significance of these patterns in texas hold'em had not been extablished before the hand was dealt. Any unique combination of cards is just as unlikely as another and we'll be able to find a pattern in most of them.

Some sort of distribution of religious "greats" could have easily been another pattern I could point out that would be a "fun fact". Otherwise I could, for instance, argue that since the probability of coffee landing on my shirt in the exact way it did (which is "astronomically low", as some people like to put it) and that since I can point out this pattern it had created - Che Guevara (or anything else), there must be a Che Guevara fan spirit doing this and that this warrants further investigation. And people do that, only it's usually someone even more popular like Jesus or Elvis. Improbable =/= significant. Not that the distribution in Wombat's argument has been shown to even be improbable - which would have been a futile exercise anyway.

 

[Wombat]

That the improbability of something does not imply significance even if after the fact our minds can find some sort of pattern in that particular event/distribution/whatever.

Oh yea...the “improbability of something” such as rolling Deuce six times or all horses bar one falling in six races “does not imply significance even if after the fact our minds can find some sort of pattern in that particular event/distribution/whatever”.:areyoucra
And that explains why Atheists did not agree that such events would have race Stewards searching for causes of knobbled horses or Casino Security taking the guy who rolls six consecutive Deuce for a long walk off a short pier.:flirt:

A hand of texas hold'em....

Is a game in which the player CAN and is REQUIRED TO make ongoing conscious assessment of EVER SHIFTING ODDS AS THE GAME TRANSPIRES...and is completely and utterly irrelevant to the static odds of rolling six consecutive dice to the same value.

Some sort of distribution of religious "greats" could have easily been another pattern I could point out that would be a "fun fact".

That "fun fact" “distribution of religious "greats" has been pointed out as a >numerical and statistical improbability<....>not< a case of- “Hey Dad, that cloud looks like a rabbit” pattern recognition.
Over ten thousand years, with thousands of other man made religions in each era that statistically should have given us singularities, pairs, clusters and groups...we get-
..Krishna (1)...Moses(1)...Zoroaster(1)....Buddha(1)....Jesus(1)....Mohammed(1).....
A numerical and statistical anomaly in probability.......not a coffee stain that looks like something.

Otherwise I could, for instance, argue that since the probability of coffee landing on my shirt in the exact way it did...

The only way your analogy would have any relevance is if repeatedly randomly thrown coffee produced the >same image stain< six times in a row!
>Then< your analogy would be in the same probability ball park.

Not that the distribution in Wombat's argument has been shown to even be improbable –

Oh of course not! No...Not “improbable” at all! On the race track it happens all the time, all the horses fall except one, race after race after race....the Stewards don’t even bat an eyelid it’s so common! And in the Casino? Well...If you roll six sequential Deuce the nice man from Security comes to see if you would like a nice cup of tea!:areyoucra
Over the ten thousand years of recorded history we are used to seeing the greatest Authors, Scientists and Generals as > isolated singularities<...they never come in pairs, clusters and groups do they!? Their lives >never< overlap! :flirt:

which would have been a futile exercise anyway.

‘futile exercise’ is trying to pretend that a single coffee stain that maybe looks like someone is comparable to rolling a dice and having it come up ... 1......1.......1......1.......1........1... as the only pattern for religious greats.

 

[Wombat]

You know....the more I think about it the more I like your analogy Commoner-

A hundred maybe a thousand individuals in the period near pre history stand with vessels of hot bean and berry juice...each one hopes to come up with an image so appealing that others will believe and buy into it. Each one has seen the Shaman and knows his position, power, wealth and status and wants to create something of equal or greater value...for themselves.
So each takes a mouthful and spits and sprays it on the cloth of the times...the fabric of history. Some spray a stain that looks like a promise of eternal revelry in the great hall of the warrior kings. That&#8217;s an appealing splatter...the boys like that. Others spray what looks like goddesses of love and fertility, others images of power and wealth/supernatural and temporal. Some Kings among them spray with unrivalled authority- &#8220;I am God, my word is God...none shall defy me on pain of death&#8221;
And all these sprayed images have their appeal or their enforced authority and leave their stain on the fabric of history.....for a little while...then fade to nothing. They don&#8217;t even look like fallen dead horses...they are little more than a barely remembered name of a spat out image of a god.

Against all odds one and only one individual makes an enduring mark on the cloth...the image has striking features...and people identify it and identify with it. It lives, lasts and endures.

Now cut and paste that outline six times over Commoner...and each time calculate the odds of the same scenario repeating and the same image coming up.

A hundred thousand Authors/philosophers weave stories throughout history and humanity treasures and stores &#8216;the great ones&#8217; ...from great Author/philosophers who stood alone in history, from great Author/philosophers who&#8217;s lives overlapped- in pairs, clusters and groups-
Aristotle 384 BC &#8211; 322 BC, Socrates 469 BC&#8211;399 BC, [Plato 428/427 BC[a] &#8211; 348/347 BC, Xenophon, 430 &#8211; 354 BC, Aristophanes. 446 BC &#8211; ca. 386 BC...right through to Jean-Paul Sartre 1905- 1980 and Simone de Beauvoir 1908 &#8211;1986.

The >Truly Great< figures in EVERY FIELD OF HUMAN ENDEVOR either stood alone or had >CONTEMPORARIES< who were >equally great< .

But not the field of religion.....religion stands alone among all other fields of human endeavor in that the >>Truly Great< figures in religion >themselves< stand alone and >HAVE NO CONTEMPORARIES<.

Because it is not a &#8220;human endeavor&#8221; alone.

 

[Commoner]

Oh yea...the &#8220;improbability of something&#8221; such as rolling Deuce six times or all horses bar one falling in six races &#8220;does not imply significance even if after the fact our minds can find some sort of pattern in that particular event/distribution/whatever&#8221;.:areyoucra
And that explains why Atheists did not agree that such events would have race Stewards searching for causes of knobbled horses or Casino Security taking the guy who rolls six consecutive Deuce for a long walk off a short pier.:flirt:


Is a game in which the player CAN and is REQUIRED TO make ongoing conscious assessment of EVER SHIFTING ODDS AS THE GAME TRANSPIRES...and is completely and utterly irrelevant to the static odds of rolling six consecutive dice to the same value.


That "fun fact" &#8220;distribution of religious "greats" has been pointed out as a >numerical and statistical improbability<....>not< a case of- &#8220;Hey Dad, that cloud looks like a rabbit&#8221; pattern recognition.
Over ten thousand years, with thousands of other man made religions in each era that statistically should have given us singularities, pairs, clusters and groups...we get-
..Krishna (1)...Moses(1)...Zoroaster(1)....Buddha(1)....Jesus(1)....Mohammed(1).....
A numerical and statistical anomaly in probability.......not a coffee stain that looks like something.


The only way your analogy would have any relevance is if repeatedly randomly thrown coffee produced the >same image stain< six times in a row!
>Then< your analogy would be in the same probability ball park.


Oh of course not! No...Not &#8220;improbable&#8221; at all! On the race track it happens all the time, all the horses fall except one, race after race after race....the Stewards don&#8217;t even bat an eyelid it&#8217;s so common! And in the Casino? Well...If you roll six sequential Deuce the nice man from Security comes to see if you would like a nice cup of tea!:areyoucra
Over the ten thousand years of recorded history we are used to seeing the greatest Authors, Scientists and Generals as > isolated singularities<...they never come in pairs, clusters and groups do they!? Their lives >never< overlap! :flirt:



&#8216;futile exercise&#8217; is trying to pretend that a single coffee stain that maybe looks like someone is comparable to rolling a dice and having it come up ... 1......1.......1......1.......1........1... as the only pattern for religious greats.

You know....the more I think about it the more I like your analogy Commoner-

A hundred maybe a thousand individuals in the period near pre history stand with vessels of hot bean and berry juice...each one hopes to come up with an image so appealing that others will believe and buy into it. Each one has seen the Shaman and knows his position, power, wealth and status and wants to create something of equal or greater value...for themselves.
So each takes a mouthful and spits and sprays it on the cloth of the times...the fabric of history. Some spray a stain that looks like a promise of eternal revelry in the great hall of the warrior kings. That&#8217;s an appealing splatter...the boys like that. Others spray what looks like goddesses of love and fertility, others images of power and wealth/supernatural and temporal. Some Kings among them spray with unrivalled authority- &#8220;I am God, my word is God...none shall defy me on pain of death&#8221;
And all these sprayed images have their appeal or their enforced authority and leave their stain on the fabric of history.....for a little while...then fade to nothing. They don&#8217;t even look like fallen dead horses...they are little more than a barely remembered name of a spat out image of a god.

Against all odds one and only one individual makes an enduring mark on the cloth...the image has striking features...and people identify it and identify with it. It lives, lasts and endures.

Now cut and paste that outline six times over Commoner...and each time calculate the odds of the same scenario repeating and the same image coming up.

A hundred thousand Authors/philosophers weave stories throughout history and humanity treasures and stores &#8216;the great ones&#8217; ...from great Author/philosophers who stood alone in history, from great Author/philosophers who&#8217;s lives overlapped- in pairs, clusters and groups-
Aristotle 384 BC &#8211; 322 BC, Socrates 469 BC&#8211;399 BC, [Plato 428/427 BC[a] &#8211; 348/347 BC, Xenophon, 430 &#8211; 354 BC, Aristophanes. 446 BC &#8211; ca. 386 BC...right through to Jean-Paul Sartre 1905- 1980 and Simone de Beauvoir 1908 &#8211;1986.

The >Truly Great< figures in EVERY FIELD OF HUMAN ENDEVOR either stood alone or had >CONTEMPORARIES< who were >equally great< .

But not the field of religion.....religion stands alone among all other fields of human endeavor in that the >>Truly Great< figures in religion >themselves< stand alone and >HAVE NO CONTEMPORARIES<.

Because it is not a &#8220;human endeavor&#8221; alone.

This is why I stopped responding to you directly. You throw out a page of nonsense which you then expect me to spend ungodly amounts of time refuting. This is not how it works, no matter how much you want it to.