Problems with the so-called "watchmaker" argument

Started by Sci Fi Fan, November 05, 2012, 01:16:33 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Eyesabide

Thank you Solar! I was hoping to have a good debate with this person.  Hopefully I will be able to remember this is where we left off.
Muskets High!

walkstall

Quote from: Eyesabide on May 08, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Thank you Solar! I was hoping to have a good debate with this person.  Hopefully I will be able to remember this is where we left off.

Just bookmark it Eyes.  But good luck with a good honest debate with SCI FI MAN .
A politician thinks of the next election. A statesman, of the next generation.- James Freeman Clarke

Always remember "Feelings Aren't Facts."

Solar

Quote from: Eyesabide on May 08, 2013, 12:25:35 PM
Thank you Solar! I was hoping to have a good debate with this person.  Hopefully I will be able to remember this is where we left off.
He will, but as Walks pointed out, he has no interest in real debate, he wants to change the subject, or ask a dozen questions in hopes of steering in another direction the moment he is on the ropes.
This is why he's on a short leash.
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Eyesabide

If he is of this sort, why is he allowed to stay at all? I am looking at this as an out of box thinking exercise. All in fun.
Muskets High!

Solar

Quote from: Eyesabide on May 09, 2013, 06:11:53 AM
If he is of this sort, why is he allowed to stay at all? I am looking at this as an out of box thinking exercise. All in fun.
That's why he's allowed to post, he allows people to exercise their intellect, instead of people simply agreeing with them, it challenges them, prepares them with an argument when they stumble into these idiots in real life, a virtual punching bag.
Even though he is 100% wrong, there are people that think communism is where we should be heading and debating him helps you clarify your own arguments before you meet the fools in person.
It's also good practice in recognizing when people try and direct you into a trap, which is his only style of gotcha debate, which is dishonest debate. He cares nothing about coming to a resolution or a middle ground.

Think of him like a virus, you're building antibodies against the next disease you may encounter. :biggrin:
Official Trump Cult Member

#WWG1WGA

Q PATRIOT!!!

Eyesabide

He challenged, I accepted, when he gives his logical formula that there is no God  I will respectfully present my response. If he chooses to accept that as an adult, we might have some fun. If not, you have already warned him to stay within certain guidelines, and he is aware of whatever consequence you will provide.

Muskets High!

Sci Fi Fan

#81
Quote from: Eyesabide on May 07, 2013, 04:02:15 AM
Sci Fi Fan,
               I have respectfully accepted your challenge to  formulate a logical argument (on the existence of God). The glove has been picked up. Present arms sir! Show me the formulaic basis of you proof there is no God so that we can begin this debate!

On a more serious note, I have found many formulas you might choose as your first shot.
           

Just a moment.

--------------------

First mistake: demanding proof that there is no God.  This is a violation of the standards of burden of proof.  Burden of proof always lies on the affirmative, or on the person making a claim.

In other words, you might as well ask me to prove that there are no invisible monkeys, or flying unicorns, or dancing horses on Mars.  I can't answer any of these challenges, so I suppose that this must mean that I should take the person who claims he is a alien from Venice seriously?

I can, however, demonstrate that the existence of God is ridiculously improbable.  Given that all religions start not based on any sort of scientific analysis or even basic observation, but rather on random myths and hearsay, claiming that your deity is real is a highly exaggerated analogy to playing in the lottery.  The only way you could be right is if you, by random chance, happen to conceive of a deity that exactly matches a real being.

In contrast, I know that dropping a pencil will cause it to fall because I can observe it.  That is the beauty of science: it's true for everyone.  That the force of gravity between two points is inversely proportional with the square of the radius is as true for you as it is for me; it's as true for aliens living on Mars as it is for priests in the middle ages (even if they do not know it).

With religion, however, haven't you ever noticed that nobody in, say, Africa independently discovered Jesus Christ before Christian missionaries arrived there?  If faith is a divine experience, why can't it be independently replicated, like science?

MFA

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 01:17:02 PMI can, however, demonstrate that the existence of God is ridiculously improbable.  Given that all religions start not based on any sort of scientific analysis or even basic observation, but rather on random myths and hearsay, claiming that your deity is real is a highly exaggerated analogy to playing in the lottery.  The only way you could be right is if you, by random chance, happen to conceive of a deity that exactly matches a real being.

Wait, you've just created a strawman or relied on an erroneous premise or both.  You presume that religions are based on random myths and hearsay.  This is in direct opposition to the claims of Christianity, which appeal not only to direct eyewitness testimony but also direct personal experience.  I can know something is true through direct experience.

You also presume that truth is based on or is only verified by scientific analysis.  This is demonstrably not true.

QuoteIn contrast, I know that dropping a pencil will cause it to fall because I can observe it.  That is the beauty of science: it's true for everyone.  That the force of gravity between two points is inversely proportional with the square of the radius is as true for you as it is for me; it's as true for aliens living on Mars as it is for priests in the middle ages (even if they do not know it).

You cannot, however, directly observe quantum mechanics or the effects of relativity.  You have to accept it on authority.

QuoteWith religion, however, haven't you ever noticed that nobody in, say, Africa independently discovered Jesus Christ before Christian missionaries arrived there?  If faith is a divine experience, why can't it be independently replicated, like science?

That's kind of a ridiculous charge since it assumes something contrary to a basic principle of Christianity--that God does everything in relationship and has enlisted his "Church" to be his "Body."  You can claim this to be convenient, but it's internally consistent.

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: MFA on May 10, 2013, 04:29:58 PM
You cannot, however, directly observe quantum mechanics or the effects of relativity.  You have to accept it on authority.

:huh:

...I'm sorry, this is such a laughable statement that I think I'm going to spare myself the trouble, and stop.

MFA

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 05:32:31 PM
:huh:

...I'm sorry, this is such a laughable statement that I think I'm going to spare myself the trouble, and stop.

Oh...so you have done the experiments and the math?

Please answer with a simple "yes" or "no."

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: MFA on May 10, 2013, 06:01:16 PM
Oh...so you have done the experiments and the math?

I understand the math behind special relativity, and have a very, very superficial understanding of general relativity.  But no, I did not replicate the experiments myself.

Are you suggesting, then, that because neither of us are theoretical physicists, our acceptance of quantum mechanics is no more scientific than your acceptance of the existence of a deity?

Interesting logic.  I suppose, then, that we can equate the acceptance of Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism to the belief in the existence of Thor, since both, by your (and I can't stress this enough) utterly incomprehensible logic, both are equally plausible.

MFA

Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on May 10, 2013, 06:15:53 PM
I understand the math behind special relativity, and have a very, very superficial understanding of general relativity.  But no, I did not replicate the experiments myself.

Are you suggesting, then, that because neither of us are theoretical physicists, our acceptance of quantum mechanics is no more scientific than your acceptance of the existence of a deity?

Interesting logic.  I suppose, then, that we can equate the acceptance of Maxwell's laws of electromagnetism to the belief in the existence of Thor, since both, by your (and I can't stress this enough) utterly incomprehensible logic, both are equally plausible.

I simply said you accept it on authority, which apparently you do, since you have not replicated the experiments.  You scoffed at the notion that you accepted it on authority.  But you do.

That was my only point.  Any extrapolation is yours.

kramarat

The only thing I don't really understand, is why do those that don't believe in God, live in such fear of those that do?

Please explain the threat.

Eyesabide

Welcome back, Sci Fi Fan!
          Thank you for returning to this. I asked for formulaic proof for the existence of God because that is what you seem to have asked others to prove the existence of God. 
          Am I correct in thinking you believe in things you can only see and/or conclude  through mathematics or physics?
          You have concluded it is "ridiculously  improbable" God exists. Is it equally probable that he does exist?
Muskets High!

Sci Fi Fan

Quote from: Eyesabide on May 11, 2013, 05:47:11 AM
          You have concluded it is "ridiculously  improbable" God exists. Is it equally probable that he does exist?

OK, let's look at it this way.

If I asked you whether or not invisible flying unicorns live on Pluto, you would probably say no.  Can you prove that invisible flying unicorns don't live on Pluto?  No?  Then would you be open to me starting a religion and trying to dictate political policy and scientific research on the basis that, since you can't disprove the existence of invisible flying unicorns on Pluto, they must exist?

The reason why we don't believe in invisible flying unicorns living on Pluto is that, although in theory we could construct some convoluted theory as to how they might existence, probability tells us that the chances of their existence are negligible.  Occam's Razor tells us that believing in such beings is unnecessary because it is not needed to explain any evidence.

So my answer is that no, it's not equally probable that god exists any more than it's equally probable to win the lottery as it is to not win it.