I’m sorry, but I have to tell you that this point is nonsense . . . or a strawman, and here is why.
You are referring to classical physics vs. special relativity, and how they are different from each other.
To explain why they don’t conflict, imagine the roundness of the Earth.
In classical antiquity, Eratosthenes was a theatre critic and librarian at the library in Alexandria, and he used the shadow of a stick, the reflection of the sun at the bottom of a well (and he also hired someone to pace out a distance between two cities), and geometric reasoning to measure the size of the Earth . . . and he was off by perhaps 5% or so.
So, he decided that the Earth was a perfect sphere.
Isaac Newton predicted that the Earth should have a slight bulge at the equator, which reduced the error from about 5% to maybe 2% or so.
When the Vanguard satellite was launched in the 1958, this bulge is slightly bigger below the equator then above the equator, which made an accuracy to about + or - 11 feet or so.
My point is that this steady refinement doesn’t mean that Eratosthenes was wrong. It seems that you’re comparing the difference between classical physics and modern physics like thinking that the Earth is a cube this century, a pyramid next century, and was shaped like a torus (or doughnut) last century.
Classical physics is a subset of modern physics, which means that classical physics wasn’t wrong . . . just not as refined as our modern understanding.
In other words, there are degrees of what is right or wrong. Right and wrong are fuzzy areas, not absolutes of black and white.
When NASA communicated with the Voyager probes around Neptune, the math worked out by classical physics vs. math worked out with special and general relativity meant that there was a difference of less than a second as to when the space probe arrived at a specific point.
Just so you know, these ideas are not my own. Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan made these points in their writings, as I don’t plagiarize.
Please see a copy of Asimov’s essay at the following link, as he expressed these ideas better than I do.
That an objective fact is no more reliable than an unevidenced subjective religious belief is risible nonsense. However let’s test your risible generalisation;
There is overwhelming objective evidence that the world is not flat.
Now please tell me which worldview I am using to subjectively interpret the shape of the earth, and what alternative interpretation(s) you think are viable and why?
Which method can be objectively demonstrated to be better than science?
Are you seriously saying religions haven’t championed the closed minded bias of faith? You’re wrong.
Straw man fallacy, since I made zero claims about quantum mechanics. Here’s a tip for you as I’m in a generous mood, best methods does not remotely suggest those methods are infallible. Here’s another tip, picking one straw man example we do not as yet fully understand, does not in any way suggest that it will never be understood. You see again that it is you who are oversimplifying in order to draw a mendacious conclusion.
What is the different worldview and interpretation of my belief that the world is not flat? Please explain how these interpretation(s) are valid? You are using Inductive fallacy by drawing a conclusion from premises that only lightly support it, by oversimplifying by implying that because all ideas must by their nature involve some subjectivity, makes religious beliefs that are entirely subjective somehow comparable to objective facts, and irrefutable scientific facts.
The worldview changed to accomodate the objective evidence, you’re doing it the other way around, and their ideas were not based on unevidenced subjective beliefs like your religious beliefs, as not only did their ideas have to be ratified by the global scientific world, and that a consensus on them be achieved based on the evidence, before being accepted theories, they also had to be falsifiable, as do all scientific ideas, otherwise they are meaningless, as of course are unflaisiable beliefs and ideas.
So how would one falsify the idea of the existence of any deity exactly, if of course it is untrue?
This does not mean there won’t be, and even were this to remain the case, it is of course not true of innumerable ideas that the methods of science has understood, put simply you are using one example to draw a risibly dubious and sweeping conclusion about the entire method, it is a poisoning of the well fallacy if ever there was one.
Subjectivity is a scale, it’s not either or, you are implying objective facts are no more reliable than say a belief for which no objective evidence can be demonstrated. Your example is an irrelevant straw man.
That’s a factual statement. One of the methods greatest strengths is the insistence that even the most objective irrefutable facts remain open to critical scrutiny and amendment or even be discarded in the light of evidence, if that evidence demands it. Unlike religion which will never ever alter the core dogma no matter how many of its claims are palpably untrue.
Look the words up in any dictionary, they are synonymous.
Then you either don’t know what those words mean, or you’re lying, I can’t conceive of a third option? Again the words theism and religion are synonymous.
It is not a straw man, as the words theism and religion are synonymous. Theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe, and religion is defined as the belief in and worship of a superhuman power or powers, especially a God or gods.
@CyberLN clearly did not say any such thing, and she used the words “can be” as a qualifier as well.
That is laughably untrue.
I have seen that very assertion from flat earthers, I remain as dubious about any deities as i do that the earth is flat. What subjective method you use to satisfy yourself that a deity exists, clearly doesn’t include any objective evidence, or you’d have demonstrated some by now.
It was a poor metaphor as many species lay eggs, this is what @Cognostic is trying to help you understand, your poor metaphor rather highlighted your poor argument. In point of fact an egg does not suggest a chicken, though it might if we had more evidence, you were oversimplifying again, it is a recurring theme in your spiel that is laughably implying your religious belief has any sort of parity with objective facts or the scientific methods that discover them.
I might not, and I certainly don’t need to do this in every instance in order to disbelieve. Again this is why methods like science rely on consensus, as that consensus is indicative that the evidence is sufficiently robust to accept an idea. Whereas the number of people who hold a subjective unevidenced religious belief like yours, tells me nothing about its validity, as they can demonstrate no objective evidence for any deity or that a deity is even possible.
Lack or absence of belief need not be based on knowledge, since lacking belief is the default position, I was born an atheist, (as are we all) and I remain so as I am aware of no objective evidence for any deity.
It doesn’t matter, any objective fact will do to demonstrate the point.
They’re not mutually exclusive of course. I can only speak for myself, and while I would rather people didn’t waste time, energy and resources on unevidenced superstition, I wouldn’t be opposed to such beliefs unless they were demonstrably pernicious.
I am not hostile to bad ideas or poor arguments unless they are pernicious, but I am of course dubious about them. Instead of answering each new generic ad hominem you’re directing at atheists, why don’t you:
demonstrate some objective evidence for any deity or deities, or failing that offer the best reason you think to believe a deity exists, and I will give it due diligence. You are again resorting to a poisoning of the well fallacy.
Nope, that’s an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. I also don’t need to know something is untrue in order to disbelieve it, for example the only rational and open minded position is for me to disbelieve all unfalsifiable claims, and remain agnostic.
A belief is simply the affirmation of a claim, that something exists or is true. Beliefs can be entirely subjective with no objective evidence at all, like theism for example or they can be based on objective evidence that is so overwhelming it would be unreasonable not to hold that belief. The best method we have by far for validating beliefs is methods of science. Religious beliefs are at the other end of that scale if the dearth of objective evidence is any indicator.
You can Google both words?
No you are confusing irrefutable with immutable, if the evidence makes something irrefutable it can be described a fact, nothing in science can be described as an immutable fact, as the method demands all facts, remain tentative in the light of new evidence, even where the likelihood an idea will be substantially reversed is so low it is effectively nil. This is in stark contrast with theistic religion of course, which for millennia has touted the risible notion it has immutable truth, even when the facts (there’s that word again) directly contradict their “immutable” claims.
You may not know what fact means, but you’re saying we can’t claim to know anything as that might change, I invite you to see how stupid that claim is.
It was once a scientific fact that continents did move, this presented a puzzle for some aspects of the scientific theory of evolution, then science discovered plate tectonics and continental drift, and the facts changed. This does not mean facts are unreliable, only that human beings are fallible and that even our best methods like science cannot be infallible, which is why science insists all ideas remain tentative in the light of new evidence, unlike religions of course which claim to have immutable truth, and cling to it even when scientific and objective facts directly contradict them.
Which of course is what you’re doing here, trying to decry science by oversimplifying to the point of mendacity, to imply your subjective religious beliefs have some credence, despite being unable to demonstrate any objective evidence to support them, because even scientific facts can’t be immutable. It’s not even an original argument, I’ve seen countless religious apologists try this mendacious old canard.
As I said, and you ignored, I’ll bet every penny I have you go to a doctor when you’re sick, and wouldn’t get on a plane if it was designed and built based solely on faith or prayer.
Be a dear, and give us your top 3 please?
So you can analyse its validity as evidence, but we can’t, I have to say that’s the most vapid and hilarious dodge I’ve seen for some time.
I think it is apropo to take a look at my first request for objective evidence of a deity from you posted after your first post, and your answer below it:
Your claim that the universe is rationally intelligible is not even explained, and I personally don’t know what you mean?
Your claim “there cannot be a material (or natural) explanation for the universe” is a subjective argument, not objective evidence.
Your unevidenced assumption that the origin of universe must be supernatural because you can’t conceive of a natural or material origin in a condition where the material universe we now observe didn’t exist (note we don’t know what existed) is both an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, and a false dichotomy fallacy since we are not limited to only those claims, an obvious and accurate alternative is that we don’t know.
Your argument contained no objective evidence for any deity of any kind.
That’s how I’d analyze it.
It would need to be sufficient and objective.
Could you define what you think fact means for me, as I am now convinced it doesn’t mean what you think it means.
Not at all, I read your long winded waffly post which could have been much more concise. I do not and did not dispute any of the facts surrounding the history of gravitational theory, what I did say is that Newton’s law was regarded as a law and it was.
What did I say exactly that you disagree with? can you quote me verbatim please?
A law refers to some invariant observable characteristic, here’s Wikip[edia:
" Scientific laws or laws of science are statements, based on repeated experiments or observations, that describe or predict a range of natural phenomena."
The law of abiogenesis fits that description hance my referring to it as a law.
I studied theoretical physics and specialized in general relativity. You have misunderstood what I said.
Newton’s gravitation model was regarded as a law, it was trusted and believed it was to all intents and purpose regarded as a fact. The point I was making is that science is based on trust and that trust is misplaced because it is nothing more than assumption.
Theories in physics begin with axioms either explicitly stated or implicitly assumed. These are the premises upon which the mathematical reasoning is based.
I said this to correct @Calilasseia who foolishly asserted in a recent post “I do not have beliefs” clearly unaware that science is rooted in beliefs, assumptions (reasonable most of the time but nevertheless assumptions).
To claim one has a deep understanding of science and at the same time contend one does not have beliefs demonstrates (to those who are astute) that the person is misled at best and a fool at worst.
Where is said “record” what proves that you are being honest when you say you’d accept evidene? Really I’m happy to read it but where is it?
Again, point to the place where the answer to my question can be found, or better still answer it here, surely it doesn’t require your usual 247 paragraphs of waffle to answer it?
I think you need to answer some of the many questions put to you, based on the many unevidenced claims and assertions you reel off, before decrying for anyone else for missing one question asked a few hours ago.
Those remarks I made are from March this year (some six months ago), the entire context and energy of the thread have long evaporated I’m afraid. I was barred from the site in early March you’ll recall.
That’s true I’m not but I simply have no clear recollection of the thread or the point we were at in that thread, I have no context. I’d need to review it to get that context.
Note that I said at the time “For a host of reasons that I won’t go into here”. It was a remark, an opinion that I did not want to even attempt to argue because the audience was hostile and inclined to paraphrase and closed minded and keen to use fallacious arguments like strawman and no true Scotsman.
I do not use this forum to advocate for theism but to argue against atheism, I put you and your often desperate arguments and reasoning under a microscope. I’m not here to convince you I am right but to convince a neutral visitor that you are wrong and sometimes you make this far too easy for me.
You don’t need any of that, your claim is there verbatim:
Simply give us three of those reasons.
I don’t care you made a claim in a public debate forum, you don’t get to evade the question without people drawing a pretty obvious inference, and you’ve had six months since I first asked you to think of an honest answer.
What a spectacularly stupid claim. You are here to peddle unevidenced superstition, and you know you can’t to any objective standard, that is why you are using the very popular apologist tactic of trying to reverse your burden of proof, by endlessly hiding behind evasion and argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacies.
You’ve had this question under your microscope for six months, and still you refuse to give an honest answer. This is a public debate forum, so when you reel off unevidenced superstition, and refuse to evidence it, all while you sententiously and hypocritically lecture others for missing one question, asked just a few hours ago, the I will be calling you on that hypocrisy and dishonesty, and best of all is that when you start playing the victim I can quote the posts from you to @Calilasseia that set the tone.
That’s fortuitous as you can’t even evidence one simple claim you made after 6 months of waiting.
Please give us three of those reasons, or I going to assume you lied, and we can see what “neutral observers” think of someone who sententiously lectures others on evading questions then.
But I do, we all do, nobody is compelled to answer any question that we are asked and that is evident by how often people here leave questions unanswered.
I said I had there are good reasons, thousands of scholars and theologians share that position so I suggest you read some of the literature. Go ahead, I won’t demand that you be a qualified theologian either.
It is an interpretation of evidence though, all evidence is interpreted and different people with different worldviews often have different interpretations, I explained this too recently with reference to the various interpretations of the mathematics in quantum physics, one set of equations but different interpretations, different meanings attributed by different people.
So for me God exists and is the source of all there is, if you don’t share that premise then no argument about the Bible being supernaturally inspired will convince you because you don’t share a neccessary premise.
No at all Sheldon, it’s actually why you are here. No atheist has ever explained how they can honestly make the claims “there is no evidence for God” or “I’ve never seen evidence for God”.
What evidence do they provide that they are able to make such a distinction between evidence for God and not evidence for God?
Therefore it is you, it is the atheist who peddles superstitions.