Never said that, please carefully re-read what I wrote.
Where did I accuse you of saying otherwise?
Please show me where I said you did.
You identify as a theist.
Hahahahahahaha. 
3 Likes
You wrote “I suspect those questions, themselves, can be quite silly.”
It’s implied, as if I was unaware or disregarding the utility of science.
Sure “you seem so adamant in your insistence that folks qualified to pursue scientific inquiry are so prejudiced by assumptions that the totality of the results arrived at are suspect.”
You attributed something to me that I never said, I have not insisted any such thing.
Right but you misinterpreted that to mean “you seem more willing to accept that which cannot be overtly demonstrated as truth yet dismiss that which actually has been demonstrated is astonishing.”
Everything I accept has a sound basis, can be demonstrated to my satisfaction at least. I have not dismissed anything that is demonstrable either, so on both counts you are mistaken.
1 Like
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha … aaaaaaaaa fuck No fucking wonder you are being laughed off the site.
METAPHORE: (HINT) a figure of speech in which a word or phrase literally* denoting one kind of object or idea is used in place of another to suggest a likeness or between them as in drowning in money) Oh fuck, the lowest form of criticism… Then again, you are the one with the stupid attempt at a metaphor.
Do you know how to make a cogent argument or not?
(You can drop the ‘E’) - Yes, I used the term “chicken” as a general metaphor for an egg laying animal. Look:
See that word “symbolic”? go and look it up.
Yes but only to an intelligent audience, when the audience are poorly educated or indoctrinated or just stupid, then it’s often quite a challenge, but one must never give up.
How would you recognize evidence if it were presented to you? How do I know you have any way to recognize it, for all I know you’ll take anything and everything presented to you and say “Nah, that’s no evidence”.
Rather than embark upon a potentially fruitless undertaking, explain to me your own criteria for recognizing evidence for God.
If you don’t know of such criteria then how can you even claim to be an atheist?
Which objective facts are you speaking of?
You want objective facts? Try the ones I presented in this demolition of your tiresome canards in another thread.
1 Like
Many people here are better described as anti-theist rather than atheist. They have a clear hostility to any ideas there might be a God, they claim there’s no evidence for God yet at the same time cannot explain how they analyze proffered evidence.
They expect the theist to take it on faith that they are being honest, that they can reliably scrutinize something and recognize it as being evidence or not.
I suspect that most if not all of these anti-theists have no idea, no criteria and their entire position is based on rejecting anything that is presented to them.
If they are open minded and truly rational they will be able to prove that something is not evidence for God because if they cannot prove it to be so then they are just relying on belief, the belief that everything they can potentially be shown can never be evidence for God.
Define what you mean then “objective fact” surely before we can argue whether some proposition is an objective fact, we’ll need to agree upon what that means.
@Sherlock-Holmes … this is bullshit plain and simple. Not least, because I’m on public record both here and elsewhere, as welcoming evidence for any real god type entity that exists, not least because said evidence, it if ever arrives, will almost certainly falsify all of our pre-scientific mythologies at a stroke.
Indeed, I’ve presented ideas on this topic, that mythology fanboys are incapable of even fantasising about, and which would cause them to blow an artery if they examined them.
Apparently you are unaware of the rigorous distinction between dismissing specific “god candidates” (including ones that are asserted within the requisite pre-scientific mythologies to possess contradictory or absurd properties, and which can be dismissed safely on that ground alone) and dismissing the god concept wholesale. The former is performed here all the time. The latter far less frequently, and usually by people who need a lesson in rigour.
@Sherlock-Holmes … try “any statement consonant with observational data, or an error-free deduction in an appropriate consistent formal system”.
Which rules out “my mythology says so” and vacuous ex recto apologetics.
1 Like
But why should I accept your claim? For all I know you are pretending, insisting that you would “welcome” evidence when you have no intention of doing any such thing.
If you do not have criteria then say so. If you do then tell me what it is, surely this is not an unreasonable request?
What characteristic in your own words, would distinguish evidence for God from not evidence for God?
You do realize how your reticence to answer me looks…
1 Like
Which begs the question of what exactly is meant by “consonant with observational data”. For example until around 1916 Newton’s law of universal gravitation was regarded as an objective fact. It was consonant with observation data and had been tested extensively.
But if that was really an objective fact then how could that law have been abandoned and replaced by a different on in 1916?
Or consider the law of biogenesis, surely by your own definition above, this is an objective fact yes?
If the truth of some claim can fluctuate, be true today but not tomorrow, then we have no business referring to such claims as objective facts, facts are always true not conditionally true.
Is English your first language?
1 Like
Oh look, more dishonest apologetics.
Oh please, I’ve been covering the transition from Newtonian mechanics to general relativity in detail in past posts. I’ll enjoy what is to come shortly …
Apparently you’re either unaware of salient facts, or deliberately ignoring them for dishonest apologetic purposes.
The reason newton’s view of gravitation was so successful, was because it was consonant with the observational data available at the time. However, Newton’s physics ended up being killed by its own success, because it allowed us to develop the technology that enabled scientists to alight upon new data previously unavailable, which called into question Newton’s ideas.
But of course, there’s another issue here. Namely, that the difference between the Newtonian view of the universe, and general relativity, is only detectable in everyday circumstances, when one can measure quantities to FIFTEEN DECIMAL PLACES. Even in the modern era, this is an expensive and time consuming matter. Which is why for example, we had to wait until atomic clocks existed, before testing directly ideas such as time dilation.
Indeed, one of the reasons Newton’s ideas are still taught in classes today, is that they remain an excellent approximation when dealing with weak gravity fields and low velocities, and have the advantage of mathematical simplicity compared to general relativity (no need to dive into tensors, for example). So, even though Newton’s basic axioms were fundamentally wrong, the system derived therefrom remains a useful approximation whose error in everyday circumstances is too small for most of us to measure.
Once again, do you bother checking real scientific facts before posting?
Oh, and your attempt to reject scientific postulates, on the basis that new data might require revision thereof, is utterly specious and dishonest. Indeed, the willingness of scientists to revise their postulates in the light of new data, is one of the reasons science has been so successful. As opposed to mythology fanboyism, which treats uncritically as fact, mythological assertions even when those assertions are known to be wrong.
Meanwhile, it’s time to deal with this piece of mendacity:
Oh look, it’s Canard #13 from my list of creationist canards - the Pasteur canard!!!
Pasteur proposed his “law of biogenesis” as a rebuttal of the mediaeval notion of spontaneous generation. A notion which included such fatuous ideas, as the idea that mice arose fully formed from dirty wheat.
Pasteur was alive before prebiotic chemistry existed, and as a corollary, his ideas were NOT a critique thereof. That you have to resort to well-known instances of duplicity such as this, to prop up your apologetics, speaks volumes about the worthlessness thereof.
Indeed, being the thorough experimentalist he was, if Pasteur had lived long enough to observe the emergence of prebiotic chemistry, he would have accepted the experimental results arising from that discipline.
When are you going to stop lying about these topics?
3 Likes
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.
Do stop lying. I’ve already mentioned that I’m on public record here with respect to this. Get off your arse and use the forum search facility.
Again, stop lying. I’ve already presented the relevant data on these forums previously. Get off your arse and look for it.
1 Like
Ha ha ha ha ha ha… That’s just banana logic. It’s a metaphor (e) dropped.
1 Like