REGARDING THE VIDEO
Moran asserts there is nothing. There is no evidence for ‘nothing.’ How does ‘nothing’ exist? Dawkins completely misses this point. He is a biologist and not a philosopher. He can explain biology and his own thinking process. He qualifies himself as an atheist based on his study of biology, not on philosophy or cosmology. Can Morgan demonstrate the existence of nothing? We know something exists. How do we get from something to nothing? And, why would he assume a God thing can exist in nothing? This is a case of a “Special Pleading Fallacy” absent any evidence. (The god thing is special and does not need time or space to exist.) No time, no space, an interesting claim that needs evidence to back it up. These are all assumptions that need to be demonstrated.
Dawkin’s assertion that a ‘creator’ has to be complex, is another erroneous assertion. He has no evidence at all for such a claim. Pure assumption. He pulled the claim out of his ass.
Morgan has still not been challenged on his assertion of nothingness. He needs to demonstrate how nothingness can exist. If there is nothingness, how is it not something?
I’m really bored with this video: Dawkins does not recognize assertions and Morgan is beating a dead horse.
the fact or state of living or having objective reality.
Complexity is irrelevant to this, not least because you have offered zero objective evidence for any deity, complex or otherwise, so why does the distinction even matter. Forget about what you imagine a deity to be, and start by objectively demonstrating it is even possible.
Disambiguating”opinion”: I think it worth noting that, as I’ve used it, and in its more proper sense, something can be an opinion even if there is evidence for it, in fact even if there is strong evidence for it, but not enough to irreversibly prove it. Most of science has this character (and can thus be truly dubbed “opinion”), though I would argue not all of it.
Of course, sometimes, and perhaps more often in contemporary discourse, “opinion” is synonymous “unjustified or unsupported claim or belief, or view that refers to subjective dispositions.” But that’s almost never how I’ll use it. Instead I just mean a view for which there might be anywhere between very little to abundant justification, but no demonstration. A view with tentative support.
Prove is a mathematical construct and has nothing to do with the physical reality within which we exist. The words you are looking for are evidence and demonstration. The problem of hard solipsism is real. If you are looking for proof, go take a math class.
Science proves nothing… We build models. (How in the hell are you claiming to be a published scientist?) Did you write a children’s book or something? Seriously, these things are so basic as to be common knowledge for anyone taking their very first science class. Science describes the world around us. It does not ‘prove.’ You are once again offering up a “Red Herring” for debate. There is no debate here. You have gone off on a tangent. If you want absolute proof of something, take up math… or adopt a religion.
No, science is truly dubbed "THEORY.’ A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed … An opinion so someone pulling something out of their ass … like …[quote=“TheMetrologist, post:103, topic:5089”] Most of science has this character (and can thus be truly dubbed “opinion”),
[/quote]
And since you recognize that, what in the fuck are you on about? Are you just trolling or simply trying to be dishonest?
Then you are wrong, and talking out your ass. We do not agree on terms and the discussion is over. You don’t get to invent your own shit and pretend you are saying anything that contributes to the debate.
And we call that a “Hypothesis.” Like the failed god hypothesis. It has tentative support and has been around for a long time. It has personal testimony but nothing that actually stands against critical inquiry. No claim of god that we know of has ever been able to stand against critical inquiry. There is no reason to assert such a claim is true, believable, or justified in any way.
Another straw man fallacy, since I never remotely claimed an opinion could not reflect a well evidenced fact, note the word merely in my post that you have ignored to produce this straw man, and note also in your original claim that you asserted it was an “erroneous opinion” now the goal posts are off in another direction to create yet another straw man fallacy, the conflict with and antipathy towards science by religion is both longstanding (historical) and well evidence, ipso facto it is not an erroneous opinion, as you claimed.
I never asserted or remotely implied anything was immutable, and am well aware that all facts in science must remain tentative in the light of new evidence. You do love your straw men?
You said it was an erroneous opinion, look up at the title of your thread, so this straw man has zero relevance to your claim being wrong. It seems you;d rather spin this off into a new raft of straw men than address your original error.
As I said your claim is simply wrong, since it is not merely an opinion, if you meant opinion to mean it was a well evidenced fact, then I am curious why you called it erroneous, or used the word opinion, and included it in a list of five claims you were asserting were “erroneous opinions”.
This is probably a majority view but it’s not my view or that of at least some scientists or philosophers of science. These are disputed questions regarding the scientific method, and tied up with questions of epistemology and justification, and interpretation of scientific practice.
Not everything you learn in your basic science class is right. For example, for a long time, I thought boiling at 100 C was a property of pure water at sea level. Not quite… turns out pure water is highly prone to superheating, to temperatures above 200 C. It’s the impurities in the water that help it behave “normally.” Not something they told me in school…
Just because what I’m presenting is new to you does not mean I’m investing it or “pulling it out of my ass” as you say. It might mean that I know things you don’t. It’s a condition of helpful conversation that we take seriously the possibility our interlocutor knows something we don’t, no matter how ignorant we feel they are.
So far you’ve offered nothing to support your claim a deity exists, not one word beyond bare assertion, disingenuous semantics, and irrational claims and arguments. Now this is just my opinion of course, but does it seem reasonable that someone who had knowledge indicating an extant deity would a) fail to offer it after 46 posts, and b) be offering it here and not to a breathless global audience of adoring theists.
This is not our first rodeo, your arguments have been used countless times on here, and it is clear you are heading for an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy in your attempts to pretend disbelieving your claim for an extant deity carries any epistemological burden of proof, which rationally is does not.
Ad hominem fallacy, and I have no game, it also goes without saying that the principles of logic were not invented by me. Your failure to address your fallacious claims and arguments speaks for itself of course.
I guess you have zero interest in addressing your false claim as well, that the “conflict between religion and science is an erroneous opinion”. Quelle surprise…
I’ve not seen anything new? The same tired old irrational arguments, with no objective evidence that a deity exists or even possible. You have failed to even define the deity you’re arguing for. You can’t throw a stick on here for apologists who espouse this nonsense.
@Sheldon I know I’m a bit harsh with you. Don’t take it too personally…
This is what leaves me perplexed: why do you (and so many others here) insist that I must try to prove Gods existence in this thread? I didn’t advance the claim that God exists here.
Thus far, you have not demonstrated that you know a damn thing. You are in fact, pulling things out of your ass with no justification at all. I’ll just parrot Sheldon.
Ad hominem is irrational, why would I take someone else’s inability to offer rational argument personally? It’s not my arguments that are demonstrably irrational after all?
I have never mentioned proof. Why on earth would anyone imagine such a claim would go unchallenged in an atheist debate forum?
It’s in your profile, and you have made claims about the nature of deities, why wouldn’t any rational discourse immediately involve a request you properly evidence this deity exists or is even possible?
We get apologists here all the time who think they can dictate the discourse, and what people ask them. It’s clear why they want to limit the discourse to avoid honestly answering such requests for objective evidence, but it’s not clear why they think the atheists here will indulge such dishonesty?
You have also failed to address responses to your dubious claims in your OP?
Please note number 4, do you really imagine you can create a claim on behalf of atheists and then not offer a rigorous demonstration a deity exists?
The evidentialist challenge to any kind of theism is very impressive. Yes, I think it can be satisfactorily answered, but I don’t think it can be answered quickly or with superficial arguments. Or by stating a few concrete facts about the world you might not know. Rather, I think it requires radical shifts in fundamental positions most may not even know they have.
That’s all to say that yes, I want to talk about God’s existence, probably in a later thread, but I want to chat about other things first. Logic, history, views about what it means to be, etc. And I would like to keep those conversations friendly, as much as possible.
So you did in fact make a claim a deity exists in this thread, and at least 2 of your dubious 5 claims in your OP, are making assertions about the nature of a deity.
Once again, not about the (existing) nature, but about the notion. This is a really basic distinction that you have to understand before a posteriori proofs of any kind can be intelligible. Eg If I set out to prove the existence of mermaids, I have to have some initial idea of what I mean by “mermaid.”
I don’t believe you, as you have not even tried, and even were I to accept these rather convenient excuses, one wonders why you haven’t told the theistic world about this news? One assumes they will be thrilled to know that there is objective evidence for a deity after millennia of failing to produce any.
Like what? Again it is it reasonable that after millennia the entire religious world has not noticed this evidence you are making bare claims to possess? I have to say I am extremely sceptical.
You can make no claims about the nature of a deity until you first define and evidence it exists, you even admitted this yourself in this thread?
What’s I mean is that it’s not just a simple question of concrete observations. Like the way you’d prove the moon was made of cheese by going there with some crackers.
