Unless I missed something buried in the comments, the second link is to Tim's response to equinoxjournals, and no version of my critique is mentioned, other than someone posting a link at the very end.
My own response to equinoxjournals appeared as a comment on Debunking Christianity, and I was quite scathing. (I posted it on the page linked to by Tim's response to equinoxjournals.)
---
Tim and I exchanged a few emails about my rebuttal when I first wrote it. I'm not aware of their content appearing anywhere online.
He smashed the second half of the first version, and no form of it appears in my revised rebuttal. It was my opinion after our conversation that my primary rebuttal is correct.
I brought this up in the comments of one of your earlier blogs on the issue of evidence and the Resurrection. Then I had written:
"...there doesn’t seem like a place in any theorem that I can imagine to conduct inductive tests that would increase or decrease the likelihood of God’s existence. It seems that some are suggesting that we can choose from whatever lies about, plop it into a Bayes theorem, and say we have rationally tested for God’s existence. This seems to lack any real rigor, and I think current claims of having evidence worthy of inclusion in a Bayesian inference seem, to say the least, a tad overblown."
I also recall suggestion that it seems like a Christian who resorts to Bayes Theorem to support God's existence is left with the paradoxical problem that inserting historical evidence for God's existence into the theorem only decreases the likelihood that God exists precisely because we have more evidence that supernatural claims are attributed to natural explanations -- the historical supernatural claim is outweighed by the greater probability that it is a mistake, trick, poor apprehensions, mistranslation, deliberate deception, etc.
"I also recall suggestion that it seems like a Christian who resorts to Bayes Theorem to support God's existence"
Also, if there are many hoax reports about what the president said, you can't take any individual statement from the president as true because there are so many hoax reports.
Anon: "Also, if there are many hoax reports about what the president said, you can't take any individual statement from the president as true because there are so many hoax reports. Good one chief!"
Sort of. It's sort of like this scenario: every April Fool's Day your local newspaper publishes a front page with all made up stories. If you were to read a front page story in one of the paper's April Fool's day issues that says the President has announced the he has invented a perpetual motion machine, I am suggesting you would be sensible to consider that information false. If you disagree, I am curious why.
Anon: "Except there's no April Fool's Day in play here nor an equivalent. Duh."
The equivalent is Supernaturalism Day, where ghosties and whatnot are claimed to have effects on reality that, on examination, are inevitably found to be false. This pattern is nothing if not consistent. I am surprised that even you would fail to be see the parallel.
Anon: "It's a non-seq. The question relates to the existence of the being, not skepticism of what the being said. Think next time."
The question (see the OP) relates to the Resurrection.
My suggestion to you is to try and frame a specific criticism, showing how what I have said should be reconsidered in the light of that criticism; right now I genuinely can't follow what it is you're trying to say.
"My suggestion to you is to try and frame a specific criticism, showing how what I have said should be reconsidered in the light of that criticism; right now I genuinely can't follow what it is you're trying to say."
You can't follow because you're not too bright. Which does a bang-up job of explaining why you think imaginary "supernaturalism day" is relevant.
Try this: Instead of grubbing around for something, anything to say, try turning off the computer for a few days and thinking. Stop pretending you can bluff your way through things like this by just insisting no one is making sense. Think, boy. Don't talk.
Yeah, Anon -- you appear unable to understand the basic rules of argument. You also appear to be psychologically projecting (your computer is on right now, and you also appear to be try to bluff your way out of the fact that you cannot assemble a cogent criticism. Gotcha.)
I won't be responding to a post that sounds like you or another Anon wrote it here. I was curious what you might come up with. Turns out that was even less than I had imagined.
12 comments:
Fix the link guy.
Well, I did, but Blogger did something very weird to my on-title link.
Thanks for the link!
Unless I missed something buried in the comments, the second link is to Tim's response to equinoxjournals, and no version of my critique is mentioned, other than someone posting a link at the very end.
My own response to equinoxjournals appeared as a comment on Debunking Christianity, and I was quite scathing. (I posted it on the page linked to by Tim's response to equinoxjournals.)
---
Tim and I exchanged a few emails about my rebuttal when I first wrote it. I'm not aware of their content appearing anywhere online.
He smashed the second half of the first version, and no form of it appears in my revised rebuttal. It was my opinion after our conversation that my primary rebuttal is correct.
I thought the OTF was a bust?
http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2011/08/jesse-parrish-and-thrasymachus-two.html
I brought this up in the comments of one of your earlier blogs on the issue of evidence and the Resurrection. Then I had written:
"...there doesn’t seem like a place in any theorem that I can imagine to conduct inductive tests that would increase or decrease the likelihood of God’s existence. It seems that some are suggesting that we can choose from whatever lies about, plop it into a Bayes theorem, and say we have rationally tested for God’s existence. This seems to lack any real rigor, and I think current claims of having evidence worthy of inclusion in a Bayesian inference seem, to say the least, a tad overblown."
I also recall suggestion that it seems like a Christian who resorts to Bayes Theorem to support God's existence is left with the paradoxical problem that inserting historical evidence for God's existence into the theorem only decreases the likelihood that God exists precisely because we have more evidence that supernatural claims are attributed to natural explanations -- the historical supernatural claim is outweighed by the greater probability that it is a mistake, trick, poor apprehensions, mistranslation, deliberate deception, etc.
Ditto, Tony
"I also recall suggestion that it seems like a Christian who resorts to Bayes Theorem to support God's existence"
Also, if there are many hoax reports about what the president said, you can't take any individual statement from the president as true because there are so many hoax reports.
Good one chief!
Anon: "Also, if there are many hoax reports about what the president said, you can't take any individual statement from the president as true because there are so many hoax reports. Good one chief!"
Sort of. It's sort of like this scenario: every April Fool's Day your local newspaper publishes a front page with all made up stories. If you were to read a front page story in one of the paper's April Fool's day issues that says the President has announced the he has invented a perpetual motion machine, I am suggesting you would be sensible to consider that information false. If you disagree, I am curious why.
"It's sort of like this scenario: every April Fool's Day your local newspaper publishes a front page with all made up stories"
Except there's no April Fool's Day in play here nor an equivalent. Duh.
"If you disagree, I am curious why."
It's a non-seq. The question relates to the existence of the being, not skepticism of what the being said.
Think next time.
Anon: "Except there's no April Fool's Day in play here nor an equivalent. Duh."
The equivalent is Supernaturalism Day, where ghosties and whatnot are claimed to have effects on reality that, on examination, are inevitably found to be false. This pattern is nothing if not consistent. I am surprised that even you would fail to be see the parallel.
Anon: "It's a non-seq. The question relates to the existence of the being, not skepticism of what the being said. Think next time."
The question (see the OP) relates to the Resurrection.
My suggestion to you is to try and frame a specific criticism, showing how what I have said should be reconsidered in the light of that criticism; right now I genuinely can't follow what it is you're trying to say.
"My suggestion to you is to try and frame a specific criticism, showing how what I have said should be reconsidered in the light of that criticism; right now I genuinely can't follow what it is you're trying to say."
You can't follow because you're not too bright. Which does a bang-up job of explaining why you think imaginary "supernaturalism day" is relevant.
Try this: Instead of grubbing around for something, anything to say, try turning off the computer for a few days and thinking. Stop pretending you can bluff your way through things like this by just insisting no one is making sense. Think, boy. Don't talk.
Think.
For a change.
Yeah, Anon -- you appear unable to understand the basic rules of argument. You also appear to be psychologically projecting (your computer is on right now, and you also appear to be try to bluff your way out of the fact that you cannot assemble a cogent criticism. Gotcha.)
I won't be responding to a post that sounds like you or another Anon wrote it here. I was curious what you might come up with. Turns out that was even less than I had imagined.
Cheers.
Post a Comment