tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post8499094884408541391..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: There is evidence on both sides of the God questionVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger81125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62978175746857536292015-12-20T18:31:13.677-07:002015-12-20T18:31:13.677-07:00Crude: "I asked my questions first, Cal. Answ...Crude: "I asked my questions first, Cal. Answer mine and I'll answer yours. And if you refuse, well, I'm going to draw a conclusion of my own."<br />Me (answering question): "I don't have a high opinion of that person. I don't think that belief in a meaningful god -- one who interacts with this world, who cares about the universe and what happens in it, etc. -- is compatible with someone who says they believe in such a god without regard to the evidence."<br /><br />My question to Crude: " "Do you claim that unicorns and leprechauns and Thor don't exist? What is the evidence that you provide to deny the existence of these things? Or do you believe they all exist?"<br /><br />Crude: Crickets....Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-40317477929238593112015-12-15T06:52:11.455-07:002015-12-15T06:52:11.455-07:00It isn't. I would like somebody to explain to...It isn't. I would like somebody to explain to me what 'more likely' means in this context. Nobody else finds it problematic so it shouldn't be difficult!David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52503903904206711272015-12-14T19:22:20.436-07:002015-12-14T19:22:20.436-07:00Crude: "By the by - what's your opinion o...Crude: "By the by - what's your opinion of someone who claims 'I believe what I believe about God! I can't even think of evidence that would change my view!'? Is that position - that evidence is an irrelevant factor when it comes to their beliefs about God - rational?"<br /><br />I don't have a high opinion of that person. I don't think that belief in a meaningful god -- one who interacts with this world, who cares about the universe and what happens in it, etc. -- is compatible with someone who says they believe in such a god without regard to the evidence. <br /><br />Now will you answer my question? <br /><br />My Question: "Do you claim that unicorns and leprechauns and Thor don't exist? What is the evidence that you provide to deny the existence of these things? Or do you believe they all exist? "<br /><br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-35176048432548815432015-12-14T18:17:39.374-07:002015-12-14T18:17:39.374-07:00Which question are you referring to?
December 13,...<i>Which question are you referring to?</i><br /><br />December 13, 2015 7:28 PMCrudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-16393305986297425052015-12-14T11:16:01.772-07:002015-12-14T11:16:01.772-07:00Regarding mispelling names, yep, my bad! It's ...Regarding mispelling names, yep, my bad! It's funny because I figured it was probably wrong but didn't bother checking...<br /><br />.God vs god would depend what we're talking about...<br />.Bible is always with a capital B of course<br />.I don't see the point of using a funny name for Jesus<br /><br />You guys have something meaningful to add? World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42516348980148398782015-12-14T06:29:31.245-07:002015-12-14T06:29:31.245-07:00David Brightly:
"There is no 'without God...David Brightly:<br />"There is no 'without God' and there cannot be"<br /><br />If that is your position then you dont need to bother with arguments against God's existence at all, definitely not inductive ones.John Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866752092372522993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76852296179801054822015-12-14T06:17:03.724-07:002015-12-14T06:17:03.724-07:00"Your idiotic comment notwithstanding, you sh..."<i>Your idiotic comment notwithstanding, you should check your spelling. By "Illion" you must mean "Ilíon" and by "GRodriges" I presume you mean "grodrigues".</i>"<br /><br />I wonder if he spells "God" as "god" and "Bible" as "bible" ... and "Jesus" as "jeebus"?Ilíonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15339406092961816142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-59489417628165398902015-12-14T06:13:42.893-07:002015-12-14T06:13:42.893-07:00Crude: "I asked my questions first, Cal. Answ...Crude: "I asked my questions first, Cal. Answer mine and I'll answer yours. And if you refuse, well, I'm going to draw a conclusion of my own."<br /><br />Which question are you referring to? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-39644260758364491772015-12-14T06:06:37.366-07:002015-12-14T06:06:37.366-07:00Suppose the theists are right and there is God and...Suppose the theists are right and there is God and he is a necessary being. What does it actually mean to say that the degree and kind of pain and suffering that exists in the world does seem to be something that is more likely without God than with God? There is no 'without God' and there cannot be. So how are we to understand 'more likely without God'?David Brightlyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06757969974801621186noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-90113794262362646952015-12-14T03:45:52.539-07:002015-12-14T03:45:52.539-07:00"Evidence cannot be provided for axioms, whic..."Evidence cannot be provided for axioms, which are self-evident. Anything else is supported by evidence, which includes axioms as building blocks. So any non-axiomatic claim is either true, or not, based on the evidence for it. No? "<br /><br />I could agree that that is reasonable but its not very helpful either.<br />For once, it doesn't seem to me to be self-evident itself.<br /><br />On another note, in logic 'axiom' seems simply to be equivalent to premise.<br />If you want 'axiom' to mean 'undeniable truth' then that's fine, but there are few of those.<br /><br />Maybe you will have to broaden the definition from the narrow focus on evidence and include the more general notion of 'reasons'<br />There may not be 'evidence' in a strict sense for some axioms, nevertheless there can be good reasons to accept themJohn Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866752092372522993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-77083604568498406812015-12-14T03:44:25.753-07:002015-12-14T03:44:25.753-07:00@Hugo Pelland:
"So Cal and I comments look l...@Hugo Pelland:<br /><br />"So Cal and I comments look like trolling but Illion, B. Propkop, Planks Length, GRodriges, Crude, and some others, who literally write JUST to insult, sometimes, are never trolls?"<br /><br />Your idiotic comment notwithstanding, you should check your spelling. By "Illion" you must mean "Ilíon" and by "GRodriges" I presume you mean "grodrigues".grodrigueshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12366931909873380710noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-61995157767495940452015-12-13T23:03:36.621-07:002015-12-13T23:03:36.621-07:00'Positive claims demand evidence'
OK, her...'Positive claims demand evidence'<br /><br />OK, here's a positive claim for you. "My sense experience gives me veridical knowledge of a physical world independent of my mind." <br /><br />What is the evidence for this one?Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72778102732565233962015-12-13T20:12:42.430-07:002015-12-13T20:12:42.430-07:00I asked my questions first, Cal. Answer mine and I...I asked my questions first, Cal. Answer mine and I'll answer yours. And if you refuse, well, I'm going to draw a conclusion of my own.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54467105192968529062015-12-13T19:38:07.351-07:002015-12-13T19:38:07.351-07:00Crude: "I'm pointing out that claims requ...Crude: "I'm pointing out that claims require evidence. Bracketing it as 'positive claims' adds nothing, and is a dishonest dodge."<br /><br />Do you claim that unicorns and leprechauns and Thor don't exist? What is the evidence that you provide to deny the existence of these things? Or do you believe they all exist? <br /><br />Asking for a friend. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91249515817337907732015-12-13T19:28:43.179-07:002015-12-13T19:28:43.179-07:00Does this change anything?
Yes, it changes someth...<i>Does this change anything?</i><br /><br />Yes, it changes something. You just accused everyone here of manifest cowardice for thus far refusing to offer a defense of claims <i>that wasn't even made in the post</i>. That before realizing that the lion's share of the comment section has been taken over by your dispute with Mitchell, for good or ill.<br /><br />You were wrong. You made a false charge.<br /><br /><i>Is there only good evidence for a god, but</i><br /><br />Let's stop right here, and make an important point: evidence for God, period, undercuts atheism. If God exists - if a billion gods exist - atheism is false. That's pretty substantial, well before the question of Christianity itself comes up.<br /><br />By the by - what's your opinion of someone who claims 'I believe what I believe about God! I can't even think of evidence that would change my view!'? Is that position - that evidence is an irrelevant factor when it comes to their beliefs about God - rational?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52416270485555165102015-12-13T19:14:03.327-07:002015-12-13T19:14:03.327-07:00Crude: "Please notice that the original post ...Crude: "Please notice that the original post refers to God's existence - even the qualifier 'Christian' was not used - yet Cal somehow finds 'the trinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection' in the original post, proceeding to complain about that."<br /><br />You are correct. <br /><br />Does this change anything? Is there only good evidence for a god, but not for the tenets of Christianity? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-17479139858274434062015-12-13T18:59:27.603-07:002015-12-13T18:59:27.603-07:00Also, please notice how a post that asserts that t...<i>Also, please notice how a post that asserts that there is good evidence for Christian tenets (e.g., the trinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection) and the comments from apologist commenters fails, consistently, to put forth the good evidence for these tenets. </i><br /><br />Please notice that the original post refers to God's existence - even the qualifier 'Christian' was not used - yet Cal somehow finds 'the trinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection' in the original post, proceeding to complain about that.<br /><br />What's it going to be, ladies and gentlemen? Is he simply full of shit, or just slow and rather incapable of comprehending things easily?Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-43773011098401925462015-12-13T18:56:11.094-07:002015-12-13T18:56:11.094-07:00John, and perhaps Crude if he is not just trolling...<i>John, and perhaps Crude if he is not just trolling, is thus arguing against reason, as if reason may or may not work;</i><br /><br />No, you slow, slow person.<br /><br />I'm pointing out that claims require evidence. Bracketing it as 'positive claims' adds nothing, and is a dishonest dodge.<br /><br />Claim 'God does not exist', and you're still making a claim - it's time to provide evidence. You've got a burden of proof to meet. Fail to meet that burden, and no one can be blamed for rejecting your claim.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-52115956842127255422015-12-13T18:51:55.998-07:002015-12-13T18:51:55.998-07:00Hugo: "Evidence cannot be provided for axioms...Hugo: "Evidence cannot be provided for axioms, which are self-evident. Anything else is supported by evidence, which includes axioms as building blocks. So any non-axiomatic claim is either true, or not, based on the evidence for it. No? / What kind of evidence is missing to explain what kind of claims?"<br /><br />Yes to all of this. <br /><br />Apologists like to pretend that there is something terrible and so horrible and unspeakable that happens when they say a principle about knowledge can be portrayed as self-refuting, but they seem to consistently fail to identify this terrible outcome. It's so horrible, I think, that they dare not speak of it. <br /><br />Also, please notice how a post that asserts that there is good evidence for Christian tenets (e.g., the trinity, the virgin birth, and the resurrection) and the comments from apologist commenters fails, consistently, to put forth the good evidence for these tenets. <br /><br />It seems they would all, literally, talk about anything else. <br /><br />I wonder why that is? Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-18019664982979785562015-12-13T18:46:38.426-07:002015-12-13T18:46:38.426-07:00Mitchell: "If you want to formulate a general...Mitchell: "If you want to formulate a general epistemological principle that identifies the relation between assertions and evidence: fine. But dont fall into the usual pit traps that come along with self-referential statements"<br /><br />Pitfalls like what? <br /><br />This seems like such an apologist canard -- that principles about knowledge (like that positive claims demand evidence) can be portrayed as self-refuting, and then... what? What are these usual pit traps (pit traps?). What is supposed to go so horribly awry by exercising the principle that positive claims demand evidence? <br /><br />The fact is that there doesn't seem to be any problem whatsoever. And another apologist objection goes... poof.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-28266920244173390112015-12-13T18:42:47.897-07:002015-12-13T18:42:47.897-07:00Mitchell: "You have no idea what a hypothetic...Mitchell: "You have no idea what a hypothetical imperative is or you are simply dishonest."<br /><br />This is rich from someone who has shown no idea how to comprehend my simple statements and has falsely accused me of shifting my position. <br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14426478461397304082015-12-13T18:39:13.193-07:002015-12-13T18:39:13.193-07:00Mitchell: "Cal's statement is simply self...Mitchell: "Cal's statement is simply self-undermining...."<br />Hugo: "Correct John..."<br /><br />How is my stating that positive claims demand evidence self refuting? It's a principle about knowledge, much like Occam's Razor. And it's a way or mode of conduct regarding our approach to a topic or activity, like a hypothetical imperative. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09268824070081295206noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-76044820233861424052015-12-13T17:58:56.678-07:002015-12-13T17:58:56.678-07:00Evidence cannot be provided for axioms, which are ...Evidence cannot be provided for axioms, which are self-evident. Anything else is supported by evidence, which includes axioms as building blocks. So any non-axiomatic claim is either true, or not, based on the evidence for it. No? <br /><br />What kind of evidence is missing to explain what kind of claims? World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-42084463569252476712015-12-13T17:41:07.148-07:002015-12-13T17:41:07.148-07:00"You are not saying evidence is unnecessary, ..."You are not saying evidence is unnecessary, but you are also not saying evidence is necessary? "<br /><br />I dont think that evidence can be provided for any kind of claim.<br /><br />'Evidence is always necessary for any kind of claim to truth'<br /><br />Given that it is true, I dont even know what kind of evidence could, in principle, be provided to satisfy the demand of this claim in reference to itself<br /><br />John Mitchelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11866752092372522993noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-62871890222318568022015-12-13T17:28:36.351-07:002015-12-13T17:28:36.351-07:00You are not saying evidence is unnecessary, but yo...You are not saying evidence is unnecessary, but you are also not saying evidence is necessary? <br />World of Factshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11066732051794158264noreply@blogger.com