- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadActually if he was correct that gods existence was not empirically determinable then it
The existence of God as defined by most theists is most definitely empirically determinable (and I have empirically determined he doesn't exist).
I am not certain what you mean by 'category error' but I doubt that it is the correct phrase even if you were correct that Gods existence was indeterminable.
would be a category error.
In this case meaning the Freaky was trying to compare two things as if they were similar
when they are [in the relevant ways] completely dissimilar. In other words trying to compare
two different category's of things as if they were the same category.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeWhat are you observing? With something like supersymmetry the theory predicts things that we should be able to see in accelerator experiments. We don't see the increased cross-section the theory predicts, so there is an event shortfall relative to the theory. The absence of evidence in that case contradicts the theoretical predictions, so the absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence of absence. In the case of God it is unclear to me that there are any observable consequences in this life, so the theory that God exists doesn't make the kind of predictions that can be scientifically tested. From science's point of view it's a bad theory, not because it is wrong, but because it can't be invalidated.
You frequently like to say that. But it is not however true.
It's perfectly possible to prove god's non-existence beyond reasonable doubt via observation.
God's don't have special "get out of science free cards" despite what so many agnostics think on the subject.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeIt might be in error, but I disagree that it would automatically be a category error. A category error is when you ask something like 'how heavy is the colour red?'. If God is not empirically determinable that doesn't automatically make him in a special class of objects. It might do so - such as would be the case if he is to be considered entirely fictional. But if he were an existent being but simply not empirically determinable then Freak's comparison would be wrong but not because of a category error. Or at least I don't think that is what the term means.
Actually if he was correct that gods existence was not empirically determinable then it
would be a category error.
In this case meaning the Freaky was trying to compare two things as if they were similar
when they are [in the relevant ways] completely dissimilar. In other words trying to compare
two different category's of things as if they were the same category.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtWell that all depends on what claims you make about God.
In the case of God it is unclear to me that there are any observable consequences in this life,
Many theists I know claim that God answers prayers. I believe that is empirically testable.
Many other claims are simply incoherent and therefore cannot refer to an existent entity.
FreakyKBH's ability to employ the maieutic/Socratic method continues to be breathtaking. Rarely does one see it used to such profound ill-effect. In my experience on RHP, perhaps only knightmeister could rival FreakyKBH in getting these sorts of results.
I doubt this counts as FreakyKBH's pinnacle of non-contribution through the use of Socratic method, though. This one was a real gem (much more where that came from too): Thread 55167
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI wasn't criticising anyone for arguing against a flat earth argument. And I'm not claiming to know for a fact why Freaky is debating a pro flat earth argument... I'm guessing there is a purpose behind his argument and a point he wishes to make, but there's frankly not enough information for me to definitively state what that purpose is (if there is one) or what underlyling point there may be (again, if there actually is one).
There's an interesting problem with that. Had we not argued with Freaky's flat earth theory he could claim that we were not able even to disprove a flat earth theory. What you are doing is attempting this pincer movement to criticize us for arguing against something obviously wrong. So we have this damned if you do and damned if you don't thing. What ...[text shortened]... get Freaky to stop attempting to defend flat earths and tell us the point he was trying to make.
However, I've seen evolutionists make some rather incredible statements here, such as a refrigerator being more complex than the human body. Even more incredible is to see faith based statements for countering a lack of evidence as well as evidence directly contradicting evolutionary claims... again something I usually only see when evolutionists have been backed into a corner and have nothing else to say. For example, what does it mean if a scientist says evolution is a fact because:
1. It couldn't have happened any other way
2. It's a fact because most scientsts say so, and...
3. as science progresses it will (someday) be proven
Sound familiar? These are the sort of 'arguments' I've seen here and at the science and debate forums.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgePer your usual tack, you attempt to turn the argument around... but to no success on this front since I am not going to allow you to do so.
Nope.
Not playing.
You have done nothing asked of you.
I will thus do nothing you ask.
You can quit if you want and you are not blamed for doing so, since every claim you've countered with has been demolished.
But the truth of the matter is this: I offered a challenge which you have failed to meet.
Instead of tackling the issue, you've resorted to weak insults and other attacks on the person.
The only thing I've refused to do is respond to your examples which were given in place of an actual response to the original challenges.
Unless and until you answer the original challenges, you won't realize any traction on your distracting counters.
You're so blinded by your allegiance to what you incorrectly label science, you are unable to see the plain truth immediately in front of you.
Moreover, you resort to continual twisting of other known realities just to support your perspective.
It is laugh out loud hilarious for you to insist the images from Mt. Everest or from an airplane are showing anything remotely supporting your claim that the horizon rises and falls with one's altitude.
Even when it is CLEARLY demonstrated that your position is wrong, you defiantly claim the other person is the idiot.
Priceless.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by LemonJelloAww, thanks, LJ!
FreakyKBH's ability to employ the maieutic/Socratic method continues to be breathtaking. Rarely does one see it used to such profound ill-effect. In my experience on RHP, perhaps only knightmeister could rival FreakyKBH in getting these sorts of results.
I doubt this counts as FreakyKBH's pinnacle of non-contribution through the use of Socratic met ...[text shortened]... ough. This one was a real gem (much more where that came from too): Thread 55167
I didn't know you cared so much to keep such close records of my contributions!
You're just a peach of a man, aren't you?
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadGod, if you were only somewhere close to right, that would have been an outstanding summation.
The problem Freaky has, is that his point is rendered invalid if he fails to demonstrate that the flat earth is a reasonable proposition. He thought (incorrectly) that nobody had any way of verifying that they earth is spherical and that we could easily all be mistaken. His hope was to then say 'well you could also all be mistaken about God not existing!' ...[text shortened]... nd practical knowledge many of us have and thought we were as confused as he is about geography.
Sadly, your words have been (once again) wasted, no matter how effing smart you looked spewing them forth.
The underlying point has no such 'Gotcha!' intention, but I'm not going to favor you with the actual intention just that.
Why?
Because your assertion that I somehow "underestimated the scientific and practical knowledge many us have" is literally nothing more than nine words of crap.
Not a single one of you have been able to answer the very direct and very clear challenges put forth now pages ago.
Whatever approximated a response was proved to be in error, and the rest have been ad hominem based tirades.
There's even one fella who insists what is clear to see in picture form isn't actually happening at all (hint: he's the same one who insisted greater distance from the equator resulted in greater angled trajectory, if memory serves).
You're just a sorry lot who can't even defend the things you "know," this is true, but even that wasn't the point.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by DeepThoughtAbsolutely.
I suspect something like that. It's a waste of time since the shape of the earth is empirically determinable, whereas the question of the existence of God cannot be resolved by observation. So if he was trying that there's a built in category error.
And piggy backing on what you say here, since the earth's shape is empirically determinable--- whether observation, experiment or both--- we ought to always have consistent results, and whatever contradictory results exist ought to be readily explained.
What has happened up to this point has demonstrated that the contradictory results cannot be explained.
What has passed as explanation has been demonstrated to be false.
What has been offered as proof has been either false, based on an underlying false assumption, anecdotal, or (when all else failed) attacks on the person.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by lemon limeNo, actually, they don't. I have not heard any of those statements presented on this forum or the science forum. I suspect you are making them up.
For example, what does it mean if a scientist says evolution is a fact because:
1. It couldn't have happened any other way
2. It's a fact because most scientsts say so, and...
3. as science progresses it will (someday) be proven
Sound familiar? These are the sort of 'arguments' I've seen here and at the science and debate forums.
12 Nov 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeSurely if you a define a god as holding all the "get out of science free" cards plus two jokers and all the Aces then ... that god does.
God's don't have special "get out of science free cards" despite what so many agnostics think on the subject.
Trivial I agree but that seems to be the defence.
Originally posted by twhiteheadThat's the sort of 'argument' I often see coming from FMF... claims to have not seen something and then suggests I'm making it up. But there's a huge problem when you make this kind of assertion, because you must either assume 1. no one else has seen what I've reported seeing or 2. everyone else shares your inability to remember and take note of repeating themes.
No, actually, they don't. I have not heard any of those statements presented on this forum or the science forum. I suspect you are making them up.