Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  ackack

  Scientific proof is not everyday proof.

  This statement makes my head hurt.

  Arguing about the evidence for the existence of God is a rather pointless discussion. The question is unprovable. Its a matter of faith. Have faith in their being a God, or have faith in their being no God. The whole discussion is rather pointless.

  ID (Behe in actuality) on the other hand posits a testable scientific hypothesis which evidence has shown to be false, namely, irreducible complex of the flagellum and blood clotting. I don't know of any other tests ID proposes. I would like to know of any others.

  ackack
• 

  funkyderek

  AuldSoul:

  But, in the public, many people have the existence of God proven to them every day. When I believe something, it has been proven to me. I have been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief.

  OK, you win. You've defined evidence to include any testimony of anything and proof to mean anything that causes anyone to believe anything. Given those definitions, then I agree, as the only thing you actually seem to be saying is that some people believe in God.

  I'm baffled as to what your point is but I will freely and openly concede that some people do indeed believe in God.
• 

  AuldSoul

  ackack: This statement makes my head hurt.

  Sorry about that. But it is a pragmatic reality that the rules of science don't have to be applied outside the arena of science. I am not bound by the rules of the scientific method.

  Therefore, what proves something to me (i.e. the evidence I am willing to consider valid, including personal experience) is not necessarily even evidence that science would consider, much less consider as proof.

  Scientists or the scientifically inclined tend to post here as though everyone is automatically bound by the laws of scientific discovery. We aren't. Get over it.

  I can use all sorts of input as evidence to prove things to myself and there isn't a damned thing any scientist anywhere can do about it. I can also reject anything I want as something I refuse to consider as evidence (if I so choose) and likewise, science can't make me consider it as valid.

  That doesn't mean I strive to be a superstitious, credulous, gullible person. Still, just the fact that I use personal experience as evidence to prove things to myself demonstrates I fall short of using the scientific method to arrive at my conclusions. Everyone uses personal experience to prove things to themselves. Everyone believes things that are based on nothing more than subjective prejudices, experiences, and biases. Everyone has personal facts that they have proven to themselves without using the scientific method.

  Imposing the scientific method (and its accompanying maxims) outside the laboratory is insane. Can you imagine the world economy in an environment where the scientific method was really put to use? Think on that one for two seconds and you will see the wisdom in keeping the scientific method in its place. In fact, if the scientific method were really applied to everything, there would shortly be no funding for science.
• 

  ackack

  But, in the public, many people have the existence of God proven to them every day. When I believe something, it has been proven to me. I have been exposed to sufficient evidence to compel belief.

  Can you spot... the tautology?!

  ackack
• 

  AuldSoul

  FunkyDerek,

  I am also saying that their belief in God is not without evidenciary support. It is simply evidence of a nature that you (and others) choose to consider invalid. But you only consider it invalid subjectively. You have no objective means of invalidating it. I don't argue that you or anyone else should accept their belief, but I don't understand intolerance, unless their beliefs are unquestionably impacting someone else negatively.

  For instance, if I believe God is my gun, and I believe God really likes to kill people I don't know...that would be a belief that would understandably be intolerable. Beliefs are always proven to the person holding them. But not every belief can be tolerated by society.

  Since belief in a Creator does not necessarily have any negative impact, even on the consideration of science, I cannot see why it matters to anyone whether or not someone else believes in a Creator. I strongly suspect it is a prejudicial reaction, where belief in A categorizes a person as also believing P, X, and Z.
• 

  AuldSoul

  ackack,

  The tautology was intentional. First I restated what I posted previously, then demonstrated how it functions in practice as constrasted with the way proof works in a laboratory.

  Once a thing is proved to me I no longer have to seek confirmation of it. If I run across something (evidence) that might falsify it in the future, I am free to consider such valid or invalid as I see fit, by whatever criteria I choose. Everyone does this, even with regard to belief in a Creator. They consider evidence to prove one or another conclusion to themselves, but proving a thing does not remove the possibility of error or mean it cannot be later falsified.

  Proof is based on examination of evidence. It is achieved when the weight of evidence is sufficient.

  Merriam-Webster says of belief: conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence.

  How is believing something different from having something proven to you, exactly? Is it because you associate belief inextricably with faith or credulity (P, or X)?
• 

  ackack

  AuldSoul, you missed the point. Wtf is "everyday proof"?

  Imposing the scientific method (and its accompanying maxims) outside the laboratory is insane. Can you imagine the world economy in an environment where the scientific method was really put to use? Think on that one for two seconds and you will see the wisdom in keeping the scientific method in its place. In fact, if the scientific method were really applied to everything, there would shortly be no funding for science.

  Honestly, what are you talking about?

  ackack
• 

  funkyderek

  ack ack:

  Can you spot... the tautology?!

  AuldSoul's entire contribution to this thread has been to define words in such a way that he can make a tautologous statement that sounds important.

  "I have evidence - proof even - that God exists". It sounds impressive, doesn't it? But that's because you're used to words like "proof" and "evidence" actually meaning something. When you unravel the statement, all he actually means is that some people believe in God, and some people have declared that they believe in God.

  In the same way I have proof and evidence that aliens are visiting the earth and mutilating cattle, that the world was created 6,000 years ago, that a monster lives under my nephew's bed, that the world is flat, that Allah is the True God and Mohammed is his prophet, that Sydney is the capital of Australia and so on and so forth.

  And he claims not to be playing semantic games!
• 

  AuldSoul

  FunkyDerek,

  I have personal proof (everyday, garden-variety, ordinary, outside the laboratory proof). I do not claim to have scientific proof.

  There is a distinct difference. One I have been trying very hard to communicate through this thread.

  FunkyDerek: In the same way I have proof and evidence that aliens are visiting the earth and mutilating cattle, that the world was created 6,000 years ago, that a monster lives under my nephew's bed, that the world is flat, that Allah is the True God and Mohammed is his prophet, that Sydney is the capital of Australia and so on and so forth.

  Do you have proof of these? Or do you simply have evidence you have personally deemed invalid. If you have proof of these, you believe them true. I doubt you believe them true, given the context you raised the point in.

  If you doubt them true, you are the one playing games.
• 

  AuldSoul

  FunkyDerek,

  Please help me out here. What is the difference between these two statements, if there is any difference:

  (1) Because I have no evidence for a Creator.

  (2) Because there is no evidence for a Creator.

  I see a distinct difference. It jumps right out at me. These two statements are not equivalent in any sense, to me. Are they equivalent to you?

  My contribution to this thread was intended to be a very simple correction of a blatantly illogical statement made by Abaddon. In his statement, he presumed to have all evidence for a Creator (despite no claim of personal experience), and to have ruled all of it invalid on behalf of everyone. I only stipulated that he must allow the possibility of there being evidence for a Creator.

  If for no other reason than that he allows the possibilty of the existence of a Creator, and for everything that exists there is evidence to support that fact.

  "No evidence for a Creator exists" is an equivalent statement to "No Creator exists." Existence necessitates evidence.

  I don't believe in a North American Apeman, but I don't go apeshit when people talk about one. Even though I have no evidence for one that I consider credible. I will not presume to state that there is no evidence for one, however, because it is possible, and if it exists, evidence of its existence also exists.