Yet another god doesnt exist thread. (Page 6)

zeffur
zeffur: re: "Sir Loin: Oh bullshit Zeff. Just look at the logic of it. Can't argue with that"

Since there is no proof, there is no reasonable basis to stand on. The logic of it is faulty at every imagination. Evolution is a false belief system. It's so obvious that it's a wonder anyone can be duped by it.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
murrayduan
murrayduan: zef. everything in the link has been proven, No one is looking for proof, examples are already listed.

Weird how you want to deny actual proof to support a Tale? Go figure.

I will ask again why do you believe in anything other then Evolution. The great minds all believe it is proven, who does that leave to question it. Hmmm I know the gullible and scared.

I can show you examples of mammals who walked on land and now live in the ocean. They have evolved limbs to fins.

Its OK to be scared but to be deny the obvious is frightening.

I still would like your answer why you believe in Creationism? Explain the great body of proof that turns you against what the people whose lives have been spent studying both?

To know the truth wont send you to Hell, that's only to get you Tithing. Scary stuff what people can buy into?

But then hey look they elected Trump?
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: For someone who spends his days lambasting other members for their (supposed) flawed reasoning, Zeffur continues to produce one logical howler after another. Consider (previous page, 2nd to bottom post):


"A fact must be true. To claim something is a scientific fact it must be scientifically proven to be a fact--which your beloved beliefs have NEVER been proven---hence, they are not fact." - Zeffur



Let's reconstruct Zeffur's argument in deductive form:

Premise 1 : To claim something is a scientific fact it must be scientifically proven to be a fact

Premise 2 : Your beliefs have not been proven

Conclusion : Your beliefs are not fact



Now, whether all of you choose to accept the truth of Zeffur's two premises is a matter for yourselves to decide. The problem I want to point out is that regardless of whether the premises are accepted or not, Zeffur's conclusion is not entailed by the premises.

In short, Zeffur's argument is invalid.


EVEN IF we accept Zeffur's two premises as true, it cannot be deductively inferred that "Your beliefs are not fact".

The beliefs in question may or may not be facts; pending proof, we are no position to say.
3 years ago Report
0
theHating
theHating:
(Edited by theHating)
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "murrayduan: zef. everything in the link has been proven"

Untrue. You apparently don't know what proof is.

re: "I can show you examples of mammals who walked on land and now live in the ocean. They have evolved limbs to fins."

No you can't. You can only show false claims from dishonest people. Their claims (i.e. biased beliefs) cannot be proven by the evidence. That you lack the mental ability to understand such a reality, only proves the depth of your delusion.

re: "I still would like your answer why you believe in Creationism? Explain the great body of proof that turns you against what the people whose lives have been spent studying both?"

I have already explained to you logically why evolution is rubbish. You didn't understand or remember it because your mind doesn't work properly.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "AchillesSinatra: In short, Zeffur's argument is invalid."

You are still invalid. No matter how you try to spin it--a person cannot honestly call a claim a 'fact/true' until it has been proven to be true. Doing so makes such a person dishonest & a liar or spewing ignorance. The only honest thing a person can say about a claim that hasn't been proven is that s/he believes it is true. A belief & a fact are not the same thing--no matter how often you try to pervert that truth.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "You are still invalid. No matter how you try to spin it--a person cannot honestly call a claim a 'fact/true' until it has been proven to be true." - Zeffur




And you continue to fail to see the absurd conclusion which results from your premise. Once again, ladies and gentlemen, in deductive form:


Premise 1 : A person cannot honestly call a claim a 'fact/true' until it has been proven to be true (source: Zeffur)

Premise 2 : That which has been proven to be true is true (source: common sense)

Conclusion 1 : A person cannot honestly call something true unless it is true



This argument is deductively valid. That is to say, if the premises are true then the conclusion necessarily follows.

The conclusion is, of course, absurd. The conclusion says that honest people can only make claims to truth about that which is indeed true. The conclusion, in effect, says that honest people must be infallible in their truth claims. Honest people CANNOT BE MISTAKEN in their claims about what is true.

In short, if Zeffur is to be believed, honest people can only say that a given proposition P is true if P is indeed true. To do otherwise is to lie.



A valid deductive argument, through structurally beyond reproach, fails to be "sound" when one or more of the premises are false. Given that the above argument is valid, but the conclusion is absurd, we must question the SOUNDNESS of the argument.

Premise 2 would appear incontrovertible. Therefore . . .

Conclusion 2 : Zeffur's premise 1 is manifest drivel.



Honest people do, as a matter of course, makes claims about truth, often with extremely good reason, but which later turn out to be false.

Twas ever thus.
(Edited by AchillesSinatra)
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Put another way, if Zeffur's advice were to be heeded, all honest people would be restricted to making truth claims about that which cannot possibly be false.

That means all honest people may have to restrict their truth claims to the deductive consequences of axiomatic systems, such as those of formal logic and geometry.

But Zeffur, you yourself, day-in day-out, make assertions (i.e. claims to truth) which are not the deductive consequences of an axiomatic system.

And, on your own account, that makes you a liar.
3 years ago Report
0
murrayduan
murrayduan: zeff tell me are you a teenager?

How can anyone say, " No you can't. You can only show false claims from dishonest people. Their claims (i.e. biased beliefs) cannot be proven by the evidence"

So when Whales are shown to possess hips and bone structure of hands in their fins which shows they were once land animals you claim these Facts are dishonest? LMFAO

When science shows Whales also have backbones that move up and down like land mammals and not side to side, they are being dishonest? Huh.

How do Adults grow to be this confused about things science has discovered to be true?

Is it fear of being mislead? Fear others will laugh at their ignorance? Can anyone explain.

Science brought us out of the Caves and into the world we now live it. Science has increased our longevity cured our afflictions because this is what they do, make this world a better place for Humans and all species if they can.

So what drives some to say yep science did that and we thank them. Thank you science for that.
And then say no, science is trying to fool me or are biased and those same people who have saved billions of people on this planet are now dishonest because their Facts are not what I want to believe? they have an ulterior motive that contradicts my belief in 1000 year old tales, or folklore? Some scary stuff this.

Yet those same folks can not explain the why they believe in opposing ideology?

Zeff even said he believes in Intelligent Design which is only about 25 years old and is basically Creationist's being overwhelmed with the facts of Evolution and trying to save face by incorporating the discoveries of Science into their Fairy Tale.

Confused people out there.
3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: @ Murray

I'd say you're spinning a few fairy tales of your own. E.g.

"Science brought us out of the Caves and into the world we now live it."

Modern science is generally taken to have begun around 1600. It is not the case that the human race was living in caves circa 1500.

Even if you want to trace science back to the ancient Greeks, it is still not the case that the human race was cavebound circa 1000 BC.

Whatever got us us out the caves, it doesn't appear to have been science.



"Zeff even said he believes in Intelligent Design which is only about 25 years old and is basically Creationist's being overwhelmed with the facts of Evolution and trying to save face by incorporating the discoveries of Science into their Fairy Tale."

Here I'd say you're attacking a strawman. There are some very intelligent people out there -- see Stephen Meyer, for example -- who DO accept the findings of science, but refuse to accept the inference that all we see in nature could have come about through natural neo-Darwinian processes.

Intelligent design is not a position I subscribe to myself. That's said it's an interesting hypothesis, unworthy of the ridicule routinely heaped upon it by scientists eager to mark their own turf and defend their own hegemony.

Philosophy legend Thomas Nagel puts it this way:

"In thinking about these questions I have been stimulated by criticisms of the prevailing scientific world picture by the defenders of intelligent design. Even though writers like Michael Behe and Stephen Meyer are motivated at least in part by their religious beliefs, the empirical arguments they offer against the likelihood that the origin of life and its evolutionary history can be fully explained by physics and chemistry are of great interest in themselves. Another skeptic, David Berlinski, has brought out these problems vividly without reference to the design inference. Even if one is not drawn to the alternative of an explanation by the actions of a designer, the problems that these iconoclasts pose for the orthodox scientific consensus should be taken seriously. They do not deserve the scorn with which they are commonly met. It is manifestly unfair."



And, by the way, Creationists, or religious people in general, are far from being the only ones who feel that current evolutionary theory is hopelessly inadequate.

Ask and I will provide names (my own included).

Of course, anyone who DOES have to gall to critique neo-Darwinian orthodoxy is effectively offering an invitation to be ridiculed, mocked, dehumanized and worse. Probably not good for your chances of securing/maintaining tenure either.

It's generally a lot safer just to followed the herd.


3 years ago Report
1
Motati
Motati: This discussion is lit. Very interesting.
3 years ago Report
1
MJ59
MJ59:

*Waits for an insulting reply from a creationist. This is why they get picked on, can't debate logically, always with the insults lol
(Edited by MJ59)
3 years ago Report
1
murrayduan
murrayduan: Sinatra Yes living in caves was not do to lack of scientists and my reference to that historical time was simply to emphasize how far we have come since science became involved.

We have found stone and earth covered dwellings from 5000 years ago that were not actually caves. In fact I don't know if Humans really lived in caves as we know the term today implies. As gatherers/hunters the caves might have been used for protection from the elements.

I have read of scientists from around 900 AD but the fact I mentioned about those who wrote the Bible believing you cured disease by blood letting and the Universe revolved around Earth etc etc was to again show the great progress that leads us to life today was the result of Science.

The believed 1st scientist in the 900's developed the pin hole camera discovered Laws of refraction and we were off and running.

I hope my point was obvious that basing ones beliefs on information and stories of those men vs what science has since discovered made little sense.

As for dissenting voices that is to be expected just as today we have people who believe the Holocaust was a hoax and covid19 is a Democratic Hoax.

Being quite old I remember groups of people with like interests that prescribed to their chosen leaders claim we don't need food and get all the nourishment we need from the air we breath and Universes Energy. He actually had followers until he was caught sneaking out to buy snacks. I believe they were called Bretharians. Their group of believes experienced deaths among its followers. I believe it was in the 70's or close.

So yes we will always have skeptics but I take comfort in numbers most of the time plus my own human ability to ponder and compare what makes sense.

The fact that people will site knowledge like there are Trillions of Stars and OK Earth is 12 or 13 Billion years old in my mind are accepting what Science has discovered yet will take other discoveries from the same people and attack it as dishonest and a fraud because it contradicts what they wish were true puzzles me. Hence my posts.

Yes "smart" people can disagree with Evolution or apply their own spin on it like Intelligent Design, but to me its an unknown agenda by me that motivates them. The agenda is not the truth.

To date my questions about our beginnings can usually be found in Science from Earths formation to the air we breath to life. This from a person of Italian origins who was pushed into Catholicism at an early age.

I do not attack people personally unless I am first attacked as idiot, socialist etc etc. I guess I have a thin skin in that regard.

Being old I also know what was taught about God and the Bible 70 years ago and watched the Evolution of those beliefs over the years. So I have no doubt Intelligent Design only came about because of Scientists work on Evolution and what they discovered.
3 years ago Report
0
murrayduan
murrayduan: One more thing the heard mentality as I understand it to mean, has in my opinion caused much of the worlds problems.

I have always been accused of resisting to participate and have even lost friends over it. So be it.

That is one thing that contradicts my claimed beliefs in the numbers. No doubt I am in the minority regarding Creationism but it is one minority I embrace with no regrets. I refuse to not accept what I believe to be true and explainable. In my discussions I am always on the lookout for consenting opinions that could change my mind.

So far as I said before it usually ends up in a fight or flight moment for most.
(Edited by murrayduan)
3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Hi Murray,

Glad to hear your thoughts on all of the above.

The general tone, in my (useless) opinion anyway, is one that has the taken the opposite extreme from science denialism, i.e., science veneration. I'd say one is as worrisome as the other.

We all know, that at least in a great number of cases, whether it be global warming, an expanding universe, or particular claims about evolution, for every credentialed scientist who claims X, other credentialed scientists can be found who claim "not X".

As for science bringing only benefits . . . I'd say it''s a pretty dubious claim, as dubious as those who claim religion causes only harm/good.

Think of the threat of nuclear holocaust. We can hardly blame that on the religious loonies now, can we?

Think of the unspeakable pain and suffering which was a direct result of eugenics, inappropriate IQ testing, and rating of races and and gender in terms of superiority-inferiority.

If it's a tear-jerker you want, read the final pages of S. J. Gould's "The Mismeasure of Man".

I can only paraphrase from memory (coz I have returned the book to the library).:


"My husband and I always dreamed of having children. We saw specialist after specialist. Finally one discovered my fallopian tubes had been severed. No one ever told me about this at the time. I was apparently deemed an "imbecile" according to the best science of the day".



By current scientific lights. this dear lady who never harmed anyone, no longer qualifies as an "imbecile".

3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "That is one thing that contradicts my claimed beliefs in the numbers. No doubt I am in the minority regarding Creationism but it is one minority I embrace with no regrets. I refuse to not accept what I believe to be true and explainable. In my discussions I am always on the lookout for consenting opinions that could change my mind."


And you are perfectly entitled to your opinion, sir.

What bothers me is the scorn and dehumanization routinely dispensed to Creationists by the more zealous members of the scientific community.

We're no longer allowed to call blacks, Hottentots and women inferior. It's not PC nowadays.

These days they pick on the Creationists instead.

Some things never change, eh?
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "murrayduan: So when Whales are shown to possess hips and bone structure of hands in their fins which shows they were once land animals you claim these Facts are dishonest? LMFAO"

That ^^ is not a fact, you wannabe chimp--it's a belief. Those bones DO NOT" show they were once land animals" <<--- This is a believe. It is definitely not a proof.
You're certainly free to believe whatever you wish--but, that does not make your belief true in any way.

re: "How do Adults grow to be this confused about things science has discovered to be true?"

Look hard into your mirror & ask the same question of how you got to be so confused. It starts with an irrational mind & leads to deep delusion. Good luck with your therapy...
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
zeffur
zeffur: re: "murrayduan: One more thing the heard mentality as I understand it to mean, has in my opinion caused much of the worlds problems."

You most definitely are a member of the herd who accepts whatever ball of yarn that is flung out by pseudo-scientists who blather on endlessly about evolution in vain.

Believe whatever you want--none of what you have chosen to believe has been proven--it is all a fairy tale for those who hate God & religion or for those who are too weak to understand the truth (they prefer fairy tales to the truth--especially when such fairy tales are pseudo-scientific rubbish).

Your real problem appears to be that you are a dishonest person. You have read many explanations from people who have explained quite well why your scientific facts do not rise to the level of proof to support your wishful & delusional beliefs, but you refuse to understand, accept, acknowledge, or recite such positions when you try to advance your false beliefs. Here's how you do it: "its an unknown agenda by me that motivates them. The agenda is not the truth." It isn't that their beliefs are not true or that they have an unknown agenda--it is that you aren't honest & intelligent enough to understand or admit what has been communicated to you is true--and that occurs, because you have deluded yourself with the false information that you accept as true. It isn't any more complicated than that.
(Edited by zeffur)
3 years ago Report
0
murrayduan
murrayduan: zeff, LOL thanks for the endorsement. How exactly is anyone dishonest who does not believe a Fairy Tale created by relatively low information people hampered by the time period they lived in?

How does an adult not understand that. In your mind one who offers the fact, Whales have hips and remains of limbs inside their Flippers is dishonest for describing what is a Fact? That's is the scary part.

You have a belief that I still have no clue about and your support of those beliefs is not what you know to be true, it is that you cant believe the facts Science does know. So your support for what you want to believe is mine must be true because I don't believe the other? Huh?

One would think a rational mind would ask, Hmm Science says they know Evolution is a fact. Now what do they gain for offering that information for us to learn.
Do they put out a book that says, here is what happened in the past when people did not believe what they offer. Scientists slaughtered over 100 million men women and children just for not believing what they tell know.

No they do not but there is a book out there that does say that it's called the Bible. The authors of that book needed to assure the story would be believed. lets try fear.

Do Scientists tell us if you don't believe what we say, then you are going to hell. Hmmm nope but there is a book that does say that. Guess what the name is?

Science only offers to educate us, you must make the choice to remain ignorant of what they know.

But does a light come on that asks why would one of those groups threaten us with death and Hell if we don't believe them? Do Scientists tell us they want us to tithe about 10% of our income every month to be in good graces with them? No, why not?

I know one relies on information that can be supported with years of testing and retesting and peer reviews.

The other relies on years and centuries of stories and folklore and of course fear.
3 years ago Report
1
murrayduan
murrayduan: A question I would like to see answered is if you would not want a Doctor to operate on you who learned their trade 2000 years ago, or explain the wonders of the Universe from what they learned 2000 years ago or pretty much explain anything based on their learnings, 2000 years ago then why would you believe what 80 of those same men wrote in a book and threatened you with death or eternal damnation for not believing it?

Please explain.
3 years ago Report
1
murrayduan
murrayduan: I don't expect zeff to answer my question for obvious reasons, but I see we have some more articulate people in this room then I am who I would like to hear a response from,.
3 years ago Report
1
MJ59
MJ59: I'm pretty happy for the scientifically trained doc to cut me open lol
3 years ago Report
1
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: "A question I would like to see answered is if you would not want a Doctor to operate on you who learned their trade 2000 years ago, or explain the wonders of the Universe from what they learned 2000 years ago or pretty much explain anything based on their learnings, 2000 years ago then why would you believe what 80 of those same men wrote in a book and threatened you with death or eternal damnation for not believing it?" - Murray



Yeah, same as Beaver, I'll take the surgeon over the faith-healer, too.

What this has to do with science, though, remains unclear. My guess the convo would go something like this (at a party):

"So, you're a scientist?"

"No, I'm a surgeon".
3 years ago Report
1
MJ59
MJ59: I meant as in "I'm a surgeon, trained in the science of medicine"
(Edited by MJ59)
3 years ago Report
0
AchillesSinatra
AchillesSinatra: Beaver, no doubt we owe a debt of gratitude to modern surgical techniques.

Then again, we also owe a debt of gratitude to electrical engineers, computer technicians, anaesthetologists, metallurgists and a host of others.

Not to forget these angel nurses.

I'm just wondering why the credit is being wholly imputed to science.
3 years ago Report
0