Feed on Posts or Comments 24 November 2014

Christianity &Islam &Judaism &Science Thomas on 21 May 2012 12:59 am

Understanding how scientific theories develop

This graphic gives a nice pictorial illustration of how evidence turns into a scientific theory:

Scientific theories

The more evidence scientists gather, the closer we get to the truth.

One thing the graphic does not discuss is predictions. A scientific theory frequently allows scientists to make predictions about the world and then confirm those predictions.

What evidence is there that God exists? What predictions can we make about God?

47 Responses to “Understanding how scientific theories develop”

  1. on 21 May 2012 at 7:45 pm 1.Anonymous said …

    We can predict that God will do nothing because God is imaginary.

  2. on 21 May 2012 at 9:56 pm 2.Lou(DFW) said …

    “What evidence is there that God exists?”

    The ONLY evidence for GOD is what xtians say about god.

    “What predictions can we make about God?”

    By comparing what xtians say about their god to what happens in the real world we can conclude that their god doesn’t exist because the real-world conditions aren’t consistent with those of a an omnipotent, omniscient, all-good, and all-loving god.

  3. on 21 May 2012 at 11:13 pm 3.Jesus Christ said …

    You idiots!:(

  4. on 22 May 2012 at 12:36 am 4.alex said …

    3.Jesus Christ said …

    …but, but, you already knew the responses before we posted them. what? free will made us do it? omniscient one, what happened?

  5. on 22 May 2012 at 6:27 pm 5.ElTroll said …

    “What evidence is there that God exists?”

    THE BIBLE DUH!

    “What predictions can we make about God?”

    YOU CANT PREDICT ANYTHING ABOUT GOD CAUSE HES SOO TOTALLY AWESOME AND SMART AND STUFF. YOU CANT PREDICT THE LOTTERY EITHER BUT THATS REAL!

  6. on 22 May 2012 at 6:42 pm 6.A said …

    Another atheist who believes science is about discovering truth. How sad.

  7. on 22 May 2012 at 7:00 pm 7.Anonymous said …

    6.A said …

    > Another atheist who believes science is about discovering truth. How sad.

    A, What do you think science is about?

  8. on 22 May 2012 at 7:35 pm 8.alex said …

    “Another atheist who believes science is about discovering truth. How sad.”

    How sad for the atheist or how sad for your diminished god? How sad that your chances to commit multiple transgressions in the name of your god, with endless redemptions, is coming to an end?

    How sad my ass. Fuckin, smug, righteous, hit and run, one line poster.

  9. on 22 May 2012 at 8:14 pm 9.Lou(DFW) said …

    5.ElTroll said …

    “YOU CANT PREDICT ANYTHING ABOUT GOD CAUSE HES SOO TOTALLY AWESOME AND SMART AND STUFF. YOU CANT PREDICT THE LOTTERY EITHER BUT THATS REAL!”

    We can’t predict which numbers will be drawn, but we can make some very accurate predictions about the lottery. We can compare the actual results to the predicted results to conclude that the lottery is exactly what we say it is.

    Apparently you aren’t “SOO TOTALLY AWESOME AND SMART AND STUFF.”

  10. on 22 May 2012 at 8:57 pm 10.DPK said …

    “6.A said …

    Another atheist who believes science is about discovering truth. How sad….”

    He says, typing on a computer connected to a global network, provided by????
    Oh right… NOT a 1st century inspired backward superstitious religion.

    The funny thing is, odds are strong that “A” wouldn’t even be alive if not for science’s ability to discover the truth, as he probably would have died during childbirth or fallen prey to some infectious disease long thought to be demonic possession. Either that, or he would have been killed by some theocracy for being the wrong flavor of christianity.

  11. on 22 May 2012 at 9:57 pm 11.Anonymous said …

    So, how about the Astrophysicist provides us with some evidence for this imaginary friend, sky-daddy and his supposed-son the dead Jew on a stick?

    It’s not like you haven’t been asked this before. So, how about instead of trolling around in your socks, you prove to us that your not delusional and cough up this evidence that you’ve been guarding and keeping from the light of day?

  12. on 22 May 2012 at 10:49 pm 12.40 year Atheist said …

    When discussing science, it is apparent that most people have a concept of what science entails, yet when pushing into it a short way, it is also apparent that the concepts of science and the methods of science are variable and even at variance with each other.

    As with all discussions it is useful to define the terminology at the outset, so that the discussion means the same thing to all the participants. The underpinnings of science are philosophical and can get to be partisan to various groups of philosophers. That is of little concern to scientists for the most part. Still, even amongst the science community there is variability as is seen in various text books that try to define science for the benefit of student readers.

    Some of the more disingenuous definitions are these flip statements that I have actually seen published:

    “Science is that which the majority of scientists say it is.”

    “Science is whatever scientists do.”

    Besides not being useful these statements obscure the fact that methods really are important to science and scientists. One of the best definitions is the one that Karl Popper develops in the first several chapters of his book, “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”. I’ll try to summarize without prejudicing his concept:

    The scientific method is more than just inductive gathering of instances of a fact followed by an inference of natural law from those instances (forensics): there is a “problem of induction” to be considered shortly.

    Verification science, or empiricism, has the following preliminary elements according to Popper: First, check the internal consistency of the proposal to be tested; second, test for the character of the proposal, whether it is empirically qualified or if it is tautological or other non-qualified nature; third, compare with other theories to determine if it would actually provide a scientific advancement; finally, test the theory by way of empirical applications of the conclusions which can be derived from it (deduction of consequences).

    These preliminaries fit into an overall empirical scheme that might be described as follows, going beyond Popper’s preliminaries:
    a) speculation and coherence check, possibly with inductive input, resulting in the formulation of a proposed hypothesis;

    b) deductive experimental design and implementation;

    c) data analysis and congruity check against hypothesis expectations;

    d) adjust hypothesis and experimental design, and repeat.

    Also, Popper insisted that it is necessary that falsification of the hypothesis be possible. Falsification is the most necessary criteria, according to Popper, because it allows the demarcation “between physical science and metaphysical speculation”. Any concept that cannot be falsified is not verifiable with physical techniques, and is outside the realm of materialist science. As Popper says, “it must be possible for an empirical scientific system to be refuted by experience”.

    Experiments and the replication of experiments cannot provide verification, it only provides instances of non-falsification. This is because singular statements cannot accumulate sufficiently to provide a universal statement (law). This is a failure of induction, where instance cannot prove the truth of the entirety. The exception to this is falsification where a singular statement deductively indicates falseness, which according to the principle of the excluded middle prevents the statement from being true.

    Popper takes the following position on induction:
    “Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ (whatever that may mean), is logically inadmissible.”
    This position is essentially fatal to forensic inferential extrapolations such as those in evolutionary theory.

    The problem of induction.
    Induction has been addressed by a great many philosophers of science, from Hume on. There are several objections to induction.

    First, there is the problem of verifying induction itself. If induction is a valid process for producing valid results, it should be able to verify itself. But it can’t verify itself if it is not known to be valid in advance. Further, if the principle of induction is taken as a universal, then the idea of validating the validator becomes an infinite regress, never resolving to a verification at any level. So the principle of induction cannot be verified, and cannot be a universal.

    Next, according to Schlick (per Popper), “The problem of induction consists in asking for a logical justification of universal statements about reality… we recognize, with Hume, that there is no such logical justification: there can be none, simply because they are not genuine statements.” Hume had said that no amount of “constant conjunction” between events could ever prove the conjunction to be a universal (or law). For instance, if every object we encounter is red, it does not follow that the next object we encounter should be red. As Popper shows, the probability does not approach 1 without becoming a tautology.

    Popper takes this one step more. Because induction cannot provide a demarcation between scientific and metaphysical systems, then statements about both systems are meaningless (being undifferentiable as well as non-falsifiable); thus while attempting to eliminate metaphysics from the empirical sciences, metaphysics is allowed (by induction) to invade the scientific realm, producing a contradictory or paradoxical result.

    The Problem of Empiricism
    Because in experimental science a single successful experiment provides a only a single instance of non-falsification, the need for more instances (replications) exists; this is an inductive accumulation, so the problem of inductive non-verifiability also applies. For this reason even empiricism cannot ever produce incorrigible, incontrovertible, noncontingent proof, in the sense of Truth. Truth is an object in metaphysics, and only metaphysics, never in science.

    But empiricism also cannot verify “experiential” or “existential” statements. This is shown by the statement, “there are no white ravens”. No amount of either induction or deductive experimentation can bring a conclusive answer to such an assertion.

    Axiomatic Limitations
    1. As Hume demonstrates, it is not possible to “demonstrate that the course of nature must continue uniformly the same… Nay, I will go farther, and assert that he could not so much as prove by any probable arguments that the future must be conformable to the past. All probable arguments are built on the supposition that there is conformity betwixt the future and the past, and therefore can never prove it”. (Hume; A Treatise of Human Nature)

    For this reason is it axiomatic for science to presume conformity of the past within itself, and between the past and the future.

    There are presumed to be no singularities, ever, that are variations in the physical laws. Since this cannot be proved, it is accepted as axiomatic.

    2. Notwithstanding Hume’s denial of “constant conjunction” verifiability, the principle of cause and effect is accepted as axiomatic.

    3. All the first principles of logic are accepted as axiomatic.

    So the scientific method, even if restricted to experimental empiricism, is limited to physical objects that are measurable in the sense that they possess mass/energy and exist in space/time. The scientific method is limited by its inability to prove its basic assumptions (axioms) and is not axiomatic itself, and is not itself a universal. The scientific method cannot provide or argue for or against Truth, because Truth is a metaphysic and is outside the realm of the physical. The scientific method cannot prove existential statements, because of the limitations of the inductive method, inherent even in empiricism.

  13. on 22 May 2012 at 11:09 pm 13.Lou(DFW) said …

    12.40 year Atheist said …

    “The scientific method cannot provide or argue for or against Truth, because Truth is a metaphysic and is outside the realm of the physical.”

    Metaphysics is a b.s. branch of philosophy – thinking about thinking.

    Translation: theists have no evidence for their imaginary god, so theists like 40YA try to bamboozle with a lot philological nonsense and double-talk as to why they don’t.

  14. on 23 May 2012 at 12:34 am 14.Prime said …

    Yet again Stan puts a bunch of crap that I don’t read.

    Stan: You’re being marginalized here. Might want to try to fish in a different pond.

  15. on 23 May 2012 at 1:10 am 15.Anonymous said …

    “Yet again Stan puts a bunch of crap that I don’t read.”

    Thanks for the summary, Prime. This time I got as far as “40 Y” and pulled the plug.

    13.Lou – it’s just another way of avoiding reality.

  16. on 23 May 2012 at 2:36 am 16.A said …

    40 YA

    Thank you summarizing what science is and as importantly is not. It is Amazing how few individuals believe science is really scientism.

  17. on 23 May 2012 at 2:56 am 17.Anonymous said …

    12.40 year Atheist

    Wait, you’re saying that God is so imaginary that he is off limits to science?

    Why do you “believe” in this imaginary thing? How can you “have faith” in it?

  18. on 23 May 2012 at 4:42 am 18.kso said …

    scientism? you mean taking a snapshot of all current science turning yesterday’s data into a hardened dogmatic belief system?

    only a fundie would do that.

  19. on 23 May 2012 at 12:18 pm 19.Lou(DFW) said …

    16.A said …

    “Thank you summarizing what science is and as importantly is not. It is Amazing how few individuals believe science is really scientism.”

    Are you suggesting that it’s “Amazing” (is Amazing with a capital A a greater degree of amazement than one with a lower-case a?) that only a few individuals believe that or that it’s amazing that “science is really scientism?”

    40YA is simply trying to re-frame science so that he can make it appear as a religion and attack it as such. And we all know how useless religion is, so yes, that makes it an easy target.

    But the truth of the matter is this – regardless of whether or not science is scientism, or whether or not 40YA is correct or incorrect about it, this subject has no effect on the rejection in the belief of an imaginary god for which there is no evidence. Despite all of 40YA’a long off-topic, polemic diatribes, this indisputable fact remains – there is no evidence for his or any other imaginary god.

    “Truth is a metaphysic and is outside the realm of the physical.”

    Metaphysics is an underlying philosophical or theoretical principle. Belief in an imaginary god is the metaphysic(s) of the religious – that’s the truth. But Faith is NOT Truth.

  20. on 23 May 2012 at 9:54 pm 20.Prime said …

    Ahh… scientism. The newest dishonest dodge to come down the pipe. I have a love-hate relationship with scientism (and a kissing cousin of it called, rather oxymoronically, “devout agnosticism”), let me explain why.

    Scientism is the newest line of crap coming down the pipe from the religious, the people who, weirdly, want to posit that science, taken dogmatically or overreachingly, is bad because dogma and overreaching are bad things. Of course, that’s exactly the foundation of (religious) faith, and so it’s weird that they saw the limb out from under themselves like that while doing so in a beautiful, classic example of a red herring.

    Let’s look at it on its face: Scientism says that science doesn’t have all the answers–and indeed cannot provide them in any circumstance–and thus should not be treated as if it could. What, though, does that have to do with religion or faith in God? Nothing! Absolutely nothing! It only has something to do with religious faith for people who believe there is a dilemma here between science and faith. Sure, they’re incompatible ideas and are kind of on the opposite ends of the spectrum epistemologically, but they’re not exhaustive. Since trying to damage the reputation of science–by stressing the limitations it has over the simple fact that it works, which is rather a case of poisoning the well–cannot bolster religion but can only possibly make people more hesitant to accept scientific claims and thought, it’s a classic red herring to even bring it up–a rather embarrassing one at that!

    The other big problem with scientism is that it essentially falls for a complexity argument. While there are legitimately questions that science cannot practically answer and some (meaningful) ones that it may not have much to say on–maybe, I can’t actually think of any after a lot of trying–it’s an utter sham to make the kinds of claims that people who call “scientism” make. History has questions that cannot be answered by science ever, like the exact wording of unrecorded verbal exchanges from the past, but historical investigation is strengthened, not ignored or diminished by science. Beauty and emotions will be well understood within a century, if we keep on, as neural and biological phenomena. If you look at what fMRI can already do and jump forward 100 or 1000 years, most of the artsy-fartsy “mysteries” will have pretty neat explanations available to them (i.e. buying the scientism schtick is falling for a complexity argument).

    In the same camp of imprecision are “devout agnostics” that claim, essentially, “since we cannot know everything, we can’t really say we know anything.” That’s wrong, though. We know a lot of stuff, like how to cure the appendicitis of the guy saying that stuff, saving his life and allowing him to continue saying it.

    These two poisonous ideas are going to be center stage for the next decade or two on this front. It’s going to be maddeningly frustrating for those of us who understand things, but it’s a major sign of hope.

    First, “devout agnosticism” has a rising popularity that is going to push people futher away from religion. It’s a two-edged sword that essentially rejects dogmatism across the board, and, fundamentally, its adherents are *agnostics,* not religious. That we already see the religious rallying around this position, like they do when attacking Richard Dawkins, for example, is a sign of the times. Theism is usually desperate to include people (like Deists, like Benjamin Franklin) in their ranks, and now they’re even allying with agnostics! It’s literally a Hail Mary pass to a God of the Gaps that isn’t there.

    Second, scientism! Ha! Great! How hard do you have to be on the run to be attacking the philosophical underpinnings of something that is so obviously successful? The hypocrisy of attacking the ability of science to answer questions while using the fruits of it, like computers, to disseminate that message is apparent even to some imbeciles. This is not going to be the kind of argument that brings people to faith. At most, it will bring people toward “devout agnosticism,” which is still *not religion.* Maybe a few here and there will be pursuaded to the myths based on the tiny space of doubt this line of rhetorical bollocks opens up, but, honestly, who cares?

    This stuff, as maddening as it will be, is a clear sign of the times. Religion is washed up.

    PS: I have not yet but will be posting this (with some edits) on my own blog. I’m just mentioning that so I don’t get accused of being a Stan if someone else finds it. It was new here first.

  21. on 24 May 2012 at 1:29 am 21.A said …

    40YA

    Scientism has been a fascinating observation for me over the last decade. It is almost laughable how giddy some will become over a personality. Enjoy this article if you have not seen it.

    http://www.michaelshermer.com/2002/06/shamans-of-scientism/

  22. on 24 May 2012 at 2:21 am 22.Lou(DFW) said …

    21.A said …

    “Scientism has been a fascinating observation for me over the last decade.”

    And I’ll bet watching ant farms and sea monkeys has been for you, too.

    “It is almost laughable how giddy some will become over a personality.”

    Yes, it is, as you so perfectly demonstrate after 40YDA posts one of his years-old rants here.

    “Enjoy this article if you have not seen it.”

    Yes, 40YDA, imagine how much more you can get out of it if you read it addition to only looking at the pictures like Asstrophysicist does.

  23. on 24 May 2012 at 2:54 am 23.Lou(DFW) said …

    20.Prime said …

    “Scientism is the newest line of crap coming down the pipe from the religious, the people who, weirdly, want to posit that science, taken dogmatically or overreachingly, is bad because dogma and overreaching are bad things. Of course, that’s exactly the foundation of (religious) faith, and so it’s weird that they saw the limb out from under themselves like that while doing so in a beautiful, classic example of a red herring.”

    “The essence of science is that it is always willing to abandon a given idea, however fundamental it may seem to be, for a better one; the essence of theology is that it holds its truths to be eternal and immutable. To be sure, theology is always yielding a little to the progress of knowledge, and only a Holy Roller in the mountains of Tennessee would dare to preach today what the popes preached in the Thirteenth Century, but this yielding is always done grudgingly, and thus lingers a good while behind the event.” – H.L. Mencken

  24. on 24 May 2012 at 2:51 pm 24.Prime said …

    It’s a shame that some people make a mountain out of a molehill and theologize science.

    It’s a bigger shame that theologians and other desperate believers, sadly including some otherwise decent scientists, extrapolate from this group that does not clearly understand the endeavor of science to try to paint the whole affair as if it is plagued by dogma, which it is not.

    There’s also something to be said about the pathetic attempts by philosophers, usually theologians, to raise the dead and animate the irrelevant by pointing to the fundamental underlying assumption that science makes: the uniformity principle. Scientists agreed a while ago, following Stephen Jay Gould’s insightful analysis of the matter, that the entire topic made for an interesting philosophical exercise but is ultimately useless.

    Why? Science works, for a simple answer. Also, mountains of data indicate that it has always been true, so statistically speaking, we must choose to believe (reasonably) that it will continue to be true in order to make decisions about practical matters. For example, if trying to decide how to contain dangerous substances or implementing any inherently dangerous technology (like (space) flight), we should always choose the method that has the least likelihood of failure, and the assumption that nature isn’t about to change the rules has all of the data on its side and thus, by far, the best chance of ensuring safety.

    In other words, this exaggerated scientism is a phantom that like philosophical attacks at the ankles of science is a new trope of the desperately deluded.

    Hmmm… I wonder if that’s the usual production of Broadway in the Basement: “Tropes of the Desperately Deluded.”

  25. on 24 May 2012 at 5:13 pm 25.scourge said …

    #12 40YA You are to be applauded for attempting to read and comprehend something far outside the realm of low-church theology. It is apparent you do not have the necessary background to follow Popper’s arguments, and for that matter, you should also realize he made huge blunders on evolution at the end of his career when he was not at the top of his game. Regardless, if you are actually interested in understanding induction, you should wade into Polya. He did write a couple pieces for undergraduates. This is probably a bit above your level, but with some honest hard work you might make a go of it.

  26. on 24 May 2012 at 7:34 pm 26.A said …

    Scourge,

    Is all you have? Popper made mistakes because he was old? Polya happens to fit your presuppositions so he is now your hero? You appeal to authority has already been thrown out.

    Get back to band class before you are missed.

  27. on 24 May 2012 at 7:52 pm 27.Prime said …

    Yet again, Astrophysicist, you fail to understand anything.

    If you want to understand induction, presumably so that you can actually use it correctly, read Polya, who has great sources on the matter. This is not an appeal to authority; it’s an invitation to education.

    Of course, that was for 40YA, who might not be you too, so for you, I’m suggesting you look up “functional illiteracy,” admit you have a problem, and then see about remedying it.

  28. on 24 May 2012 at 8:42 pm 28.Lou(DFW) said …

    26.ASStrophysicist said …

    “Popper made mistakes because he was old?”

    What’s your excuse?

  29. on 24 May 2012 at 11:44 pm 29.Ben said …

    A, I am not sure what Scourge was attempting to contrast. There is no friction between Popper and Polya. Popper actually challenged evolutionary theories which ticked off the ideologues. Maybe Polya made errors in meaning when he got old?

    Regardless, maybe they could point out where 40Y fails to use mathematical induction properly. That would much more useful and fun.

  30. on 24 May 2012 at 11:48 pm 30.Ben said …

    “Because induction cannot provide a demarcation between scientific and metaphysical systems, then statements about both systems are meaningless (being undifferentiable as well as non-falsifiable); thus while attempting to eliminate metaphysics from the empirical sciences, metaphysics is allowed (by induction) to invade the scientific realm, producing a contradictory or paradoxical result.”

    I looked at 40Y’s statement one more time. He is absolutely right. Structural induction is not a substitute for inductive reasoning.

  31. on 25 May 2012 at 1:28 am 31.Lou(DFW) said …

    30.Ben said …

    “I looked at 40Y’s statement one more time. He is absolutely right.”

    107.Lou(DFW) said …

    “It also says something about people like you who don’t do anything here but support him by writing STAN IS GREAT AND YOU AREN’T in the face of rebuttals and personal attacks.”

  32. on 25 May 2012 at 1:32 am 32.Lou(DFW) said …

    29.Ben said …

    “Regardless, maybe they could point out where 40Y fails to use mathematical induction properly. That would much more useful and fun.”

    No, what “would [be] much more useful and fun” is for you (or 40YA) to provide some evidence for your imaginary god instead of playing the court jester to 40YA.

  33. on 25 May 2012 at 1:55 am 33.Anonymous said …

    It says a lot about the lack of evidence and the mental state of the theists that they lie low when pressed for evidence, run away when questioned, but come back bolstered by sock-puppetry when they sense an opportunity to throw stones and raise red-herrings.

    Anything but produce evidence for your delusional beliefs. Right, Hor?

  34. on 25 May 2012 at 2:21 am 34.Prime said …

    29.Ben said …

    “Regardless, maybe they could point out where 40Y fails to use mathematical induction properly. That would much more useful and fun.”

    Not even going to try. I’d have to read it first, and I have better things to do than read any more of Stan’s crap. He’s lost my trust.

  35. on 25 May 2012 at 2:32 am 35.Prime said …

    Since I haven’t read it and probably won’t, can someone summarize for me why Stan was even talking about induction?

    Was he on one of his standard rants where he tries to dismantle science by bringing up that the uniformity principle required induction to be philosophically valid? No one f*king cares about that, and the debate has been settled for decades. The “it works, bitches” argument has literally taken all legs out from under that line of overanalyzation and left philosophy looking a bit more useless than when it started as a result.

    Anyone who clings to arguments of “we can’t know what we can know because of these philosophical loopholes of no substantive consequence” marginalizes himself, right Stan?

    How long does it take him to jump to some direct lie about atheists and their “beliefs” after he tries to pull the rug out from under science philosophically?

    I don’t have to ask if his next trick after that is to stuff God in the hole he believes he’s left as if it is some kind of answer that the same problem doesn’t apply to. Oh, wait, I’m sure he “gets out” of that one by claiming that God is defined as the one thing that reasoning can’t touch and that thus solves all the problems; you know, the standard non-answer-to-everything pseudo-explanation that forms the “foundation” of theology.

  36. on 25 May 2012 at 10:40 am 36.Anonymous said …

    “I don’t have to ask if his next trick after that is to stuff God in the hole he believes he’s left as if it is some kind of answer that the same problem doesn’t apply to. Oh, wait, I’m sure he “gets out” of that one by claiming that God is defined as the one thing that reasoning can’t touch and that thus solves all the problems; you know, the standard non-answer-to-everything pseudo-explanation that forms the “foundation” of theology.”

    Something like that. A non-material entity that exists outside of space and time that can’t be tested or detected by “science”, or some kind of “you can’t prove me wrong so I must be right” BS along those lines.

    To further protect his claim, BS-man insists that atheists have to disprove the existence of deities in every femtosecond (his words) past, present and future, or otherwise their claims (well, his straw man version of their claims) are false. Note that he refuses to prove his claim, instead he requires everyone else to disprove what he claims they claim for all of eternity and at the Planck scale in every part of the universe. That’s why so many people laugh at him and don’t take him seriously.

  37. on 25 May 2012 at 11:17 am 37.A said …

    Ben

    See, they only read what supports what they want to believe. Prime sums it up well.

    Funny enough, 40Y is not even using mathematical induction. Scourge also could not even follow 40′s post.

    Not sure why Scourge brought up evolution. That was right out of the blue.

  38. on 25 May 2012 at 11:50 am 38.Anonymous said …

    Asstrophysicist, when are you going to present evidence for the existence of this supposed-god of yours?

    Commence countdown to excuses, evasion, or running away.

  39. on 25 May 2012 at 12:13 pm 39.Lou(DFW) said …

    37.A said …

    “See, they only read what supports what they want to believe.”

    There’s one thing for which we don’t any other support to believe other than read your comments, and it’s that you are nothing but a fraud who NEVER, EVER provides evidence for your imaginary god, and does nothing much more here than back slap 40YA for re-posting years-old rants about off-topic subjects that helps you all avoid the elephant in the room.

  40. on 25 May 2012 at 12:20 pm 40.Lou(DFW) said …

    37.A said…

    “Not sure why Scourge brought up evolution. That was right out of the blue.”

    If YOU read what 40YA wrote then YOU would be “sure why Scourge brought up evolution”

    12.40 year Atheist said …

    “Popper takes the following position on induction:
    “Now in my view there is no such thing as induction. Thus inference to theories, from singular statements which are ‘verified by experience’ (whatever that may mean), is logically inadmissible.”
    This position is essentially fatal to forensic inferential extrapolations such as those in evolutionary theory.”

    ASStrophysicist, don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?

    “37.A said …

    Ben

    See, they only read what supports what they want to believe.”

    If the shoe fits, then wear it.

  41. on 25 May 2012 at 1:57 pm 41.Anonymous said …

    “If the shoe fits, then wear it.”

    They’re both sock puppets so the shoe must fit.

  42. on 25 May 2012 at 2:16 pm 42.MegaByte said …

    40ya

    I think Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” is a much better work to reference when discussing axiomatic limitations. He was older,had ordered his thoughts and presents a more cohesive view.

    Not a criticism just another work to consider.

  43. on 25 May 2012 at 2:22 pm 43.Lou(DFW) said …

    42.MegaByte said …

    “40ya

    I think Hume’s “An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding” is a much better work to reference when discussing axiomatic limitations. He was older,had ordered his thoughts and presents a more cohesive view.

    Not a criticism just another work to consider.”

    Why aren’t you posting replies to his rants on HIS site? What is your motivation for back-slapping him here?

  44. on 25 May 2012 at 2:33 pm 44.Prime said …

    37.A said …

    “See, they only read what supports what they want to believe. Prime sums it up well.”

    Yup… you got me again, detective. That explains the pile of books I’ve read (or own) written by noted theologians, including Jack Spong, Alvin Platinga, William Lane Craig, etc., and even rather obscure ones like Scott Cowdell. I also have E.P. Sanders and Bart Ehrman (though you guys don’t like Bart too much anymore). I’ve read, but refuse to own, at least one of the shiipiles written by Lee Strobel as well. I even read that complete failure of the ability to print books that is called A Purpose Driven Life by Rick Warren (can I have my three hours back, please?).

    What’s the difference?
    1. Stan is more of a moron than them with more fallacies and inconsistencies, not to mention outright lies, than them. This does not apply to Rick Warren, kind of doesn’t to Strobel, and William Lane Craig has pushed my patience past breaking.
    2. Though the fact seems lost on Stan, this is a comment thread, which is a sort of forum. On such things, C/P rants that are never defended and that usually only vaguely connect to the topic at hand aren’t really worth anyone’s time.
    3. I’ve dealt with a couple of his piles of stink before and noticed that in the process, you fluffers roll around in the stink like junkyard dogs while attempting to troll us (rather like this).

    It’s not that I only read things that support “my position.” It’s that I only read things that are worth reading. Stan is not.

  45. on 25 May 2012 at 2:42 pm 45.Prime said …

    Let’s add to my list.
    I’ve read the old stuff too: the Bible and a bit of the Qur’an, the Gita, some of the Vedas, the Uphanishads, the Taodojing, Yijing, several books on Buddhism, the Iliad and Odyssey, Plato, stuff about Neoplatonism and Stoicism (where your Christian “theology” has its philosophical roots), etc. Back to Jesus: Augustine. Various bits by the Church Fathers (Gregory, Origen, Jerome, Ambrose of Milan, etc.). On the other hand, I’ve read hippy new-age crap like Lester Levenson, about half a dozen of Krishnamurti’s books, and modern Buddhist and new-age Taoist books.

    With the exception of the Taodejing and Yijing, which aren’t exactly “holy” books, there’s not a whole lot of stuff in those, so far as “spiritual” claims go that I agree with. Among the Church Fathers, I like Origen the best, cracked as he was in his various ways, and I think one of the biggest shames of the Western World is that Origen was deemed a heretic and his thoughts on God, which were very Platonic, were rejected from orthodoxy because he thought Jesus, as Logos, was essentially separate from the Godhead.

    As an aside, have you ever paused to think about how much blood has been spilled (and people have been burnt) in the centuries-long schisms and fights caused by people being unable to decide if Jesus was a fully divine son of God who is separate from the Godhead or an intrinsic part of it? Talk about a triviality! This is the system you’re trying to defend, like imbeciles, mostly ignorant of the pettiness and pointlessness of almost everything that your “holy and divinely inspired perfect Word” rests upon.

    I took this question seriously. That’s why I don’t believe in God anymore. It’s very simple.

  46. on 25 May 2012 at 3:02 pm 46.nibb said …

    excellent comment Prime

  47. on 25 May 2012 at 4:40 pm 47.Lou(DFW) said …

    40.Lou(DFW) said …

    37.A said…

    “Not sure why Scourge brought up evolution. That was right out of the blue.”

    “ASStrophysicist, don’t you ever get tired of making a fool of yourself?”

    Additionally, if you actually read what 40YA wrote before you rushed to fluff him, then you would have asked HIM, not Scourge, why HE “brought up evolution…”

    12.40 year Atheist said …

    “This position is essentially fatal to forensic inferential extrapolations such as those in evolutionary theory.”

    …unless you wouldn’t do that because:

    37.A said …

    “See, they only read what supports what they want to believe.”

Trackback This Post | Subscribe to the comments through RSS Feed

Leave a Reply