Three Claims of Uniformitarian Naturalism

Discussion in 'Religion' started by SetiAlpha6, May 27, 2020.

  1. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    A pastor finds the truth.

    Just thought I would throw that in..however I would like to drive home a point I made earlier.

    Seti you pull on this thread you think somehow shows science up ..a very weak move you make..but why don't you address the frauds of religion?
    The long lists of fakes, the long lists of scandals, the fake faith healing, deaths at Jones Town, the destruction of families due to cult behaviour of radical religious groups, the deaths , the suffering , the wars ... how can you justify religion when it has so much badness..heck if anything else did such damage it would be banned...but of course it won't be banned as it keeps the mob in can understa d why governments don't tax it...they want it there...the drug of delusion for the gullible mob.

    Well I will say that Nature is all that exists because that is as far as we can tell and based on my personal experience I can easily believe that is the case. If there is more than nature we can only await the discovery but at the moment our understanding seems reasonable.

    So I am not agreeing with you here.

    In the absence of you stating just who made this claim we are at a bit of a loss but I see no reason to doubt such a claim as it reflects all our observations to date I am not in agreement with you.

    You are joking right?

    For how long have I held a position opposite to what you say here.
    So no I don't agree on this one...
    Why don't you scientifically prove that JC existed...I will wait.

    I am happy to say miracles don't exist...certainly no theist has ever established a miracle when called upon. Like all their claims they never offer anything in support because they have no evidence and delude themselves that because they have faith their invisable friend is really there but as we can see all they have is unsupported delusion.
    Look how long this religion has been around and never do we see any evidence of any gods but plenty of unsupported god claims to which we can note ..not one single piece of compelling evidence...not one.

    So no I don't agree that one should not claim there is no miracles.

    You make me laugh...the standards you refuse to meet you now call upon for us to are a hypocrite almost a mandatory requirement for your mob.
    Do you deny that you are a hypocrite..claiming righteousness yet mishandling the truth and failing to even attempt to back up your claims..get out of here already.

    Let's not forget you will not prove anything because you can not prove just one miracle.

    You live in fantasy land...

    I watched a show about fake martial arts folk..the ones where the master has the students attack and he dispatches them with his chi knocking them over without contact and how both he and the students are deluded and simply are doomed in a real fight...the delusion seems a group thing which comes from never confronting the truth..just like you never confront the here you are trying to draw folk into discussing nonsense when the biggest wildest claim of all goes unsupported..that there is a god and that he had a human god why don't you just concentrate on showing us that there is these Gods and stop your fancy footwork.

    Do you deny your god was a mere invention of the Sumerians?

    Do you deny that JC was but one of many human gods all sharing an astrology MO.

    Actually don't bother I know you can not establish anything other than the truth and I already know it and have sufficient evidence to support my position.

    Stop trolling and lieing it has become tiresome.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    So you come here refusing to back up anything you say and now you seek to hold others to the struck rules we ask you to follow but totally ignore.
    Is that it?
    As I said..the first claim that must be addressed before anything is your claim that there is a your god different to the god invented by the Sumerians?

    Now look at you trying to be clever, trying to avoid the basic questions and getting us to discuss trivialities whilst you refuse to back up your first fundamental claim re a god.

    You are trying to sell a stale bag of bread. One little step at a agree on this..well that means from there we can get this etc etc...mate where is this god you talk are like one of the students in the make believe marital arts pretend the master is the best etc but you never stop and ask can he actually survive in a real fight..and you and the other hangers on simply say god it wonderful etc but never consider the deaths, the wars, the fakes etc etc...and you all fall over saying isn't the master wonderful..your delusion is obvious.

    You could ask what is your game here? Are you one of the students who thinks he can actually knock someone out with his chi...ok let's fight..I have been casual with you, we all have and will continue to do so because like the martial arts example the real fighters took pity on the fools and did not show them all they could do.
    I know you can't win because you can't back up anything you say ..that means your credibility is non existent..anyways go ahead ...make god appear, show us some miracles and explain away the wars, the deaths the superstitions, the fakes etc.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    Alex, you are welcome to make all of your Claims as long as you are clear that they are only faith positions.

    For that is what they truly are.

    Because this is a Science Forum, I am sure you know that many here will not agree with them.

    But it is great to see people standing up for their faith assumptions with such dedication and persistence, even without evidence.

    I think I better take a break, and encourage my children in their own faiths a little more.

    We seem to be heading into an age of non-reason, where assumptions are being believed and taught as fact in schools, and I regard that as an enormous problem.

    God Bless You, Alex!
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Other than you, of course.

    You will find that most reasonable and rational folks here, like Alex, won't make such claims. We are not theists, we don't make absolute claims like you do. We work with possibilities and probabilities, thus allowing, however minuscule, the possibility and probability that something may not be true or factual based on any given assumption, like you assuming your God did it.

    The claims you created above are rather crude and naive, but the possibility and probability of them being true is a very high percentage. Of course, we still have to leave the possibility and probability that they might be wrong, that gods might exist, and unicorns, and leprechauns, and miracles and magic, etc.

    You excel at it, one of your strongest features.
  8. (Q) Encephaloid Martini Valued Senior Member

    Complete rubbish. The claims you presented, however poorly thought out they were, are not faith based, they are evidence based; hard evidence scrutinized through the use of the scientific method for more a very long time.

    There you go again, lying about science and evidence.

    I feel very, very sorry for your children, that you will teach them to grow up to be liars and frauds. How sad is that.

    Crusaded by the religious right, just like you.

    Yes, they are being taught in schools because they are based on facts, not myths and superstitions like your religion.
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    How many times do you really need to be told that science in general, are not into proof.....they forecast, predict, the most probable and possible outcome, or reason. To keep on ignoring that fact, to enforce your own beliefs is not very righteous.
    Not at all, just your preoccupation with your own unsupported mythical beliefs. As of today, all phenomena have natural causes, according to all our observational data.
    Stop being so pretentiously're not.
    Name a phenomena that isn't explained by natural causes.
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    We have been over all this crap mythical beliefs of yours before.
    So you have a break, come back and repeat your misunderstandings, obtuseness, and nonsense again?
    Is this what you mean about being righteous? Hopping on your white charger again, and crusading for your mythical creator?
  11. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Well I reject that notion ..have you never come across my dislike for the cop out that is faith?

    Faith thats lame is an excuse offered by folk who can not extricate themselves from the con job they find themselves in which they are victims.

    Faith..without investigation of facts I will believe and shelve obvious questions that rational folk would raise.

    So I reject your unsupported claim that my position is faith based ...I think the appropriate word must be "confident" ...when one can express confidence in something there is an implication that there are good reasons to hold that position.

    You have faith in your position..I have confidence in mine.

    What do you know about looking at things and making the correct call?

    You avoid history and think science is your enemy and fail to see any problems with the superstitious cults you seem to support.
    And so really your credibility is not such that I can accept what you claim is the truth of the matter.

    Seti I have spent my whole life being to odd one out, and I am damn good at it. My fight is often about standing up for truth and justice and so often you may find you are on a side of one...

    Do you think I am like those who are proud to call themselves sheep and be in the flock of God.

    How anyone did not become suspicious when this made up human god from the distant past..(some generations you agree?) called upon followers to be sheep was a message from their Roman overlords I do not know..although we must give credit for all those Jews who were well aquainted with the propeshy of someone coming along to help who must have realised they were being conned by a Roman political move, and never did accept the claims that JC was supposed to have made that he was a human god.

    Tell me Seti how does your faith manage that conflict of reason...of course.
    You say?.I believe the Roman version as via their invented JC because ..well I have faith..those facts about the Roman you declare just not gone Satan and any facts established by history...yes like the fool in the video..cast out the demons of do realise you are in the same club as that rat bag...and I bet if he came to your church you would sit through all his nonsense..deny that.

    And frankly when everyone agrees on something that is the time to realise most will be followers so numbers need not be regarded as showing a pathway to truth..just go to church ..everyone there is wrong and so far from the pathway to truth one wonders if they can ever be brought back to the real world, to be free of cult member status, sheep like in character and vocalisation, just shells of humans sentenced to follow superstition dragging them back to the ignorance being the norm thousands of years ago..a time when they did not know where the Sun went at night and...wait for this...believed illness came from demons...I know it's unbelievable such ignorance was the norm but it is harder to realise all those folk in church choose the intellect of those folk whilst rejecting our science and particularly our doctors..the folk who thank God for a miracle rather than thanking science and the team of Doctors involved clearly demonstrates just what sheep they are, and I am looking at you..shame on you for not giving the doctors credit..that is just so wrong..and why? So you can claim special treatment from the creator of the name dropper.. for sheep only follow the one in front..everyone has a god miracle so they must have one also...I found my car's a dog came home after being missing for a's a wife tells me we are going to be's a's been dry here for two weeks and last night it rained..someone has been's a miracle. Heck on the news..lost kid found after a couple of days in the guessed it a wonder you can point to so many miracles they are happening every moment it seems...and yet you can't find one that you are confident would support your wild sometimes seems that all this god stuff is like mist..but that is a poor example as at least with mist we have dampness as evidence...

    We make a great know that don't you..God must have sent me...or maybe Satan..anyways has to be something supernatural don't you think?

    You sprout intelligent things and I show how wrong an atheist can be...that's how you see it don't smugness a sin? Pride is..smugness is you feel it would be unreasonable to say you are somewhat smug..

    I would be surprised if you are at all happy to find atheists on the same planet let alone find them standing up countering all your faith based assumptions with that air of confidence experienced by folk who know that real evidence beats make believe with out even trying.

    Oh I get it you are referring to your mob when you mention faith based assumptions without evidence..I get it...however I's not at all great to see people being content to run on faith which as you point out is without evidence. It is disgusting in the should avoid doing things that way.

    Now that is not clearly said that knowing how offensive the brain washing of children is to me.

    Is that a Christian thing to do?

    You have clearly sinned..but now we can all be happy knowing that you will now be tortured in hell for an eternity ... I know how happy Christians become when they can pass moral judgement and tell someone they will go to hell...I did not realise what I was missing..the prospect of knowing that you will go to hell is just so satisfying..just thinking of you screaming in agony for an eternity just makes me feel so good about myself, righteous self esteem has gone thru the roof...I feel superior and very important now. You sinner.

    True..they should close every school that has any tie with religion.

    Make the study of evolution start on the first day and certainly more emphasis on chemistry which after all can explain the mystery of life.

    And history..better history the magnificence of the Sumerians, how they used the same model of civilization we use today..and religious history..teach kids how religion started with giving animals spirits to assist with their hunter gatherer strategy to survival, and how when agriculture appeared the Sun became god and as astrology developed the planets were thought to be gods as well and finally the proliferation of the human gods around the Mediterranean built upon astrology and Sun worship..and how the Roman empire capitalised on these human gods to make a political move that sees their influence in the world today..but certainly more science showing how it nearly eradicated starvation..well it has but human greed won't let it go, how illness is not due to demons, and most of all show there is nothing mysterious as to where the Sun goes at night.

    Most of all teach a decent morality that would see folk backing up all and any claim they make...

    Teach that superstition belongs in the past.

    Is that to make me feel good or you feel good?

    My advice which I absolutely insist you take, I will be offended if you do not accept my valuable gift...
    Please just think more...the alleged words of JC were indeed designed to make people better, less emotional and in general to become better citizens of the Roman empire...there are some good ideas in there..but there are good ideas everywhere...but good ideas can only be taken advantage of if you think things thru...being a follower is safe and nice and the flock will keep you warm but just remember why J C was invented..take what is good then move on to the next cherry tree...don't make fantasy your focus learn about reality first .
  12. Baldeee Valued Senior Member

    It is an unproven assumption upon which science is built.
    But science starts once that assumption is accepted.
    And once accepted, miracles (as defined as that which goes against the laws of nature) don't exist, simply because according to science nothing goes against the laws of nature.
    If you don't accept that assumption then you are outside the remit of science and into matters of philosophy, or metaphysics.
    Correct, because that is the assumption on which the tool is built, and the investigation to which it is applied.
    If you want to look outside of what science assumes, of course you can, but you do so outside the remit of science.
    As such, the conclusion reached will be unscientific.
    By definition.
    It looks like a system of investigation that has limits that should be understood.
    If you want to look beyond those limits, use another tool.
    But science, as a tool, is based on certain assumptions, such that anything that is contrary to those assumptions does not exist as far as science is concerned.

    Note: miracles (as I have defined here) are a contravention of the laws of nature.
    As such they are a contrary to the assumptions of science; thus science says they don't exist.
    Compare this to the question of God's existence: if God is not something that acts in contravention to the laws of nature then science can not use that to claim that God does not exist.
    God may simply be something that is beyond the ability of science to know, not something that is contrary to what science assumes.
    Competitive causes to what?
    To nature?
    Note that science can only meaningfully talk about causes that lie within the remit of the laws of nature.
    Science can not speak about a deity that is itself the cause of the laws of nature, for example.
    Science is an investigation of the laws of nature and their relationship with matter, energy etc (if one wants to distinguish between the two, for example).
    Anything that sits outside of that but does not contravene those laws is simply beyond the scope of science.
    Anything that is defined as contravening those laws, however, can be claimed by science to not exist.

    Now, if you want to define miracles in another way, then maybe science can investigate them. - but it depends on the definition.
  13. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    Don't worry he is coming around..superstition can't survive when discussed in a room full of normal people..sooner of later Seti will realise he belongs with thinkers and not sheep..that perhaps scientists and doctors are up on those who did not know where the Sun went at night or that illness was due to demons.

    Each time he goes to church he will see hypocracy all around him, each time he sees the effects of religion via wars, fakes and un necessary guilt he will start to think, and if he ever bothers to read his bible cover to cover he will realise it never was gods word, if he ever studies the history he will find his god was invented, he will realise all human gods are lies built on astrology...

    Or he could decide make believe suits him just fine.

    But one thing for sure he will not get away with making unsupported claims with me...
    And I know he does not read what I say...because if he did he would be an atheist by now...part of my game is accumulating a long list of ignored questions..that list proves all that needs to be shown..these folk come here to preach..they are not interested in discussion or to indulge reason...they feel warm inside because they have convinced themselves they will get another life..makes death less scarey for them..they are so scared about dieing you know..something is very wrong there..It is a wonder that Seti does not add a claim for rejection...Death is final..and a call to scientifically prove it...I am not happy with the motorisation of the roll off roof as my winch cable just slips on the drum..need to find a know a miracle.


    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I note that you didn't attempt to address anything I wrote in my last replies to you. Why are you unable or unwilling to do that?

    We were discussing your 1550 miracles. Have you forgotten about that now? Are you retracting your claims that miracles are real, then? Or have you just decided that you can't prove miracles after all, so you're going to pretend you didn't start talking about that topic?

    Now, now, SetiAlpha6. Let's be careful that we don't start telling lies, okay?

    You and I have had very little, if any, discussion about the "philosophy of naturalism". In fact, when I last posted about methodological vs philosophical naturalism, you ignored that post completely rather than engaging. So you can't honestly pretend that you and I have reached any agreement about the philosophy of naturalism.

    At this point in the thread, I'm wondering if all these supposed "claims of naturalism" that you're posting are your own ideas, or whether you're cutting and pasting somebody else's ideas from somewhere else and getting them all confused in your head in the process.

    Is this your own work? Are these "claims" something you've come up with yourself? If not, then tell me where you got them from.

    I can only speak for myself. You are correct about that.

    You will also agree, of course, that the claim that anything supernatural exists is unproven too. Right? We can all agree on that.

    It's just a repeat of claim 1, isn't it?

    (What happened to claim 3?)

    Again, I can only speak for myself. I'm not sure if Jesus ever existed, so I can't say that he never existed.

    You will agree, no doubt, that the claim that "Jesus was a real person" is unproven. Right? You gave up when I asked you if you could prove it, so obviously you can't do it, for starters.

    Define "miracle" and we can discuss this claim.

    Previously, I wrote that if miracles are supernatural acts of God, then there's no proof that any miracles exist. You agree, right?

    Previously you claimed to have some proof of 1550 miracles, but you couldn't produce even one proof when I asked you. You must have realised that you have no proof. Is that what happened?

    What would justify somebody claiming to know that something is true if they have no evidence that it is true? That would be naive, wouldn't it?

    Why do you believe things without evidence/proof?

    I do.

    As it applies to God, it means that if there is no evidence for God (or any of his supposed actions, like miracles) then it is still possible that God exists and miracles happen. After all, maybe God is taking an extended holiday in a different galaxy and doing nothing here on Earth. Maybe all the miracles are happening somewhere else, and we're just not aware of them.

    So, you're right. Failing to observe any evidence of God is not proof that God doesn't exist. But we can say that about a lot of things. There's no evidence of it literally raining cats and dogs either*, but that doesn't mean it never does. There's no evidence that wedding cakes spontaneously appear in groups of 10 on empty streets, but that doesn't mean we've proven that never happens or never could happen.

    The important thing to consider is how one ought to live one's life given the absence of evidence. It probably will be a waste of your time to stand out in the street without food, hoping that 10 wedding cakes will spontaneously appear to satisfy your hunger. Similarly, it is probably a waste of your time to worship a God who isn't here.

    No. It's the default position until there is evidence that miracles do exist. You could call the claim that "wedding cakes don't appear in the street" an unproven assumption, but it would be ridiculous to believe that they do until there's some evidence that it happens.

    Evidence comes in many different forms. Science allows for lots of different kinds of evidence for causes and effects.

    If you want to try to establish that the supernatural exists, to the satisfaction of science, then step 1 would be to show that there is an effect to be investigated. Step 2 is to collect evidence that connects the postulated cause with the effect in a statistically meaningful way.

    For instance, suppose you want to claim that praying to God increases the chances that people with cancer will get better. You clear the step 1 hurdle immediately, since we do see that some people recover from cancer after being prayed for (although others do not). Step 2 is where you do the study, say on a large group of people with a certain type and degree of cancer. You have a control group, who nobody prays for, and a test group, which you make sure are in people's prayers for their cure. Then you wait for a while and see how many people get well from the control group and the test group. You statistically analyse the results to see whether, within the margin of experimental error, the prayer group recovered from cancer with greater frequency than the non-prayer group. If you find a statistically significant difference between the two groups, then you're in a position to say, scientifically that prayer is helpful or harmful.** If there's no statistically significant difference, then you say that your study hasn't established any causal link between prayer and cure, either way.

    This is Science 101. Notice that it doesn't start by saying "A supernatural cause of cancer patients getting better is impossible." We can investigates supernatural causes scientifically - perhaps not immediately to establish how something works, but at the very least to establish that something works or happens.

    Scientific prayer studies have been done for real, by the way. No statistically-significant connection between prayer and cure has been established in any reliable study.

    What superior system of investigation are your suggesting we should use instead?


    Note: I'm not expecting any actual answers from you, because at this stage in our conversation it's looking very like you are a religious troll who isn't interested in having an honest discussion. We'll see what happens.

    * In fact, there are few documented instances of it "raining cats and dogs". Unusual weather conditions are the established cause of such events. Consider, for instance, a hurricane.
    ** Of course, you have to be careful to eliminate other possible causes, other than the one you're trying to test for. If there are differences between patients that having nothing to do with being prayer for (or not) then it is possible that one or more of those differences might be cause of a statistically significant outcome in the experiment. As far as possible, a careful study will try to control for the effects of as many of those extraneous differences as possible, or else take known but uncontrollable differences into account in the analysis of the results. Often, those kinds of careful controls are what distinguishes good studies from bad ones.
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020
  15. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    On The Athiest Experience often the power of prayer comes up and Matt usually says, although I have never caught any reference to a paper, that there was a study where they observed people facing death (I think) and those in the group who knew they were being prayed for had less chance of recovery.

    Miracles...earlier I was watching tornado footage. All seemed to pray to God that it miss them but no one wondered why god permits tornadoes.
    And one lady..fourteen people in her street killed by the tornado and she says it was a miracle that she was saved and god heard her prayers.
    You could think that seeing he was in the street....
    James R likes this.
  16. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    What trade is that? The only time I've ever seen that phrase used is by atheists on the internet. It doesn't seem to be a term of art in any field that I know of, certainly not in the academic study of religion.

    How does one go about "debunking" a miracle? See my remarks earlier in the thread (post # 97 as I recall):

    David Hume defines 'miracle' to mean a violation of the laws of nature. But that's an exceedingly strong and tendentious definition, which is one of the places that his argument can be attacked. (The miracle argument isn't original with Hume. Others made it before him.) Many theologians would probably favor St. Augustine's account of miracles, which suggested that God always works in accordance with the hypothetical "laws of nature", simply using very obscure ones put into creation for that express purpose to work the particular miracle. Augustine's motivation in arguing that way wasn't to defend "science", but rather to defend the idea that God is consistent and doesn't contradict himself by breaking his own rules.

    Augustine's account opens up the possibility (contra Hume) that a miracle may indeed happen in accordance with the "laws of nature", but nevertheless happen as the result of divine intention. God simply rigged creation to turn out that way for God's own purposes. So an atheist arguing that a miracle has a "natural cause" doesn't necessarily constitute an argument that an event wasn't a miracle at all, if miracles needn't be violations of the "laws of nature".

    That's what the young Christian couple are saying when they say that their new baby is a miracle. They aren't for a moment suggesting that their new baby is a violation of the laws of nature. They are instead saying that they are treating their new baby as an act of divine intention. It's the idea that there is meaning in events, a denial of Seti's second atheistic presumption in the OP that reality is just one damn thing after another, determined only by chance and by the laws of physics. And that choice about how to conceive of events is in turn is a matter of interpretation and doesn't seem to involve any objective facts about physical reality that those in the atheistic trade can hook their rhetorical talons into.

    Logically, that would seem to be the case, wouldn't it? Just because some particular scientific theory in the past has now been rejected (actually lots more than one) doesn't justify the grandiose conclusion that ALL scientific theories must be rejected, despite the possibility of crafting an inductive argument precisely to that effect.
  17. Yazata Valued Senior Member

    That's my view. I'm an agnostic. I don't possess the secret of the universe.

    I accept it as a heuristic. A procedure for generating explanations. It's part of what motivates my methodological naturalism. But I reject it as a metaphysical statement. I can't exclude the possibility that lots more might be going on with reality that I know nothing about.

    I can't incorporate unknown causes and principle into my worldview until I have some means of knowing about them. Which seems to justify the methodological naturalism. Of course there's no reason why fundamental reality has to conform to my current ideas about it.

    [Claim 3 seems to be missing.]

    I accept the existence of somebody who may have been named 'Jesus' and who played some unknown role in the origin of the Christian myth. But I don't know it for a fact. It's my working hypothesis, so to speak. But whoever Jesus might have been, I think that so much religious myth has accreted around his memory that we will probably never know much about him. (I don't know for a fact that Socrates existed either, but have no real reason to doubt it.)

    My methodological assumption in trying to explain things is to appeal to what are currently understood to be natural causes. Largely because they are all that I know about at the moment. But I can't exclude the possibility (even the likelihood) that reality exceeds my knowing.

    And there's also the problem that miracles need not be conceived as violations of the natural order. It's entirely possible to conceive of miracles as natural events that reveal some deeper meaning. Again, I can't exclude that possibility, even if it doesn't play much of a role in my current worldview.

    If I look for my scissors in my drawer, and don't see any scissors there, I'd acccpt that as good evidence that my scissors aren't in my drawer.

    If I have good reason to think that the presence of something will be accompanied by evidences of that presence, then lack of those evidences would seem to be evidence of the absence of whatever it is.

    It gets more complicated when we are talking about unknown possibilities and when we don't know what kind of evidences, if any, they would present us.
  18. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member


    Thank you so much for your comments!

    To me, you are like a calm, cool, refreshing, and gentle breeze of grace and deep wisdom here.

    I am very thankful for you!!!
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So? Neither do Scientists, or Atheists, or Philosophers, or any other group you chose to label. But we also understand that once there was no life...then there was. Unscientific miracle? Or chemical Abiogenesis?
    It is actually a written historical fact, much like the theory of evolution having progressed from scientific theory to certainty.
    Note, the bible isn't a history book.
    I believe through weight of evidence, that science in its supremacy, can in time explain all we see, and debunk all that fall outside that dome of reasonable methodology.
    A miracle as scientifically defined is something supernatural, and totally outside of science and the scientific methodology.
    Ahhh, an interesting point! Do you think that life exists elsewhere, off this Earth? Considering of course the near infinite extent and content of the universe we inhabit, and the stuff of life being everywhere we look.While we as yet do not have any observational evidence of any other life. What's your view in that regard?
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Fence sitting can be pretty dangerous!
  21. Xelasnave.1947 Valued Senior Member

    I missed this one.

    I am inclined to say that absence of evidence reflects the general problem we have when someone makes a claim that they can not back up.

    Any claim without evidence more resembles a lie than any presentation of truth.

    Certainly the call for evidence should not get put aside by a further claim that "absence of evidence in not evidence of absence"...cute line but does not address the fact there is no evidence..tries to make it ok somehow..wrong and dishonest.

    In the first instance we are asked to accept a claim without evidence....well the matter stops there for if there is no evidence at that point the claim should not be on the table, we are not required to treat seriously a lie or delusion, and then the claim is less than the sound of the words that delivered it..the claim is just made up stuff, say it slowly is no more than just made up stuff, and without evidence just verbalisation of rushing past an unsupported claim to build a defence that "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is rather dishonest and simply complete nonsense.

    Again the claim that proposes existence without support is no more than fairey tale.

    I have looked into this claim of a god and find what we are not told is this god was invented in Sumaria, that this god was one of a trio of invented gods and that is not a claim that is just what is available in the history gleaned from reading clay tablets that happily survived to throw light upon how the god of the West was invented...and given the history available showing countless human gods sharing an astrology MO it is not a claim that JC was invented it becomes a historic fact. There is certainly no absence of evidence in these areas. But if you are less than honest you will never look, you will never even read your bible and your truth is the one manufactured for you which you must have faith in or risk loss of your after life and confinement in eternal hell...however the truth is out there, well recorded, well evidenced and very available for review and scrutiny.

    All these trivial exercises in words could be avoided if the fundamental claim was supported by evidence..and a recognition of the history and explanation that takes that history into account when presenting all god claims...if we are to look at the universe ..a universe that is supposed to be created by a god do we find that universe consistent with the claim it was all created for humans...a casual answer must be ..the universe is in general entirely hostile to humans...and perhaps we could try and weave into the proposition the world is created for humans the natural disasters,Earth quakes, volcanic erruptions, extreme weather, tornadoes, huricans, cyclones and perhaps add pandemics...and ask is this world one that we can honestly conclude has been created to suit humans, given multitudes of humans die, many are injured most terribly and many lost all they have thereby being forced to suffer from many years without what they once had as a result of the disasters above?...and how can anyone in that horror come forward and say god saved them by a miracle...
    The delusion that there is a god in control is certainly not evidenced by reality.
    Could we accept disasters as evidence of non existence?

    In any event the fact remains the claim goes unsupported it is that aspect that can only be addressed and certainly when it comes to any claim that is unsupported it is entirely reasonable to suggest that the words "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" are just inappropriate nonsense that follows when someone is talking through their hat.
  22. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    So I am not allowed to thank anyone either?
  23. SetiAlpha6 Come Let Us Reason Together Valued Senior Member

    I don’t think it is that simple...

    How about this version of the same Claim?

    Claim 6
    Ignorance of a thing can never disprove that thing.

    Absence of Evidence (Ignorance) is not Evidence of Absence (Non-existence)

    I brushed my teeth at 9:15 AM last Thursday and you ask me to prove it. And I say “I really can’t prove it”.
    So obviously it never happened?

    Is that the kind of logic I am supposed to teach my children?

    Would you disagree or agree with this version?
    Last edited: Aug 15, 2020

Share This Page