(05-21-2015 08:27 AM)shiftyeagle Wrote:  And yes, you can prove negatives. Negatives are proven ALL THE TIME.

"When the assertion to prove is a negative claim, the burden takes the form of a negative proof, proof of impossibility, or mere evidence of absence. If this negative assertion is in response to a claim made by another party in a debate, asserting the falsehood of the positive claim shifts the burden of proof from the party making the first claim to the one asserting its falsehood, as the position "I do not believe that X is true" is different from the explicit denial "I believe that X is false."

I've always considered the "first claim" in a debate to be the one who takes on the burden of proof. Honestly, I'm not sifting through the pages in this thread to find how who claimed "There is a God" or "There is no God" first.

I think this thread has run its course, but I did want to address this point made by shiftyeagle. Regarding proving negatives, you are correct and that it's possible to do this. I was wrong when I made that claim that it can't be done. The examples I've run across regarding proving a negative is basically done via proving an alternative option to be true when dealing with a simple yes/no scenario. For example, saying that the pen that I hold in my hand is not in my pocket is an example of proving a negative via showing that a different positive claim is true. Regarding this discussion, it's impossible to show that God or gods do not exist, because it's impossible to make an alternative positive claim to counteract it. When we're discussing things of a supernatural nature, natural methods will never, hypothetically, suffice.

Having said all that, there is a lot of evidence showing that the Jewish religion evolved significantly from polytheistic roots into a monotheistic religion. Is it a slam dunk that what we know is 100% guaranteed? No, because without being there you would never know with 100% certainty.

(05-22-2015 09:14 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  Hambone, like it's been mentioned before, your posts clearly don't do a great job of expressing your position because this entire thread has been you restating the same thing without moving forward from that position. I have addressed everything you've written, including this most recent semantic argument that you've brought up,

So which is it? Did I just bring this up or am I repeating myself? It can't be both. Obviously you haven't read and addressed anything I've said, since you are still claiming that I 'just brought this up' when I actually brought it up in post #30 and HAVE repeated it. Perhaps the reason I repeat it is because here we are in post 200 where I have made the exact same comment all along, and you are JUST NOW noticing it. In other words, you haven't addressed what I've said at all, until now. And you haven't addressed it constructively in any way.

Quote:and have shown the holes and disingenuous nature of the arguments you've presented. I've done this clearly, concisely,

No. You've argued with things I haven't said and obviously ignored what I've said.

Quote:and multiple times over, and other posters on this thread have not had the same issues you have understanding my points.

I understand your points completely. You simply aren't addressing mine.... because as you admit, you read them all and only now noticed the clear and simple distinction I've been drawing the whole time between an opinion and a fact. Between evidence and proof.

Quote:I cannot say the same for you, as multiple posters have pointed out what I stated above, you clearly having some problems with expressing your opinions or views on this subject. I can only respond to what you write, and if you don't write what you actually mean, I cannot have a discussion with you.

Everyone on here knows what I've said. They may disagree, but they understand it.

Quote:You have yet to address this simple fact, that a lack of scientific evidence is not evidence of anything, by definition. If you understand that fact, and it is an objective unambiguous fact, you'll see how your entire argument is based on a false premise.

And now you're just making your failure to understand English all the more obvious.

I just went back and each and every post I've made... I've clearly addressed your comment.... over and over and over... yet you claim I haven't addressed it at all. That's your reading comprehension problem, not mine.

NOT ONCE have I claimed that lack of scientific evidence is evidence of anything else.... so why should I 'specifically' address something that I've never said?? If you're going to claim I have, the quote it.

I've repeatedly argued the same thing and the obvious correlary to it... demonstrating that I've never disagreed with your premise... that a lack of scientific evidence doesn't prove OR DIS-prove anything either. I entirely agree with your premise. and have never, not once, EVER claimed differently

See the bold there? I've agreed ONCE AGAIN that a lack of evidence doesn't prove anything. I've NEVER said it does... and repeatedly said it doesn't. I only add that it doesn't DISPROVE anything either. Do you deny this?

My entire contention is that we CHOOSE what to fill those 'unknowns' (lack of scientific evidence) with based on our beliefs.

You either fill it in with 'God', or 'Not God' or 'perhaps, 'it could be either'.

But NONE of those are TRUTH/facts/proof or even evidence. They are all SOME form of faith/belief. If you want to argue that the last isn't faith because it doesn't choose either way, that's fine... but it has to actually not choose either way. Saying 'I don't know, but I know it's not God' is STILL an act of faith.

Let me help you...
See the bolded line above? That is functionally the same thing as what you say I haven't addressed... and you KNOW I've said it over and over. That 'what we assume when we lack scientific evidence isn't proof or even evidence'. It is belief, aka faith.

I only otherwise differentiate between scientific evidence and scientific proof. Yes, proof is made up of evidence, but evidence is not the same thing as proof. You can have evidence that isn't true... and it happens all the time... and you can have evidence that you believe with all your being that doesn't turn out to be true... but you can't have PROOF that isn't true... because that is the essential definition.

Since I'm specifically talking about what you can PROVE to be TRUE, what you now call the 'semantic' difference between 'belief' and 'fact' (or any of the other words) is pretty obviously important.

(05-22-2015 12:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My entire contention is that we CHOOSE what to fill those 'unknowns' (lack of scientific evidence) with based on our beliefs.

You either fill it in with 'God', or 'Not God' or 'perhaps, 'it could be either'.

So, NdT defines your beliefs to a T?

(05-23-2015 02:22 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(05-22-2015 12:19 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  My entire contention is that we CHOOSE what to fill those 'unknowns' (lack of scientific evidence) with based on our beliefs.

You either fill it in with 'God', or 'Not God' or 'perhaps, 'it could be either'.

So, NdT defines your beliefs to a T?

No. Not at all. If he actually said that, I find his summation to essentially reflect the idea that I absolutely reject... and that is that the volume of evidence equals truth. I certainly respect him as a scientist, but I think he is guilty of a little hubris in ignoring that science is filled with surprising discoveries that have rendered things that we have been 99.999% confident in at one point to being things that we now completely dismiss, and things that were .00001 in terms of probability have been proven to be 100% factual.

What I mean is that as each day passes and we continue to explore our universe and fail to discover 'proof of alien life', the probability that other life exists goes down.... alien life is therefore an 'ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance', yet all it would take is the NEXT discovery and suddenly we might KNOW for a FACT that not only are there aliens, but they actually DID visit earth thousands of years ago and pass information onto ancient earth cultures that we have heretofore scientifically accepted as something else. I'd say the same about God. In fact, it's entirely possible that the two are even related. That God isn't what we think He is, but he's not far from it.

At the risk of opening myself up to numerous jerks on here, I think it highly likely that the miracles that we attribute to God won't seem like miracles once we discover the truth and have the right perspective... I mean seriously, why would they? When we are smart enough to understand God, we will be very close to Him ourselves and His miracles won't be miraculous. Things like 'alternate dimensions', creatures from those dimensions and beings that can move between them would explain many of those things we have called miracles. I look at my dog and wonder how he would describe to another dog how I go into this magic box and create food out of nowhere.... and how I expect him to follow my rules, reward him when he does well and punish him when he doesn't. How I created the home and the yard and the dog park that weren't here before (from his perspective) and suddenly are. Obviously there are some major differences between the situations... I'm not saying there isn't... I'm merely saying that for humans to assume that we really understand all that much about the universe and the possibilities of other dimensions when there are things we discover things about our own earth and the oceans every day is just illogical/unscientific.

Quote:No. Not at all. If he actually said that, I find his summation to essentially reflect the idea that I absolutely reject... and that is that the volume of evidence equals truth.

That's not at all what he's saying in that quote,it's cut short from the context, but it's basically what I've said prior.

He's stating the fact that if you place your god in the questions we currently can't answer scientifically, your god exists in an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Meaning, if you used your god to explain why the sun rose, your god was minimized when we started using telescopes. It's an unhealthy view to take, educationally and spiritually, because it means at some point you're going to have to choose between changing your belief in god or being willfully ignorant. We've explained the bacterial flagellum, the one time go-to for ID proponent's, but they'll just move the goalpost to another yet unexplained bacterial structure. But if you actually buy into their nonsense, and believe that we simply cannot understand how a bacterial flagellum worked, and that was literal evidence of god, what then?

(05-22-2015 09:05 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:45 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:42 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(05-21-2015 11:15 PM)Claw Wrote:  I consider the placebo effect to be a supernatural event.

Neato. You'd be wrong.

Give me the scientific explanation.

See, there it is again. We do have explanations for specific placebo effects, but it's admittedly not a well understood phenomenon because it affects such a wide variety of diseases/maladies/etc. However, even if we had no scientific explanation for this occurring, that doesn't mean it's evidence of supernatural events occurring. Nothing about the lack of scientific evidence is evidence FOR the supernatural, it's just a lack of scientific evidence.

What you're attempting to do here is, take a missing portion of evidence, and use it as evidence for your claim. You cannot do that, at least if you're interested in being logically sound and rational.

There is a specific reason I consider the placebo effect "supernatural".

The current materialistic/scientific view of the universe is that matter has created thought.

The placebo effect is peculiar in that it seems to show thought effecting matter rather than the other way around. Since that is in direct opposition to the "natural" view of the world, I classify it as supernatural. I think the moniker is accurate.

If indeed thought can effect matter every thing we know gets a big asterisk.

Quote:The placebo effect is peculiar in that it seems to show thought effecting matter rather than the other way around. Since that is in direct opposition to the "natural" view of the world, I classify it as supernatural. I think the moniker is accurate.

No one really theorizes it's caused by 'thought' or someones brainwaves though, it's pretty much expected to be caused by some yet poorly understood physiological chemical process. We know a persons mood can affect their hormones and have other quantifiable affects on them, it would rationally follow this is similar by providing optimism in some manner.

(05-23-2015 07:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

Quote:The placebo effect is peculiar in that it seems to show thought effecting matter rather than the other way around. Since that is in direct opposition to the "natural" view of the world, I classify it as supernatural. I think the moniker is accurate.

No one really theorizes it's caused by 'thought' or someones brainwaves though, it's pretty much expected to be caused by some yet poorly understood physiological chemical process. We know a persons mood can affect their hormones and have other quantifiable affects on them, it would rationally follow this is similar by providing optimism in some manner.

But if a thought starts that chemical process, rather than a chemical process starting the thought, then everything we think we know is wrong. It is the fundamental question of existence, and it is not answered.

(05-23-2015 08:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  But if a thought starts that chemical process, rather than a chemical process starting the thought, then everything we think we know is wrong. It is the fundamental question of existence, and it is not answered.

Thoughts are just a series of synapses firing. Nothing magical or supernatural about it.

(05-23-2015 11:20 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  But if a thought starts that chemical process, rather than a chemical process starting the thought, then everything we think we know is wrong. It is the fundamental question of existence, and it is not answered.

Thoughts are just a series of synapses firing. Nothing magical or supernatural about it.

So you say, but you can't prove it.

Yes, I've read the examples that are popular now. I especially love the ones that claim to prove they are predicting decisions and actions by observing brain chemistry. The chemical reaction can be seen before the physical action occurs, and therefore it must cause the reaction.

So what.

I can see what I type before you see this post, but I must post it before you can see it. The physics of posting here takes time to produce the end result. The brain chemistry observations seem to me to be the same thing. I don't see systemic latency as proof of anything. The body has to do the physics to deliver the decision to the physical world just like a monitor or printer does. The fact that those processes occur does not explain why they occur. Their predictive ability exists due to the latency of the processes and is not evidence of causality.

We don't know what thought is. We have no hard scientific evidence at all. We don't know. Since we don't know what it is, it is not possible to define what it can do. That's where we are. But if thoughts are causing reactions rather than the result of reactions, then our science is fundamentally wrong. It has been fundamentally wrong many times before. It may still be.

(05-23-2015 11:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  So you say, but you can't prove it.

Neuroscience disagrees. I encourage you to read the literature.

(05-23-2015 11:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 11:20 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  But if a thought starts that chemical process, rather than a chemical process starting the thought, then everything we think we know is wrong. It is the fundamental question of existence, and it is not answered.

Thoughts are just a series of synapses firing. Nothing magical or supernatural about it.

So you say, but you can't prove it.

Yes, I've read the examples that are popular now. I especially love the ones that claim to prove they are predicting decisions and actions by observing brain chemistry. The chemical reaction can be seen before the physical action occurs, and therefore it must cause the reaction.

So what.

I can see what I type before you see this post, but I must post it before you can see it. The physics of posting here takes time to produce the end result. The brain chemistry observations seem to me to be the same thing. I don't see systemic latency as proof of anything. The body has to do the physics to deliver the decision to the physical world just like a monitor or printer does. The fact that those processes occur does not explain why they occur. Their predictive ability exists due to the latency of the processes and is not evidence of causality.

We don't know what thought is. We have no hard scientific evidence at all. We don't know. Since we don't know what it is, it is not possible to define what it can do. That's where we are. But if thoughts are causing reactions rather than the result of reactions, then our science is fundamentally wrong. It has been fundamentally wrong many times before. It may still be.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of someone placing god in the gaps, and showing the dangers of doing so. Say everything you wrote is true, given our current state of understanding neurology. It isn't, but we're just going to say it is.

What happens when new evidence comes out that better explains human thought?

(05-23-2015 06:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's not at all what he's saying in that quote,it's cut short from the context, but it's basically what I've said prior.

He's stating the fact that if you place your god in the questions we currently can't answer scientifically, your god exists in an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Meaning, if you used your god to explain why the sun rose, your god was minimized when we started using telescopes. It's an unhealthy view to take, educationally and spiritually, because it means at some point you're going to have to choose between changing your belief in god or being willfully ignorant. We've explained the bacterial flagellum, the one time go-to for ID proponent's, but they'll just move the goalpost to another yet unexplained bacterial structure. But if you actually buy into their nonsense, and believe that we simply cannot understand how a bacterial flagellum worked, and that was literal evidence of god, what then?

Color me not surprised that you're allowed to take his quote and use it to defend your own position, but I am not.

If you actually look at the context of what he said, he said 'if you believe, 'IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, THEN GOD DID IT' then .... but I have never said that God did everything I don't understand. I merely said that you have 3 choices. God, not God or could be either. If you choose God always, then his quote is relevant. I'd argue that if you choose NOT god always, the same holds true.... In other words, as I said... your quote doesn't represent my views at all, and it represents exactly what I would argue against. Interestingly, HE argues against it as well. I'm in good company.

He says himself that he can't rule out God and is willing to embrace the 'fact' of God if and when that evidence presents itself. If HE can't rule out God, then I think it the height of hubris for anyone on here to say that they can.

Here... Listen to him yourself... because he talks about precisely what you are doing to me here...
http://bigthink.com/think-tank/neil-degr...r-agnostic

He says that people 'attach' you to a philosophy or movement and then assign all of the baggage of that movement to you and assert that they know everything they need to know about you based on that association... and in his words, that isn't a way to have a conversation. This is precisely what I've seen all of those on your side of the debate do.... I'm not saying some on mine haven't done the same... but I'm pretty sure that I haven't.

As a serious man of science who can't himself rule out God, even Dr Tyson wouldn't say... 'I don't know what caused it... but I know it's not God.' I'm 100% convinced that he would say that he BELIEVES that there isn't a God, but even he would admit that this, like any other scientific theory is an act of faith until it can be proven, or disproven.

(05-24-2015 08:18 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 11:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 11:20 PM)Pellet Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 08:49 PM)Claw Wrote:  But if a thought starts that chemical process, rather than a chemical process starting the thought, then everything we think we know is wrong. It is the fundamental question of existence, and it is not answered.

Thoughts are just a series of synapses firing. Nothing magical or supernatural about it.

So you say, but you can't prove it.

Yes, I've read the examples that are popular now. I especially love the ones that claim to prove they are predicting decisions and actions by observing brain chemistry. The chemical reaction can be seen before the physical action occurs, and therefore it must cause the reaction.

So what.

I can see what I type before you see this post, but I must post it before you can see it. The physics of posting here takes time to produce the end result. The brain chemistry observations seem to me to be the same thing. I don't see systemic latency as proof of anything. The body has to do the physics to deliver the decision to the physical world just like a monitor or printer does. The fact that those processes occur does not explain why they occur. Their predictive ability exists due to the latency of the processes and is not evidence of causality.

We don't know what thought is. We have no hard scientific evidence at all. We don't know. Since we don't know what it is, it is not possible to define what it can do. That's where we are. But if thoughts are causing reactions rather than the result of reactions, then our science is fundamentally wrong. It has been fundamentally wrong many times before. It may still be.

Thank you for providing a perfect example of someone placing god in the gaps, and showing the dangers of doing so. Say everything you wrote is true, given our current state of understanding neurology. It isn't, but we're just going to say it is.

What happens when new evidence comes out that better explains human thought?

When there is new evidence you evaluate it.

However, a real objective evaluation doesn't place materialism in the gap either. That's what you are doing. I am not placing God anywhere. God does not appear anywhere in my posts. I am saying this is a critical question that is not answered. You are the one filling the gap with your assumptions.

There was a Twilight Zone episode about this. A young guy (25 years old or so) died, but then opened his casket at the funeral. People in town always viewed him as odd.

(05-24-2015 01:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-23-2015 06:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's not at all what he's saying in that quote,it's cut short from the context, but it's basically what I've said prior.

He's stating the fact that if you place your god in the questions we currently can't answer scientifically, your god exists in an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance. Meaning, if you used your god to explain why the sun rose, your god was minimized when we started using telescopes. It's an unhealthy view to take, educationally and spiritually, because it means at some point you're going to have to choose between changing your belief in god or being willfully ignorant. We've explained the bacterial flagellum, the one time go-to for ID proponent's, but they'll just move the goalpost to another yet unexplained bacterial structure. But if you actually buy into their nonsense, and believe that we simply cannot understand how a bacterial flagellum worked, and that was literal evidence of god, what then?

Color me not surprised that you're allowed to take his quote and use it to defend your own position, but I am not.

What? I was just stating his quote in context because that little blurb has made the rounds of the interwebs half a dozen times taken out of context, but in context it's a factually accurate statement.

Quote:He says himself that he can't rule out God and is willing to embrace the 'fact' of God if and when that evidence presents itself. If HE can't rule out God, then I think it the height of hubris for anyone on here to say that they can.

I'm not arguing this, though. I've pointed that fact out half a dozen times so far this thread, yet you keep going back to it as if it's part of this discussion. It isn't. Quote where I said it, or admit you're just moving the goalposts to an argument you think you can win.

Quote:He says that people 'attach' you to a philosophy or movement and then assign all of the baggage of that movement to you and assert that they know everything they need to know about you based on that association... and in his words, that isn't a way to have a conversation. This is precisely what I've seen all of those on your side of the debate do.... I'm not saying some on mine haven't done the same... but I'm pretty sure that I haven't.

Not true, I've addressed explicitly what you've said multiple times. To which your response revolves around stating 'I cannot prove god doesn't exist', a claim I've never disagreed with, or to act as if there is a quantifiable difference between the meaning of 'evidence' and 'proof'. Neither are compelling, nor do they really give me a lot of confidence that you're able to have a productive conversation on this matter due to either being too invested from a faith perspective or too ignorant on how to form a rational argument. Sorry, but I'm not the only one who's noticed this about you on this subject matter.

Quote:As a serious man of science who can't himself rule out God, even Dr Tyson wouldn't say... 'I don't know what caused it... but I know it's not God.' I'm 100% convinced that he would say that he BELIEVES that there isn't a God, but even he would admit that this, like any other scientific theory is an act of faith until it can be proven, or disproven.

Again, no one is stating affirmatively that there is no God, we are saying there is no compelling evidence that there is a god, especially a god as described in any of the major religions of the world. I will say that there is far more evidence in support for Bigfoot than there is for any of those aforementioned gods, upright primates do exist elsewhere for instance, but that doesn't mean I can claim affirmatively that a supernatural being doesn't exist.

Still, doesn't mean it's objectively rational to believe in a specific god, either, which is what you seem to not understand (among many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many other things in this issue).

Perhaps that's why the term "faith" is used in talking about God.

(05-25-2015 03:25 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What? I was just stating his quote in context because that little blurb has made the rounds of the interwebs half a dozen times taken out of context, but in context it's a factually accurate statement.

No you weren't. You added YOUR context to what he said. What he said is exactly what I quoted him as saying... that IF you say the answer to every unknown is God, THEN your belief is based on an ever-declining amount of evidence.... but I never said that the answer to every unknown was God. He also never said anything about it being unhealthy or anything else. That was all you.

Quote:I'm not arguing this, though. I've pointed that fact out half a dozen times so far this thread, yet you keep going back to it as if it's part of this discussion. It isn't. Quote where I said it, or admit you're just moving the goalposts to an argument you think you can win.

I find it incongruous that on one hand, you insist that you've never 'ruled out God', but on the other, you repeatedly refer to that possibility as some sort version of unhealthy or irrational. You MIGHT be being factually accurate, but you are not being genuine.

Quote:Not true, I've addressed explicitly what you've said multiple times. To which your response revolves around stating 'I cannot prove god doesn't exist', a claim I've never disagreed with, or to act as if there is a quantifiable difference between the meaning of 'evidence' and 'proof'. Neither are compelling, nor do they really give me a lot of confidence that you're able to have a productive conversation on this matter due to either being too invested from a faith perspective or too ignorant on how to form a rational argument. Sorry, but I'm not the only one who's noticed this about you on this subject matter.

I'm sorry that you don't accept that proof and evidence have different meanings. Take it up with Websters. As to any of the rest of this, you're fooling nobody.... least of all me.

Quote:Again, no one is stating affirmatively that there is no God, we are saying there is no compelling evidence that there is a god, especially a god as described in any of the major religions of the world. I will say that there is far more evidence in support for Bigfoot than there is for any of those aforementioned gods, upright primates do exist elsewhere for instance, but that doesn't mean I can claim affirmatively that a supernatural being doesn't exist.

Still, doesn't mean it's objectively rational to believe in a specific god, either, which is what you seem to not understand (among many, many, many, many, many, many, many, many other things in this issue).

Kindly quote where I have said that any major religion has accurately 'defined' God.... In fact, I've repeatedly said the exact opposite.

This only proves your lack of integrity on the issue or in the discussion, since you continue to claim that I've said things i specifically have not... or believe something I've specifically said I don't. This is precisely what I said you were doing moments ago... where you 'assign' all sorts of beliefs to me in order to defeat me, even when I've specifically refuted those beliefs. You claimed you hadn't done it... yet here, once again, you're doing it.

I strongly suspect that NDT would agree with the following statement, and that is that since you can't prove that God doesn't exist, to claim that you don't know something, but you somehow KNOW that it can't possibly be God is completely unscientific.... I say this because that is precisely why he says that he himself can't rule out the possibility of God. If he could, he would... because it would be scientific to do so.

But hey... he's just ND-T and you're UCF. What does HE know about science.

Again, I'm not asking or insisting that you agree with my opinions. I honestly could not care less. The difference between us is that I don't need to belittle your opinions to make me feel better about my own.

If you want to have a conversation with claw or anyone else, then please feel free to do so... but don't confuse my comments with theirs, otherwise you have once again done exactly what ND-T said is not constructive and I accused you of doing (and presented evidence to support my belief).