The God Delusion
discussion
agnostic: the way to go.
cs wrote: "Quote Shaun: "most likely true".Is it true or not?"
Most likely. To say "definitely" would be absolutist, and you have already indicated a dislike of absolutes. Why request one now?
You have now failed to provide a single counter example to the claim that spawned this debate.
(Or, you provided a counterexample one word answer "creation" but then failed to explain why this example fits the criteria when it so clearly, to any other observer, does not)
You have also claimed that I made absolute statements about god, and again, failed to provide a single bit of evidence to back up that claim.
You have claimed you need a creator in order to understand why we are here, but at the same time postulate a creator whose motives cannot be understood.
You have claimed I twisted your words, then failed to provide evidence of a single instance of me doing so.
You have claimed I have made factual or semantic errors and failed to provide evidence of your claims.
You, sir, are all talk and no teeth. Nothing but hot air and evasion.
Hazel wrote: "All you say is that unless Shaun lists EVERY example of the scientific answer being the one that both science and religion have accepted as the correct one, then he is wrong. An unreasonable request, when all you have to do to prove him wrong is to provide a single example of when the religious answer was accepted as correct by both science and religion. "And it's a little like saying that someone has to show a picture of the sun rising every day in history in order to say that the sun rises every day.
Daniel wrote: "Hazel wrote: "All you say is that unless Shaun lists EVERY example of the scientific answer being the one that both science and religion have accepted as the correct one, then he is wrong. An unrea..."Lucky you are on Hazel's and Shaun's side otherwise you would feel the full wrath of their philosophical learning, with a comment like that.
The sun neither rises nor sets.
I have never had any philosophical learning, I have had learning that teaches me to ask for evidence. This isn't philosophy, its fact based.Anyway, even if Daniel said it in a way I don't agree with, the sentiment of his post is understood. I can read it as "And it's a little like saying that someone has to show a picture of the sun appearing over the horizon every day in history in order to say that the earth is rotating and where we are on earth is turning to face the sun every day on every day."
But again, cs, you're picking at little things, instead of addressing the point of the discussion.
Hazel wrote: "I have never had any philosophical learning, I have had learning that teaches me to ask for evidence. This isn't philosophy, its fact based.Anyway, even if Daniel said it in a way I don't agree w..."
But you don't see, this is the point of the discussion.
The discussion has changed from wanting an answer to a falsifiable hypothesis as Shaun puts it, to why you should have a answer. The answer is now not relevant.
But if you think it still is, then tell me what the out come would be if I gave you either a positive or negative reply?
if you can provide an example, as asked for, the outcome would be that Shaun would retract his comment, admit that you had proved his statement false, and we would all integrate the new information into what is most likely to be true.You're still avoiding addressing what Shaun is asking you to address.
cs wrote: "The sun neither rises nor sets. "Incorrect. Your quoted statement above is objectively false.
Exhibit A (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
sun·rise noun \ˈsən-ˌrīz\
Definition of SUNRISE
1
: the apparent rising of the sun above the horizon; also : the accompanying atmospheric effects
2
: the time when the upper limb of the sun appears above the horizon as a result of the diurnal rotation of the earth
Exhibit B (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
[note definition 6]
rise verb \ˈrīz\
roseris·enris·ing
Definition of RISE
intransitive verb
1
a : to assume an upright position especially from lying, kneeling, or sitting
b : to get up from sleep or from one's bed
2
: to return from death
3
: to take up arms
4
: to respond warmly : applaud —usually used with to
5
chiefly British : to end a session : adjourn
6
: to appear above the horizon
Exhibit C (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
[note definition 6]
set verb \ˈset\
setset·ting
Definition of SET
intransitive verb
1
chiefly dialect : sit
2
: to be becoming : be suitable : fit
3
: to cover and warm eggs to hatch them
4
a : to affect one with or as if with weight
b : to place oneself in position in preparation for an action (as running)
5
of a plant part : to undergo development usually as a result of pollination
6
a : to pass below the horizon : go down
cs wrote: "The discussion has changed from wanting an answer to a falsifiable hypothesis as Shaun puts it, to why you should have a answer."Just because you wish we would change the focus, doesn't mean it has changed.
The focus is still very much on challenging you to provide evidence for any one of the claims you have made during our discussions.
Especially that first one. Stop evading, and either back up your assertions or admit defeat.
You have now failed to provide a single counter example to the (paraphrased) statement "Every time that religion and science have come to an agreement on something they initially disagreed with, the agreement has always favoured the scientific answer".
(Or, you provided a counterexample one word answer "creation" but then failed to explain why this example fits the criteria when it so clearly, to any other observer, does not)
You have also claimed that I made absolute statements about god, and again, failed to provide a single bit of evidence to back up that claim.
You have claimed you need a creator in order to understand why we are here, but at the same time postulate a creator whose motives cannot be understood.
You have claimed I twisted your words, then failed to provide evidence of a single instance of me doing so.
You have claimed I have made factual or semantic errors and failed to provide evidence of your claims.
***
The answers are still very relevant. Your failure to provide them can be taken as quite clear evidence of your willingness to make false statements.
Mike wrote: "Last notation: Ockham's razor. Bringing up things that "may be discovered" is irrelavent and of no scientific use."I notice you, too, are dodging the issues. Why is it every time someone comes in here to argue against the book, they always spend their time tap dancing around every real issue in favor of side issues?
From the perspective of falsification, one should rationally prefer "there is no god" because it's the most falsifiable and therefor (according to Popper) the simplest theory.
From the perspective of okkham's razor, one should prefer that theory which requires us to make the smallest assumptions. A god being creates more questions than it answers so it requires far more assumptions in order to explain things.
I don't know how to comment on your comment about things that 'may be discovered' since you clearly misunderstood/didn't read what I said. Things 'that may be discovered' is quite relevant in the context I was talking about. I wasn't talking about things which might be discovered counting as evidence now, I was pointing out the issues with Popperian ideology closing itself off so that important discoveries cannot be made in the future (whatever those discoveries end up being). It is only in partially ignoring his ideas that those discoveries were possible.
I notice you're still avoiding the question of why you are commenting negatively on a book you haven't read. You even rated it 1 star.
And, really, why should I take the time to give a thoughtful reply if you are just going to jump back in with "nu-uh!" periodically?
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The sun neither rises nor sets. "Incorrect. Your quoted statement above is objectively false.
Exhibit A (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
sun·rise noun \ˈsən-ˌrīz\
Definition of ..."
It's correct. The sun may appear to rise, but does not.
cs wrote: "It's correct. The sun may appear to rise, but does not."I feel like I understand you so much better now. Let me see if I have it right. You have more knowledge than science, know the definitions of words better than dictionaries, are totally impervious to reason, can pretend to converse while dodging questions, are utterly incapable of admitting when you are wrong, and have completely transcended all forms of logic and rationality by ignoring their existence. Have I got all this right?
No wonder you believe in god. You think you are a god.
Hazel wrote: "if you can provide an example, as asked for, the outcome would be that Shaun would retract his comment, admit that you had proved his statement false, and we would all integrate the new information..."'most likely'? Most likely Jesus walked on water.
I have answered Shaun many many times,and have given three examples to his rather 'sweeping' statement but he does not seem like my answers.
OK, tell us what those 3 examples were, and we can consider them here, instead of having to go looking for them.
cs wrote: "I have answered Shaun many many times,and have given three examples to his rather 'sweeping' statement but he does not seem like my answers. "And we have explained why, in great detail, but for those that missed it, including yourself, lets recap:
I'm only aware of 2 of your answers, sorry for missing one:
Answer 1: Heliocentrism. Are church and science now in agreement that the earth is stationary and the sun, stars and planets revolve around it? Is that what you are claiming?
Answer 2: Creation. Are church and scientific consensus now agreed that god created the earth? Again, is that what you are claiming?
Please, if you think these answers are acceptable, explain how? And remind us of your 3rd answer.
cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The sun neither rises nor sets. "Incorrect. Your quoted statement above is objectively false.
Exhibit A (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
sun·rise noun \ˈsən-..."
Even not counting the thing with Shaun, in a short series of messages on this one page you have demonstrated that you can be confronted with incontrovertible evidence that you are wrong and you will still not admit it.
I can't tell if you are fundamentally dishonest or just a moron.
Mike wrote: "Last notation: Ockham's razor. Bringing up things that "may be discovered" is irrelavent and of no scientific use."The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. To me that points to a creator.
cs wrote: "'most likely'? Most likely Jesus walked on water. "Most likely, somebody made up a story.
Most likely, cs will never be able to provide evidence for any of his claims, and is too enveloped in the sin of pride to ever admit that this is the case.
cs wrote: "The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. To me that points to a creator. "That is a little ambiguous, and requires some explanation.
Do you mean you favour the idea of a creator because it is the more complicated idea?
Daniel wrote: "I can't tell if you are fundamentally dishonest or just a moron. "Why not both?
Seriously, if he is doing this deliberately its one of the most masterful pieces of trolling I've ever seen. If he genuinely thinks he is debating, though... *shakes head sadly*
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The sun neither rises nor sets. "Incorrect. Your quoted statement above is objectively false.
Exhibit A (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary):
sun·rise noun \..."
If you stand on a beach and watch the sun set, do you think the sun sets into the ocean?
Shaun wrote: "cs wrote: "The simplest available theory need not be most accurate. To me that points to a creator. "That is a little ambiguous, and requires some explanation.
Do you mean you favour the idea of..."
One scientific view is that our universe could be one of billions; like bath bubbles, each bubble is a seperate universe. That starts to get more complicated than even the big bang theory.
That doesn't explain anything.Quelle surprise!
cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The sun neither rises nor sets. "Incorrect. Your quoted statement above is objectively false.
Exhibit A (From Merriam-Webster Dictionary..."
What are you talking about? Did you read the definitions of the words or just ignore them so you could pretend you weren't wrong? If you think I made them up or something, feel free to verify with the dictionary of your choice. Here's the one I used:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/
I think we can all agree they are a reputable source.
This didn't need to be a thing at all. All you had to say was "I didn't realize that was actually part of the definition. I shouldn't have been smug about it."
I'm guessing a lot of people don't realize that the word adjusts that way in context. It's not a big deal. What turns it into a big deal is that you're STILL trying to pretend that you were right about it.
Shaun wrote: "Daniel wrote: "I can't tell if you are fundamentally dishonest or just a moron. "Why not both?
Seriously, if he is doing this deliberately its one of the most masterful pieces of trolling I've e..."
quote Shaun: "one of the most masterful pieces of trolling I've ever seen".
Thank you, for that compliment, I almost wish I was trolling, but I don't want to take credit for something I've not done.
Although, with three of four against one a debate may be exaggerating things a bit, maybe an inquisition is closer.
cs wrote: "Although, with three of four against one a debate may be exaggerating things a bit, maybe an inquisition is closer. "You're claiming unfair advantage because our ideas make more sense than yours?
Number of participants is irrelevant as long as everyone gets ample time to respond as they choose. Since you decide when you respond, then you get exactly as much time as you want.
cs wrote: "Although, with three of four against one a debate may be exaggerating things a bit, maybe an inquisition is closer. "But if you're going to cry about it, I'll be happy to stop responding to you (excepting anytime you address me or my comments directly).
I'll withdraw when you admit that you made a baseless claim in the religion v. science "consensus" issue with Shaun and that you were wrong when it comes to whether or not the sun rises and sets. Both of these should be easy to do. Remember that Jesus wants us to be humble and honest.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "The sun neither rises nor sets. "Incorrect. Your quoted statement above is objectively false.
Exhibit A (From Merriam-Webster Dic..."
Yes I read it, and it does explain Sunrise.
but you put
"And it's a little like saying that someone has to show a picture of the sun rising every day in history in order to say that the sun rises every day."
THE SUN RISES. Not the same thing at all.
still using avoidance tactics I see.cs, address the stuff shaun asked about, or admit that you made unfounded claims. Stop arguing semantics.
cs wrote: "Yes I read it, and it does explain Sunrise. but you put
"And it's a little like saying that someone has to show a picture of the sun rising every day in history in order to say that the sun rises every day."
THE SUN RISES. Not the same thing at all. "
And did you continue to read the whole post where there is also a definition for the word "rise" and the word "set"? I recommend reading Exhibit B and Exhibit C of the post in question (#319).
If you would read a whole post before making a series of comments about the post you didn't actually even read you would probably find yourself accidentally spewing absurdities far less frequently.
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Yes I read it, and it does explain Sunrise. but you put
"And it's a little like saying that someone has to show a picture of the sun rising every day in history in order to say that ..."
You are still wrong.
Exhibit B & C give the definition of rise and set, as in sunrise and sunset.
You put (post319) "the sun rises every day".
What you should have put is, there is a sunrise every day.
"spewing absurdities" you can retract that if you feel able.
stop arguing semantics, you started this little spat over sun rise in order to avoid the issues you've been asked to address.Address the issues shaun has asked you to address, or admit you made unsubstantiated claims.
I don't think I've ever seen anyone put so much effort into avoiding addressing simple issues.
Hazel wrote: "still using avoidance tactics I see.cs, address the stuff shaun asked about, or admit that you made unfounded claims. Stop arguing semantics."
see 325
sigh, see 326 and 327. I may have to take this direction to a post that shaun already addressed as proof that you don't actually read our replies.
Hazel wrote: "sigh, see 326 and 327. I may have to take this direction to a post that shaun already addressed as proof that you don't actually read our replies."I read you replies, but there is only so many times I can go over the same old ground.
Shaun did not like/agree with my reply, thats fine, and I did not agree with the reason 'he' gave.
Should I keep looking for answers until Shaun likes one and then I guess if he likes it you will to.
It a bit like Daniel and his sunsets, he will not agree with me, so when he gives another reply should i be polite and reply back or just leave it?
you mean, shaun gave reasonable explanations of why your answers don't fit the criteria as set down:1) science and religion once disagreed on the explanation
2) they now agree on the explanation
3) it was the religious answer that they agreed on.
Neither of your answers, which are set out above in 327 fit these criteria. If you think otherwise, please explain why. It is this explanation, that would make your answers clear, that you have been avoiding giving for several days now.
Shaun did not like/agree with my reply, thats fine, and I did not agree with the reason 'he' gave. Should I keep looking for answers until Shaun likes one and then I guess if he likes it you will to.
It a bit like Daniel and his sunsets, he will not agree with me, so when he gives another reply should i be polite and reply back or just leave it? "
The reason 'he' gave is that it isn't true. Your reply doesn't fit the criteria. It's not a matter of opinion. Objectively, your reply was wrong.
And on the sunsets, why would I agree with you? You want me to be dishonest about word meanings too just so you don't have to admit to being wrong and dishonest about them yourself?
You seem to be under the impression that facts are maleable, that whenever something isn't what you want it to be you can just pretend that two people are disagreeing instead of that you are wrong in every conceivable way.
Daniel wrote: "Shaun did not like/agree with my reply, thats fine, and I did not agree with the reason 'he' gave. Should I keep looking for answers until Shaun likes one and then I guess if he likes it you will..."
Then you should say what you mean
Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least--at least I mean what I say--that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "You might just as well say that "I see what I eat" is the same thing as "I eat what I see"!”
now you're quoting alice in wonderland instead of giving the explanations asked for.Ok, in the same vein as "say what you mean"
If Daniel should say what he means, then you should explain your answers?
cs wrote: "Shaun did not like/agree with my reply, thats fine,"Because they are blatantly not true.
There is no way in hell either heliocentrism or creation fit the original statement, for reasons that should be glaringly obvious to anyone of at least average honesty and intelligence.
Hazel wrote: "you mean, shaun gave reasonable explanations of why your answers don't fit the criteria as set down:1) science and religion once disagreed on the explanation
2) they now agree on the explanation..."
'It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland'
The word religion was not defined by Shaun in the statement he made. Nicolaus Copernicus was a Catholic cleric first then an astronomer.
Hazel wrote: "now you're quoting alice in wonderland instead of giving the explanations asked for.Ok, in the same vein as "say what you mean"
If Daniel should say what he means, then you should explain your a..."
That's not the same vain at all, there is no connection. Anyway you should be telling Daniel that.
cs wrote: "'It was not until the 16th century that a fully predictive mathematical model of a heliocentric system was presented, by the Renaissance mathematician, astronomer, and Catholic cleric Nicolaus Copernicus of Poland' "But as already pointed out, it was his scientific observations, not the teachings of his church, that led to the heliocentric model. You fail, and should be ashamed.
Cs, the work that copernicus did about the heliocentric universe was scientific. The church can't claim scientific discoveries etc, just because the scientist also happened to be a cleric. And really, of all the things that copernicus was, cleric was the least:mathematician, astronomer, jurist with a doctorate in law, physician, quadrilingual polyglot, classics scholar, translator, artist, governor, diplomat and economist.
When doing scientific work, such as studying astronomy and the movement of the planets, and the sun, then the cleric part is less important. It was a scientific discovery, not religious. The religious position was a geocentric system, copernicus's scientific observations revealed that the religious view was incorrect.
Saying that because copernicus happened to be a cleric, and thus any discovery he made was religious, would be like saying that because copernicus was a economist, that any discovery he makes is economics.
Its like saying that because Einstein made most of his discoveries while also working at a patent office, then his discoveries and theories belong to the patent office.
If I worked as a qualified chocolatier as my main job, and I discovered a new species of animal, would that discovery be an advance in the world of chocolate making? No, it would be scientific.
The heliocentric model is scientific, not religious, and it displaced the religious geocentric model.
Would you suggest that the Venerable Bedes De Natura Rerum was a work of religion? Or, as Bede himself said, a work of natural science.
Don't get me wrong, I understand and recognise the churches contribution to science, but the heliocentric model is science, not religion. We have to remember, the church made contributions to science, meaning that they gave people the means to apply scientific method to understanding the world. They do not then go on to claim the discoveries made this way as religious.
cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "now you're quoting alice in wonderland instead of giving the explanations asked for.Ok, in the same vein as "say what you mean"
If Daniel should say what he means, then you sho..."
What have I said that is unclear to you? I'm happy to explain. There's no need to resort to coded messages. You simply could have said "I don't understand message #XXX. Please explain."
Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "Hazel wrote: "now you're quoting alice in wonderland instead of giving the explanations asked for.Ok, in the same vein as "say what you mean"
If Daniel should say what he means, then ..."
What you said and what you meant were not the same.
cs wrote: "Daniel wrote: "cs wrote: "You are still wrong. Exhibit B & C give the definition of rise and set, as in sunrise and sunset.
You put (post319) "the sun rises every day".
What you should have put is, there is a sunrise every day. "
Why don't you have another look at the definition? Even if common sense didn't dictate that if they were defining "sunset" they would have put that under the word "sunset" not under the word "set", the dictionary is very helpful here. It actually gives an example of the proper use in this context. Here it is (from the dictionary, not me):
to appear above the horizon
If you change the time frame (which isn't even part of what you're disputing) of their example from "at six" to "every day" then you have my exact sentence. Notice how sun and rise are not formed into a single word? Notice how they are left separate as I used them? You are claiming that the dictionary doesn't know how to use words? Or just that you know better?
I used it in a textbook perfect way.
Why are you denying it? Is it that painful to admit that you were wrong about something? Do you really have so much pride and vanity that you can't even admit being wrong about a little tiny thing?
cs wrote: "What you said and what you meant were not the same."You're claiming psychic super-powers now? I'm pretty sure I'm the best judge of what I meant, but please elaborate. What did I mean to say? What did I actually say?
Hazel wrote: "Cs, the work that copernicus did about the heliocentric universe was scientific. The church can't claim scientific discoveries etc, just because the scientist also happened to be a cleric. And real...""If I worked as a qualified chocolatier as my main job, and I discovered a new species of animal, would that discovery be an advance in the world of chocolate making? No, it would be scientific."
If you worked for Bloggs Pharmaceutical & Medical company and discovered a cure for the common cold.
It would not be..... Miss Hazel discovered a cure for the common cold, it would be 'Bloggs' Pharmaceutical & Medical company discovered a cure for the common cold.
Actually, it would be Hazel discovered the cure, while working for bloggs pharmaceutical. The person who made the discovery is given recognition. Copernicus was carrying out scientific work separately to his work as a cleric in the catholic church, it wasn't religious work he was carrying out. Even if I worked for bloggs pharmaceutical, I'd be the one who'd be named as the discover of common cold cure, and thats especially true if it were work I carried out separately to what the company was paying me to do.
Copernicus was carrying out scientific observations and work, his findings contradicted the churches geocentric model, his scientific heliocentric model was recognised as correct, thus the scientific explanation was chosen over the religious one.
The fact is, he used scientific method, carried out scientific work (astronomy) to realise this heliocentric model, the work was scientific, it doesn't suddenly become religious because he happened to be a cleric, it was done with scientific instruments, with scientific method, in order to understand the world, and the solar system scientifically.
all discussions on this book
|
post a new topic
The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Books mentioned in this topic
Victor: A Novel Based on the Life of the Savage of Aveyron (other topics)The Grand Design (other topics)
The God Delusion (other topics)
Shaun has already said previously, and I agree, that all knowledge is provisional, thus the use of "most likely true". If you can show it isn't true, please do, and we'll be grateful for the opportunity to improve our understanding.