Atheist cartoon illustrating what they think is circular reasoning.
This began on CARM when an atheist began demanding "actual data" that would prove the existence of God. It's' clear what he really meant was he emended that God be a tangible physical thing in creation before he could believe. He expressed that as "actual data." He's blurring the distinction between data that would point toward God's existence vs. God being an actual psychosocial property that he could touch and handle and see. I offered two sets of "actual data" (empirical scientific data) both of which point to God, the M scale based studies on mystical experience, and evidence for fine tuning of the universe's anthropic principle. Of cousre neither of these satisfied him becuase he didn't' want mere data he wanted God to be something that requires no faith to believe in. In the process he exemplifies circular reasoning at it's most convoluted.
Originally Posted by Whatsisface
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data. why do you need actual data anyway?
MetaThe M scale is a subjective questionnaire, and as such can show nothing concrete.
no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.This is just another example of how the same people don't listen to the answers even when they are presented over and over again. I put up the link to the chapter in the text book by the guy who invented the M scale, Dr. Ralph Hood Jr. ( U. Tennessee Chattanooga) I put it up 147 times, those are the the one' s I counted. Probably more like 300 times. Two atheist looked at it one said he didn't understand it. The other said little more. This guy saw the link numerous times, he never looked at it. Now here he is regurgitating the same ignorance they all do becuase they refuse to read the material I offer.
I am baffled as to why if you think your opinions matter, you express them so vaguely.Vaguely! I showed me a whole chapter in a science text book explaining the study methodology, real vague. who else on that board has gone to the lengths I have to explain his views? no one.
that's ludicrous. I'm not only one on this board who research and gives any kind of empirical evidence to back up his claims. most of your answers are just arguemnt form incredulity.Whatshisface
The multiverse is a speculative answer to a speculative question. What we lack here is knowledge. Just because we lack knowledge doesn't mean you can legitimately say God did it.
thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked fort this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample. You are just saying "I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe."
where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?Here I'm pointing out to them that the multivariate (the usual answer to fine tuning) has no empirical data to back it. He demands empirical data of God's existence but the answer to God's existence he will accept without data.
Originally Posted by Metacrock View Postthere's another jump here to another post there he's saying I don't need data becuase i have the M scale (never mind that it is the metholgocial procedure that resutls in the data).
you can say that about anything. all science is interpretation of data. Multiverse has no data.
why do you need actual data anyway?
MetaSo you can say it about the Mscale then. All you think you can show from it and your studies is an interpretation of data. Why do you need data anyway?
same reason men climb mountains. why do you reject the data you ask for when you get it?Actually The point he's making is illogical becuase he goes from "that's just interpreting data" to why do you need data, with no justification, becuase I never intimated that I don't need data. I did ask him why he does. that's a question of what one decides is data. The atheists would not accept anyting as data pointing toward God, nothing short of actual finger prints or DNA samples. Even then they would doubt it. In my view experience of Gdo's presence is data. the M scales makes it possible to pin down exactly what is an actual mystical experience, that enables us to compress the effects of having mystical experience to not having it. that enables us to show that it makes a huge difference in people's lives, that proves religion works in that it does the thing sit claims to do. Then there is also the universal element of religious experience which is a good indication that it is an experience of soemthing beyond the human mind.
He asserts it's not objective
no it's not. it's objective and it's empirical. It's time you learned about it.
He just says "see above meaning his statement that the M scale is not objective.
man you guys just cannot stay away from the circular reasoning can you? when I say atheist hate logic you get all up set but obviously you do becuase just think in circles. I just disproved what's above, you can't answer. so instead of trying you say "see above." then I guess when I point this out you'll say "see below."
thatch' why it doesn't work as an answer. the argument of FT is the very thing you asked for this just proves that you dont' want truth. you didn't want the stuff you ask for becuase when you get it all picky about it. It's not God DNA sample I dont' care. unless I have a mug shot of God on trial I wont believe.
He tries to worm out of the multiverse problem by using a different answer. That answer illustrates why the multiverse argument is the atheist answer of choice, because this answer sux.
I don't use the multiverse as an answer to anything. You brought up fine tuning, my response was to say that you don't know whether the universe is the only way it could be or not, you ignored this point.
I quoted Davies (who was the darling of atheists when he wrote God and the New Physics but now they hate him because he turned Deist and wrote the Mind of God). He says the universe did not have to be the way it is. Not just any old universe will do but it must be the way it is to fine life. Meaning it had be purposely fine tanned becuase the odds of it stacking up that way are so extremely remote. that's an indication the game is fixed.
"You might be tempted to suppose that any old rag-bag of laws would produce a complex universe of some sort, with attendant inhabitants convinced of their own specialness. Not so. It turns out that randomly selected laws lead almost inevitably either to unrelieved chaos or boring and uneventful simplicity. Our own universe is poised exquisitely between these unpalatable alternatives, offering a potent mix of freedom and discipline, a sort of restrained creativity. The laws do not tie down physical systems so rigidly that they can accomplish little, but neither are they a recipe for cosmic anarchy. Instead, they encourage matter and energy to develop along pathways of evolution that lead to novel variety-what Freeman Dyson has called the principle of maximum diversity: that in some sense we live in the most interesting possible universe."Meta:
"Some scientists have tried to argue that if only we knew enough about the laws of physics, if we were to discover a final theory that united all the fundamental forces and particles of nature into a single mathematical scheme, then we would find that this superlaw, or theory of everything, would describe the only logically consistent world. In other words, the nature of the physical world would be entirely a consequence of logical and mathematical necessity. There would be no choice about it. I think this is demonstrably wrong. There is not a shred of evidence that the universe is logically necessary. Indeed, as a theoretical physicist I find it rather easy to imagine alternative universes that are logically consistent, and therefore equal contenders for reality." First Things: Physics and the Mind of God: The Templeton Prize Address (1999)
same principle. you are doing what I said you would with the FN only in terms of any other argument. you wanted data, you got data, you are want the data after all.Whatshisface
where do you actually draw the line? do you have to stand before God on judgement day or would you actually refuse to believe then?
I don't disbelieve for the sake of it. Theism hasn't met it's evidential burden.
ahahahaahahh AHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHA I JUT BLEEDING DID! i DID EXACTLY WHAT YOU ASK FOR. i HAVE GAVE TWO AREAS OF HARD SCIENTIFIC DATA ALL YOU DID WAS USE CIRCULAR REASONING AND INCREDULITY TO QUIBBLE SO THAT YOU COULD SLIDE OUT OF THE BURDEN ACCEPTING IT, THEN YOU THE HAVE THE GAUL TO TURN AROUND AND SAY "THEISM JUST WONT MEET MY BURDEN.
BURDEN OF WHAT FALLACIES? CIRCULAR REASONING?
I might not blow my stack like this if I hadn't put up a link to the M scale stuff 147 times and they all refuse to read it. Then claim the very stuff the chapter linked to would have dispelled but they refuse to look at it. So what they really want is not data but to pretend that they have no been given data. When you do give it they refuse to accept or even read about it.
the Circular bit is that we get through this torturous process of denial then he just asserts all the positions I just got though bashing as I didn't say anything.
The cartoon at the begining is circular reasoning. There are Christians who argue that way, they need to stop. they need ot learn some basic logic. The atheists are no better then need to learn some basic logic too. We can make a cartoon like this:
Atheist: there is no scientific data to prove God exits.
believer: here's some
Atheist: I refuse to recognie this
Believer: why it meets all the criteria?
Atheist: see above.