+AgeOfSuperboredom & +Brad White
& +Raul Alvarado
I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage" by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective morals. God will judge between us - you will see.
1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY?
I appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well done.
One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test
Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as
- The Philosophy of Biology
- The Philosophy of Chemistry
- The Philosophy of Mathematics
Hence, to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve. This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:
Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.
Some hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said, "Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars." Sherlock said, "And what does that tell you?"
After a minute or so of pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today. What does it tell you?"
Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!"
IN THE SAME WAY ...
...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test
2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY
I am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and "sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/ intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to say:
for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION
Hence, this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic systems and I believe that it is reasonable.
3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability
I have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:
Atheism can be proven false
Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:
_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."
Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES
1. All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple.
2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence.
3. I reject something that you have no proof for.
4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.
1
This testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency. That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and show himself_"
No, investigators do not necessarily need the "subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object" (eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.
2
There are two parts to this I want to address
1. Compelling Evidence
2. Evidence
2.1. Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.
2.2. The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies. There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Intentionality
- Lots more etc
Pick one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.
3
I am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof" like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof)
- There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful.
- There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat.
- There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her.
HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).
4
Let's play the sherlock holmes game:
- Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments
- Socially, that is insulting
- Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself.
- Morally, you have just told a lie.
- Experientially you are just naive.
- Empirically, NO.
Lastly, I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.
God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.
REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
(3) http://rdlogo.blogspot.com
& +Raul Alvarado
I am replying to you three in one go because you are all asking for the same thing. I appreciate you +Brad White that you are willing to be convinced either way. I cannot say for the remaining other two guys especially for the one who displayed "trollage" by calling me a moron. God bless you - you know who you are. You insult me and you don't even know me. You curse and I bless - we shall see who the more evidential moral one is becaue Atheism has no objective morals. God will judge between us - you will see.
1. THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY?
I appreciate you guys for providing testing-methodologies, observation analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that would prove that your Atheism to be Falsifiable - which is a requirement in terms of "logic" so as to avoid committing an Unfalsifiable Fallacy. Well done.
One fundamental rule in the Philosophy of Sciene is that:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject) test
Please read more on the philosophy of science (1) and notice that there are many aspects to science such as
- The Philosophy of Biology
- The Philosophy of Chemistry
- The Philosophy of Mathematics
Hence, to buttress my point that the testing methodology for different things are likewise different depending on the query you are trying to solve. This reminds me of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke:
Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke
Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson went on a camping trip. After a good meal and a bottle of red wine, they lay down for the night and went to sleep.
Some hours later Holmes woke up, nudged his faithful friend and said, "Watson, I want you to look up at the sky and tell me what you see." Watson said, "I see millions and millions of stars." Sherlock said, "And what does that tell you?"
After a minute or so of pondering Watson said, "*Astronomically*, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn is in Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three in the morning. Theologically, I can see that God is all powerful and that we are small and insignificant. Metereologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day today. What does it tell you?"
Holmes was silent for about 30 seconds and said, "Watson, you idiot! Someone has stolen our tent!"
IN THE SAME WAY ...
...Just like there are many mutually-inclusive ways to explain a certain thing in terms of science, there are likewise many ways to explain that same exact certain thing in terms of non-science just as you have seen in the example of the Sherlock Holmes Camping Joke. This is why I will repeat:
The Correct Methodology must be applied to the correct (subject or) test
2. PHILOSOPHY OF THE CORRECT TESTING METHODOLOGY
I am sure that you have heard about Occam's Razor? Which is a rule in the philosophy of science regarding the proper testing methodology which says that you should not multiply causes beyond necessity. (Please if you do not know the difference and similiarities between "necessity" and "sufficiency" please study about it (2). This is to reduce my verbiage because I want to give you the estimated credit that you are briliant/ intelligent guys and you understand what I am talking about.) That is to say:
for an explanation to be the best explanation to a certain query, YOU DON'T NEED AN EXPLANATION OF THE EXPLANATION
Hence, this is why in science academic examinations, if you over explain your answers to the questions in the exams as if to show that you're a know-it-all, your tendency of failing that exam increases. So these are logical steps that we are applying even in our educational and academic systems and I believe that it is reasonable.
3. WHY HAVE I SAID ALL THIS? - Sequitur Contextual Relevance and Logical Applicability
I have said all this because I appreciate the fact you have done something not many Atheists like the silly Matt Dillihaunti would do. You have actually provide Falsifiable Testing Methodoogies, Observational Analysis and repeatable/predictive/testable experiments that can be applied to prove that:
Atheism can be proven false
Unlike the silly, die-hard tribe, fallacious and ignorant Matt Dillihanuti who says:
_"...Atheism... cannot be proven to be true..."
Such nonsense. Ok... these are the testing methodology you have provided and I going to scrutinise if they are PROPER TESTING METHODOLOGIES
1. All that is needed is for God to show Himself. get off his ass, come down from the clouds and show himself to us. It's that simple.
2. Or, lacking that, some compelling evidence. Forget proof ... All I want is some evidence.
3. I reject something that you have no proof for.
4. you god believers can't even make a simple argument.
1
This testing methodology fails on the grounds of necessity and sufficiency. That's like criminologists or archeologists using forensic science saying that: "_All that is needed is for the perpetrator to come out and show himself_"
No, investigators do not necessarily need the "subject" (eg Designer) as a sufficient conditon to infer the "object" (eg Design). So... until to ask for a proper testing methodology, I find this testinf methodology silly and absurd for people of intelligence.
2
There are two parts to this I want to address
1. Compelling Evidence
2. Evidence
2.1. Sorry, I am not here to "compel" your subjectivity as though I were some sort of magician here to impress you. That would be a subjectivist fallacy. Rather, I am here to lay down some good OBJECTIVE logic to posit the resonableness of blieving or theorising God.
2.2. The Christian has many arguement and they are done their own side of the burden of proof. It would be up to you to take the syllogisms of the Christian and tell us why it fails on objective logic while scrutinising our arguments with a large applicable list of fallacies. There are over 50+ Arguments for the existence of God. I will give you a blank cheque ... which one of them do you find fallacious? Such as
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Moral Argument
- The Teleological Argument
- The Argument from Intentionality
- Lots more etc
Pick one and tell me which one you find fallacious and we can scrutinise it together in a mutually-respected, civilised and intellectual manner.
3
I am assuming that you are intelligent enough to know the difference between "proof" and "evidence". I am sorry, I do not have any "proof" like a mathematical proof such as saying 1 + 1 = God ... no... rather, I have Philosophical Arguments with Supporting Scientific Evidences. If you want proof, I'm sorry you are barking up the wrong tree and you need to look for someone omniscient enough to "proof" God to you to a degree of absolute certainty. There are many things that are reasonable to believe even though there are no proof for them (check your dictionary semantic for proof)
- There is no proof that makes a poem beautiful.
- There is no proof that you are not a brain in a vat.
- There is no proof that my wife loves me nor that I love her.
HOWEVER, it is reasonable to accept the evidences just as they are ie, by faith (not to be confused with blindfaith).
4
Let's play the sherlock holmes game:
- Intellectually, that is ignorant of the christian position. We have made arguments
- Socially, that is insulting
- Metaphysically, that is your subjective opinion - keep it to yourself.
- Morally, you have just told a lie.
- Experientially you are just naive.
- Empirically, NO.
Lastly, I have a feeling that someone is deleting my replies... so I will back it up on my blog (3) and if I do not see this argument here the next time I come here... then I will know for sure that someone is toying with me because my arguments are so true, they cannot swallow the bitter-truth due to their emotional appeal/ crutches.
God bless you all and I look forward to your replies.
REFERENCES
(1) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necessity_and_sufficiency
(3) http://rdlogo.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment