Best label for this assignment

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

21 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I think it is simple logic and deduction to assert that IF the Christian version of God exists, that is all powerful all knowing and all loving, AND he behaves like he did in the bible, then the evidence would be clear in the first place without our having had to ask for it.  So...evidence NOT being blatantly in our faces, contrasts with the ideal God of the Bible, in my mind negating the idea altogether.

 

 

    Yes.

 

 

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

2.  There is ample evidence that similar claims, made in the past, are true.  Have any claims made on behalf of God's existence, been verified?  No.  

The honest answer to the question is either "I don't know" or "Not to my knowledge." Your logic here follows the following pattern-

I have seen a lot of swans 

The swans I saw were white.

All swans are white.

 

A more familiar use of this sort of bad thinking runs like this-

"I've known his teacher for thirty years and she's never given me any reason to think she was capable of doing anytging like that. She just isn"t that sort of person."

 

[mererdog]

15 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I think it is simple logic and deduction to assert that IF the Christian version of God exists, that is all powerful all knowing and all loving, AND he behaves like he did in the bible, then the evidence would be clear in the first place without our having had to ask for it.  So...evidence NOT being blatantly in our faces, contrasts with the ideal God of the Bible, in my mind negating the idea altogether.

In order for this kind of argument to work, you need to assume that you have all the relevant information. You have to assume, in other words, that there is no unaccounted for variable which changes the logical  conclusion. This means that trusting the conclusion requires trusting that there is nothing important about God that you do not know.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

In order for this kind of argument to work, you need to assume that you have all the relevant information. You have to assume, in other words, that there is no unaccounted for variable which changes the logical  conclusion. This means that trusting the conclusion requires trusting that there is nothing important about God that you do not know.

 

True believers have been preaching at me all my life.  If they had actual, verifiable, facts, instead of mere assertions -- I am confident that it would have been brought to my attention.    

 

For the rest -- Important information?  About God?       Just for an experiment, try telling Christians, that you have important information about the ancient gods and goddesses.  They will laugh in your face.  Why?  Because it's not their god that they are laughing at.     

 

An Atheist is someone who has one less god than a Monotheist.     

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[VonNoble]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

 

I have seen a lot of swans 

The swans I saw were white.

All swans are white.

 

A more familiar use of this sort of bad thinking runs like this-

"I've known his teacher for thirty years and she's never given me any reason to think she was capable of doing anytging like that. She just isn"t that sort of person."

 

Ta da!    I actually recognize the format!   I learned something in this class after all.    I was pleased I got it ( are you helping me prep for the final?)

 

i didn’t have anything to add to the conversation so I am .... but happy this morning (before yet amother quiz) that I “got” something.    It is an omen I am making progress 

von

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

7 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Ta da!    I actually recognize the format!   I learned something in this class after all.    I was pleased I got it ( are you helping me prep for the final?)

 

i didn’t have anything to add to the conversation so I am .... but happy this morning (before yet amother quiz) that I “got” something.    It is an omen I am making progress 

von

 

The ability to think clearly and coherently, is a good thing.     

Edited April 2, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

( are you helping me prep for the final?)

No.

"No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black one may disprove it." - Karl Popper

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

Von, I don't think you need help with prep.  If you want it, I'm here for you.     

 

 

Edited April 2, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, mererdog said:

No.

"No number of sightings of white swans can prove the theory that all swans are white. The sighting of just one black one may disprove it." - Karl Popper

 

 

When a black swan shows up, I will reevaluate.  

 

[VonNoble]

42 minutes ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Von, I don't think you need help with prep.  If you want it, I'm here for you.     

 

 

Thank you VERY MUCH!   We receive our final exam topic the end of the month 

von

[VonNoble]

Our last “ God project” today 

 

Eight people on a team.... 45 minutes to complete our assignment.

 

Before beginning the assignment we each had to share our inner most feelings about  of God with the group.  (We did not take that as a literal requirement in our group)

 

As a group we had to write a 75 word essay for the three major positions (theist, agnostic, atheist).   Then  condense each essay into a standard form argument.

 

The group sharing went well.   Four theists ( 3 of them Catholic....one generic Christian)    ..... three Agnostics   .... one very strong atheist.

 

When we were done sharing.... we had less than 30 minutes to go.    We cheated.

 Rather than ALL OF US WORKING AS a single unit..... we divided into three small groups.... the atheist working alone ....and finished with a whole 1.4 minutes to spare.

 

As far as I could tell those who tackled it as a larger group got bogged down and did not finish.

 

Next up..... ethics

 

 von  

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

22 minutes ago, VonNoble said:

Our last “ God project” today 

 

Eight people on a team.... 45 minutes to complete our assignment.

 

Before beginning the assignment we each had to share our inner most feelings about  of God with the group.  (We did not take that as a literal requirement in our group)

 

As a group we had to write a 75 word essay for the three major positions (theist, agnostic, atheist).   Then  condense each essay into a standard form argument.

 

The group sharing went well.   Four theists ( 3 of them Catholic....one generic Christian)    ..... three Agnostics   .... one very strong atheist.

 

When we were done sharing.... we had less than 30 minutes to go.    We cheated.

 Rather than ALL OF US WORKING AS a single unit..... we divided into three small groups.... the atheist working alone ....and finished with a whole 1.4 minutes to spare.

 

As far as I could tell those who tackled it as a larger group got bogged down and did not finish.

 

Next up..... ethics

 

 von  

 

Then you're not done with God.  You will be told, by some, that you can't be good without God.  That God is the foundation of morality.  That without God, nothing is objectively wrong.

 

The challenge is coming.  Start thinking.

 

[mererdog]

13 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

When a black swan shows up, I will reevaluate.  

Easier said than done.

This is that thing again where belief is not a choice. We all like to think that when we see the proof we will be convinced of the truth. But it just doesn't work like that. The process is super messy and only partly in our control. Because we are invested in our beliefs, we reflexively protect that investment by fighting against anything that threatens our beliefs. Sometimes we see a black swan, but since we "know" it can't be real we simply dismiss it as a fake. It keeps things simple and makes life easier to cope with, you dig?

 

Also, for the record, black swans are not the only non-white swans. Beware the false dichotomy that leads to shifting goal-posts. Don't conflate a way to disprove the claim with the way to disprove the claim. No evidence become no objective evidence becomes no objective evidence made out of chocolate....

Edited April 3, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

Easier said than done.

This is that thing again where belief is not a choice. We all like to think that when we see the proof we will be convinced of the truth. But it just doesn't work like that. The process is super messy and only partly in our control. Because we are invested in our beliefs, we reflexively protect that investment by fighting against anything that threatens our beliefs. Sometimes we see a black swan, but since we "know" it can't be real we simply dismiss it as a fake. It keeps things simple and makes life easier to cope with, you dig?

 

Also, for the record, black swans are not the only non-white swans. Beware the false dichotomy that leads to shifting goal-posts. Don't conflate a way to disprove the claim with the way to disprove the claim. No evidence become no objective evidence becomes no objective evidence made out of chocolate....

 

 

Are you talking about evidence for God?  That would actually be a good topic.  I want to be clear about what we are discussing.

 

[Pastor Dave]

5 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

 

Are you talking about evidence for God?  That would actually be a good topic.  I want to be clear about what we are discussing.

 

As do I. Let's first be clear about which God we're talking about. Are we talking about YHVH,  the God of Abraham, Isaac,  and Jacob? Are we talking about Allah the God of Muhammad? Are we talking about the Greco Roman God's? Or are we talking about any of the Gods through history?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

14 minutes ago, Pastor Dave said:

As do I. Let's first be clear about which God we're talking about. Are we talking about YHVH,  the God of Abraham, Isaac,  and Jacob? Are we talking about Allah the God of Muhammad? Are we talking about the Greco Roman God's? Or are we talking about any of the Gods through history?

 

Don't forget the Gods of Deism and Pantheism.  All quite different.  

 

When ever I ask for a definition of God on this board -- I can almost feel all the eyes rolling up.  Thank you for being the one to ask.

 

 

 

[VonNoble]

23 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

 

Then you're not done with God.  You will be told, by some, that you can't be good without God.  That God is the foundation of morality.  That without God, nothing is objectively wrong.

 

The challenge is coming.  Start thinking.

 

Ugh!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, VonNoble said:

Ugh!

 

 

I know.  Part of philosophy is dealing with bad ideas.  I can help if you get stuck.  First, give it a shot.

 

Hint #1    Beware of invisible assumptions.  You will be lead down the garden path and over the cliff -- and you will have no idea how you got there.  

 

Trap #1  Never agree, when your opponent says, -- "Surely you will agree that ............"    Or  --   "For the sake of argument, let us suppose that ........"    No. No. No.  Do not put your own head into the noose.  No matter how nicely you are asked.  

 

I suggest you put your thinking cap on now.  

 

Finally -- Have fun.  You're not fighting for your life.  You're learning how to argue.  Remember:  The man who does not make mistakes, doesn't make anything else, either.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 4, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[mererdog]

21 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Are you talking about evidence for God?  That would actually be a good topic.  I want to be clear about what we are discussing.

I was discussing basic epistemology. General principles that apply as readily to fish as to God.

Really, it is mostly about us, as humans. What convinces us, what prevents us from seeing the truth, and how we can be more effective thinkers despite our shortcomings. You know, trivial stuff.

Edited April 4, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

1 hour ago, mererdog said:

I was discussing basic epistemology. General principles that apply as readily to fish as to God.

Really, it is mostly about us, as humans. What convinces us, what prevents us from seeing the truth, and how we can be more effective thinkers despite our shortcomings. You know, trivial stuff.

 

I think you're being overly ambitious.  We can generally agree on how we define fish.  On the most basic level, there is objective, verifiable, evidence that fish exist.  Defining God -- and gods -- is more difficult.  Certainly, there is less agreement.