a common atheist fallacy

[mererdog]

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

Aside from theology and philosophy, what do we know about God?  Less than nothing.

The fundamental flaw in this argument is the word "we." I don't know the limits of your knowledge. I don't know the limits of Dan's. Dan doesn't know the limits of mine. Making a claim of the "We don't know" format asserts the unspoken assumption that others cannot know stuff that I don't. When the context doesn't give the "we" a fairly specific meaning, I can't help but hear the claim as "I am not open to new information."

Just so you know, this is one of the ones that drives me crazy on the Ancient Aliens shows. They will say "We don't know how this could be done without modern tools," when I have personally seen multiple demonstratioms of it being done without modern tools. In those cases it is clear to me that "We" don't know because "We" don't want to, you know?

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

The fundamental flaw in this argument is the word "we." I don't know the limits of your knowledge. I don't know the limits of Dan's. Dan doesn't know the limits of mine. Making a claim of the "We don't know" format asserts the unspoken assumption that others cannot know stuff that I don't. When the context doesn't give the "we" a fairly specific meaning, I can't help but hear the claim as "I am not open to new information."

Just so you know, this is one of the ones that drives me crazy on the Ancient Aliens shows. They will say "We don't know how this could be done without modern tools," when I have personally seen multiple demonstratioms of it being done without modern tools. In those cases it is clear to me that "We" don't know because "We" don't want to, you know?

 

 

Alright.  Let's talk about "We" and what is being asserted.

 

There is the Fundamentalist We.  We don't accept evolution or cosmology.  Therefore, God exists.  This is a positive claim.

 

The ancient alien programs.  We don't know how this could have been done.  Therefore, aliens did it.  This is a positive claim.

 

Which brings us to the assertion that I made -- and to which you are now responding.  We have no objective facts about God.  Well?  Do we have objective facts about God?  Seriously.  Does anybody have any objective facts about God?  If such objective facts about God did exist -- I think the world of true believers would be rubbing my face in it.  They don't because they can't.  They have Scripture.  This they shriek from the rooftops and street corners.  They have "testimony" and "witness".  They have threats in abundance about Perdition. There are tons of bad arguments.   What they don't have is facts.  Objective, verifiable facts.

 

What?  In all this time -- nobody in possession of such facts came forward?  Nobody?  Ever?  The addendum on that is that if such evidence ever turns up in future -- I am ready to reconsider.  Until then..........          

 

Alright.  The Black Swan theory.  I'm reasonable.  Show me a black swan.  If it shows up -- I will reconsider.  Until then -- there are no objective, verifiable facts about God.  Not one.  

=========================================================================================================================================

This is strictly a side note -- on the subject of ancient aliens.

 

It is possible that Earth was visited by aliens.  We have unsolved mysteries.  I only said "possible".  Not "probable".

 

On the other hand -- if all the claims were true -- Earth would be getting more traffic than Grand Central Station.       

I'm not as skeptical as you are in these matters -- but I get your point.  The world needs a lot more critical thinking.     

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Dan56]

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

Until then -- there are no objective, verifiable facts about God.  Not one.

 

A person can deduce something is true without objective evidence.. Many people have been convicted of crimes on the testimony of a witness or two, yet the gospel is rejected despite many witnesses. If Mutt and Jeff were standing beside you and said they saw me steal a car,  you'd likely believe them, but Peter and Paul tell you about Christ and you arbitrarily decide its a lie? So much for relying on our human senses to discern a truth.

 

God is Spirit, he is not of this physical world, all of creation came about by an invisible power from another dimension, so God cannot be proven via conventional evidence. God is beyond our observations, measurements, tests, and methodology of substantiating a truth, so our objectivity can pretty much be thrown out a window.

 

Even a miracle is not evidence, because 'objective' evidence requires our understanding, and since we can't explain a miracle, it can't past our test. If a man claims to love his wife, how can that be true without objective evidence? Love cannot be seen, but we can generally perceive a truth by what love reveals.

 

Could a rational explanation of God really be understood, can we grasp a power beyond what we're capable of comprehending? Science wouldn't suffice even if it offered plausible evidence. Faith is the only tangible evidence which demonstrates that God does exist.

 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

[RevBogovac]

15 hours ago, mererdog said:

The fundamental flaw in this argument is the word "we." I don't know the limits of your knowledge. I don't know the limits of Dan's. Dan doesn't know the limits of mine. Making a claim of the "We don't know" format asserts the unspoken assumption that others cannot know stuff that I don't. When the context doesn't give the "we" a fairly specific meaning, I can't help but hear the claim as "I am not open to new information." [...]

 

This is the fundamental difference between science and faith; in science we actually can know each others limits by publicly stating our findings in a reproducible and therefore verifiable way...

 

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

[...]  In all this time -- nobody in possession of such facts came forward?  Nobody?  Ever?  The addendum on that is that if such evidence ever turns up in future -- I am ready to reconsider.  Until then..........          

 

Alright.  The Black Swan theory.  I'm reasonable.  Show me a black swan.  If it shows up -- I will reconsider.  Until then -- there are no objective, verifiable facts about God.  Not one.  

 

[...]

 

I'm not as skeptical as you are in these matters -- but I get your point.  The world needs a lot more critical thinking.     

 

 

Agree 100%, but still I choose to be a "believer"... I like all the little things that come with it that - for me - outweigh the negative...

 

39 minutes ago, Dan56 said:

 

A person can deduce something is true without objective evidence.. [...] Faith is the only tangible evidence which demonstrates that God does exist. [...]

 

Yep, if nothing else He exists "in our minds"... Hey, Placebo's also work in about 20% of the time (and that is a scientifically proven fact)...

 

 

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

This is the fundamental difference between science and faith; in science we actually can know each others limits by publicly stating our findings in a reproducible and therefore verifiable way...

Well, no. Not all experience is reproducible, thus not all knowledge is verifiable. It can be proven to me without me being able to prove it to you. Even if I am a scientist.

Additionally, the fact that research has not been published does not prove it does not exist, nor does the fact that I do not know something has been published prove it has not been published.

Bottom line: Ignorance proves nothing. To use lack of information as a basis for inference is simply a bad idea.

Edited June 15, 2018 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

A person can deduce something is true without objective evidence.. Many people have been convicted of crimes on the testimony of a witness or two, yet the gospel is rejected despite many witnesses. If Mutt and Jeff were standing beside you and said they saw me steal a car,  you'd likely believe them, but Peter and Paul tell you about Christ and you arbitrarily decide its a lie? So much for relying on our human senses to discern a truth.

 

God is Spirit, he is not of this physical world, all of creation came about by an invisible power from another dimension, so God cannot be proven via conventional evidence. God is beyond our observations, measurements, tests, and methodology of substantiating a truth, so our objectivity can pretty much be thrown out a window.

 

Even a miracle is not evidence, because 'objective' evidence requires our understanding, and since we can't explain a miracle, it can't past our test. If a man claims to love his wife, how can that be true without objective evidence? Love cannot be seen, but we can generally perceive a truth by what love reveals.

 

Could a rational explanation of God really be understood, can we grasp a power beyond what we're capable of comprehending? Science wouldn't suffice even if it offered plausible evidence. Faith is the only tangible evidence which demonstrates that God does exist.

 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

 

 

Some of these threads are merging in my mind, to the point where it is difficult for me to remember what the point was.  Now, I'm starting to get dizzy.

 

I think the question here was -- "Why don't you (Atheists) believe in God?".  If you like, we can go back down the rabbit hole.  I think the original question has been answered.

 

We can always revisit specifics.  Reliability of Scripture and such.  More focus and less drift.  I don't have that much left to say.

 

 

 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

3 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

 

This is the fundamental difference between science and faith; in science we actually can know each others limits by publicly stating our findings in a reproducible and therefore verifiable way...

 

 

Agree 100%, but still I choose to be a "believer"... I like all the little things that come with it that - for me - outweigh the negative...

 

 

Yep, if nothing else He exists "in our minds"... Hey, Placebo's also work in about 20% of the time (and that is a scientifically proven fact)...

 

 

 

 

That works for me.  I have nothing to sell.

 

[mererdog]

4 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

Hey, Placebo's also work in about 20% of the time (and that is a scientifically proven fact)...

This is not accurate. Placebos don't "work." The placebo effect is a measure of the difference between correlation and causality: people getting better due to something other than the given treatment, like natural remission cycles. And large scale meta-analysis has consistantly shown the effect to be way smaller than the number you used.

Edited June 15, 2018 by mererdog

[mererdog]

5 hours ago, Dan56 said:

If Mutt and Jeff were standing beside you and said they saw me steal a car,  you'd likely believe them, but Peter and Paul tell you about Christ and you arbitrarily decide its a lie? So much for relying on our human senses to discern a truth.

If I can be wrong to believe Mutt and Jeff while not believing the Bible, does that not suggest that you can be wrong to believe the Bible but not the Qur'an?

If we accept as a given that belief based on subjective experience is inherently problematic and leads to many incorrect beliefs, how can we justify any certainty in such beliefs?

In other words, since we know that witness testimony has led to many false imprisonments, why do we still imprison people based on witness testimonies?

I think the answer is that we tend to think of this stuff as someone else's weakness.

"I discern. You jump to conclusions."

"I spot lies. You reject truths."

Edited June 15, 2018 by mererdog

[RevBogovac]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

This is the fundamental difference between science and faith; in science we actually can know each others limits by publicly stating our findings in a reproducible and therefore verifiable way... [...]

 

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

Well, no. Not all experience is reproducible, thus not all knowledge is verifiable. It can be proven to me without me being able to prove it to you. Even if I am a scientist.

Additionally, the fact that research has not been published does not prove it does not exist, nor does the fact that I do not know something has been published prove it has not been published.

Bottom line: Ignorance proves nothing. To use lack of information as a basis for inference is simply a bad idea.

 

I didn't say "knowledge", I said "science". You're just making a philosophical leap as to justify something that isn't there. There is no - nor will there be in the foreseeable future - proof of the existence of God. He's being discussed for several thousand years by now, so come on... how much time do you need?

[RevBogovac]

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

 

 

That works for me.  I have nothing to sell.

 

 

[RevBogovac]

2 hours ago, mererdog said:

This is not accurate. Placebos don't "work." The placebo effect is a measure of the difference between correlation and causality: people getting better due to something other than the given treatment, like natural remission cycles. And large scale meta-analysis has consistantly shown the effect to be way smaller than the number you used.

 

Now you're just going into semantics and details. Yes, Placebo's "work" in some cases (mostly involving pain relieve, where it is high in the "dubble numbers" - some reporting as high as almost 50%). And we can go into the details that the placebo didn't heal a broken leg, but if the patient experienced less pain of that broken leg because he was given one; I, myself, would always give him one...

 

Anyhow, that was not the point; it was an example. Maybe I should have use another example like "self fulfilling prophecy": if you read a few seminal works on succes and self motivation (Think and Grow Rich by Napoleon Hill or Burn The Fat Feed The Muscle by Tom Venuto) you will see consistent results with self motivation through positive reinforcement. If it is faith that provides one this, in a positive way... hey, I'm all for it.

[RevBogovac]

To throw in a Dutch "saying": religion is like reproductive organs; it's great to have 'em, you may even be proud of 'em, but don't flaunt 'em in public and don't show 'em to children!

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

8 hours ago, mererdog said:

This is not accurate. Placebos don't "work." The placebo effect is a measure of the difference between correlation and causality: people getting better due to something other than the given treatment, like natural remission cycles. And large scale meta-analysis has consistantly shown the effect to be way smaller than the number you used.

 

Whether placebos actually work, some of the time -- or only seem to work, some of the time -- is not important.  By what ever means, a placebo will seem to provide benefit;  that it does not provide.  That is why useful medical research will use double blind studies.  To negate the placebo effect.

 

Placebos are an interesting topic.  If you want to go into it more deeply, I suggest a separate thread.  

 

Do placebos "work"?  For stress relief -- for pain reduction -- sometimes, they seem to work.  Pain and stress are subjective.  If a placebo seems to work, it works.  For objective clinical symptoms like fever reduction?  Strange.  But yes.  Sometimes.  

Edited June 15, 2018 by Jonathan H. B. Lobl

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

6 hours ago, RevBogovac said:

To throw in a Dutch "saying": religion is like reproductive organs; it's great to have 'em, you may even be proud of 'em, but don't flaunt 'em in public and don't show 'em to children!

 

In this case, more like a book with adult content.  Seriously, "Bible stories for children" are their own genre.  Nobody thinks that young children should have access to a full Bible.  Some of that stuff could scar a child for life.  

 

 

[mererdog]

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

If a placebo seems to work, it works.   

A placebo has no therapeutic effect. If it works, its not a placebo. If an actual placebo seems to work, it is because of some other variable. The reason this matters is that isolating the variables that are producing the desired results is how we refine our treatments to make them more effective. 

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

2 minutes ago, mererdog said:

A placebo has no therapeutic effect. If it works, its not a placebo. If an actual placebo seems to work, it is because of some other variable. The reason this matters is that isolating the variables that are producing the desired results is how we refine our treatments to make them more effective. 

 

 

I get that.  I'm also aware that there have been medical studies, where the placebo was more effective than the therapeutic agent being tested.    

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

15 hours ago, Dan56 said:

 

A person can deduce something is true without objective evidence.. Many people have been convicted of crimes on the testimony of a witness or two, yet the gospel is rejected despite many witnesses. If Mutt and Jeff were standing beside you and said they saw me steal a car,  you'd likely believe them, but Peter and Paul tell you about Christ and you arbitrarily decide its a lie? So much for relying on our human senses to discern a truth.

 

God is Spirit, he is not of this physical world, all of creation came about by an invisible power from another dimension, so God cannot be proven via conventional evidence. God is beyond our observations, measurements, tests, and methodology of substantiating a truth, so our objectivity can pretty much be thrown out a window.

 

Even a miracle is not evidence, because 'objective' evidence requires our understanding, and since we can't explain a miracle, it can't past our test. If a man claims to love his wife, how can that be true without objective evidence? Love cannot be seen, but we can generally perceive a truth by what love reveals.

 

Could a rational explanation of God really be understood, can we grasp a power beyond what we're capable of comprehending? Science wouldn't suffice even if it offered plausible evidence. Faith is the only tangible evidence which demonstrates that God does exist.

 

"For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God" (Ephesians 2:8).

 

 

I suggest that next time, you start off with this statement.  It would have saved a lot of pointless arguing.  I would have agreed with you and that would have been the end of it.

 

 

 

 

[Dan56]

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

Faith is the only tangible evidence which demonstrates that God does exist.

 

I suggest that next time, you start off with this statement.  It would have saved a lot of pointless arguing.  I would have agreed with you and that would have been the end of it.

 

 I mistakenly presumed that you would never agree with the bible 😊 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

On 6/16/2018 at 4:52 AM, Dan56 said:

 

 I mistakenly presumed that you would never agree with the bible 😊 "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1).

 

 

I understand.  You're putting your eggs into the faith basket -- instead of the evidence basket.  You don't understand me at all.  I don't have a problem with this.  What I do have a problem with, is confusing faith with evidence.