Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by DennisM: Here's another way of looking at it that shows how bogus Polycarp's argumentation is. He would have us believe that there is this huge set of miracle claims that has been generated over the ages, and that it is an extraordinary claim to say all of them are false. Thus, apparently, we are supposed to infer the existence of God.

Go back and read the original issue at dispute in this discussion: Do extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? My argument is that to say "No god exists" is an extraordinary claim. I'm repeating myself, but only because it seems like you're steering the topic away from this original issue. If you're not claiming "No god exists", then you're not making an extraordinary claim. Are your claiming "No god exists"? If not, then we can drop the discussion already.

I NEVER claimed that I would demonstrate the existence of god based on a miracle. You are the one who said you would believe in a god if you were to witness a miracle. Personally, I think trying to prove god’s existence through miracle claims is a relatively weak argument. There are better arguments for god’s existence. Can we get over the idea that this conversation is about me proving god’s existence? This is about what constitutes an extraordinary claim. You said you believe the universe to be void of gods because you don’t see things such as levitating buses. I then tell you people claim to have seen things comparable to levitating buses. The people making the claims are educated, sane, and of good character. You still claim to know that every single person making such a claim is either deceived, or a deceiver. It doesn’t matter if the info comes from a theist (me) or someone else (David Hume). So if you’re saying that you know all miracle claims to be false, then I stand by my original claim in stating that you are making an extraordinary claim by claiming to know that of the hundreds of claims meeting the above criteria you KNOW that all of them are false.

Quote:

No, but seeing how that are no proven miracle claims, and miracle claims are routinely rejected by educated men, there are no good reasons to accept any of them.

Using your logic, I could turn this argument completely around. Miracle claims are accepted by educated "men" (sorry for the non-“gender inclusive” terminology) because there are proven miracle claims. “Proof to one person is not proof to another.” In effect, this is what you’re saying by rejecting my friend’s miracle claim and the one cited by David Hume. It’s exactly as I said in my previous post. You would only accept a miracle if you witnessed one firsthand. So why are we wasting each other’s time when you would never accept the testimony of another person as a basis for believing in a miracle? There are proven miracle claims to many educated men. Don’t make me start a list of all of the educated “men” who’ve believed in miracles.

Quote:

There are huge problems with this, not the least of which is the following. Among that set of miracle claims, there is a subset that would suggest that Polycarp's preferred monotheism isn't correct. I posted one example, but surely there are many, many others. This poses an insuperable problem for Polycarp. If he dismisses all those miracle claim that, in effect, requires acceptance of polytheism, then he's doing the same thing we do. If he accepts them, then how does he square the resultant polytheism with his monotheism?

Congratulations ! You’ve successfully defeated the straw man you’ve been debating !! And what do we have for our winner tonight??

If you believe one statement from a politician, then you have to believe every statement from a politician. Right, Dennis? Surely you’re smart enough to know that some claims have a greater likelihood of being true than others, so let’s not paint with such a broad brush.

Quote:

In short, Polycarp posted an argument without clearly thinking it through. Yep, he does resemble Nomad and Layman, doesn't he?

Ad hominem alert !! We now have an ad hominem warning in effect until 7PM tonight for the following towns…

Do you practice all of these logical fallacies or do they just come naturally? Let’s see… We have ad hominem, begging the question, straw man… What other ones have I missed?

You obviously think I’ve made some argument that I haven’t made. For my benefit, please post my fallacious argument in the form of a syllogism so that I may reach enlightenment.

Peace,

Edna

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Gurdur

&lt;off-topic&gt;
ooooo! Pardon me butting in, but may I plagiarize your comments, Polycarp, for an enirely different discussion I'm having with someone else? They're just soooo apt for what I have in mind...

Tim (Gurdur)

P.S. Being namesakes and all we really ought to lock horns on some subject at some stage.
Let me know if you think you'll ever develop an interest in neurotheology, or if you like, please detail what you think are good arguments for the existence of putative deities.

&lt;/off-topic&gt;

Apikorus

While there surely are many educated people who believe sufficient evidence exists to conclude that "miracles" have transpired, so are there many educated people who believe in alien abductions, in bizarre cures for cancer, in demons and angels, in telekinesis, in communicating with the dead, etc.

It seems to me that if one wishes to establish that religious miracles rise above the level of these other claims of the paranormal (which are generally dismissed by scientists owing to a dearth of supportive data), that some sort of test should be devised.

In my experience, most theists hold that God can be moved, through prayer, to cancel physical law. So I would suggest the following experiment: convene an assembly of several people of strong and common religious belief, and ask them to fervently pray that a ball dropped in an evacuated chamber near the earth's surface will remain stationary, rather than accelerating downward at the familiar 980 cm/s^2. Do this test a thousand times and record the success rate. (If it is felt that God cannot be moved to something quite so extravagant, perhaps the almighty could be moved to reduce the acceleration to, say, 800 cm/s^2.)

Inasmuch as the word "extraordinary" means "out of the ordinary", it seems inappropriate to apply it to a phenomenon such as the existence (or nonexistence) of God, for the simple reason that it depends on one's presumption of what the "ordinary" state of affairs is. This is why the above experiment is much more sensible. That objects accelerate downward at a constant rate is quite ordinary - confirmed countless times each day all around the world. A violation of this law of nature would indeed be extraordinary, and if God can be moved to accomplish such extraordinary feats, I would think it important to establish that by a careful experiment.

Polycarp

Quote:

Originally posted by Gurdur: ooooo! Pardon me butting in, but may I plagiarize your comments, Polycarp, for an enirely different discussion I'm having with someone else? They're just soooo apt for what I have in mind... P.S. Being namesakes and all we really ought to lock horns on some subject at some stage. Let me know if you think you'll ever develop an interest in neurotheology, or if you like, please detail what you think are good arguments for the existence of putative deities.

Sure !! You can use my ranting for any purpose you see fit. I'm flattered...

Locking horns in the future sounds good, too. Are you a dumb fundie like me, or a highly intelligent skeptic? I don't believe we've met, so pardon my ignorance. If you're a dumb fundie like me it could be tough to find a topic on which we disagree. We're all brainwashed and believe exactly the same things as other dumb fundies. Neurotheology? My therapist may like that idea. I'll get back to you.

In the past I was quite adept at arguing for a deity. Skeptics would be lined up like those people at a Benny Hinn crusade. I'd slap 'em on the forehead with my theistic arguments and they'd fall over just like when Hinn slays those people in the spirit. Yeah... those were the good ole days. Now I just hang out here on occasion talking about non-existent, mythical men alleged to have lived in Palestine about 1972 years ago.

I can't believe I spaced out and actually typed my real name. My cover's blown... No longer will people believe that I'm Mrs. Edna Gardner of Butte, MT.

Peace,

Edna

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Polycarp ]</p>

Kosh

Recognition is the first step towards recovery.

Somehow, this revelation isn't surprising...

Sooner or later you have to move on past
those simplistic days of elementary school when
"did too" was considered a valid retort.



[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Kosh ]</p>

Gurdur

I'm always happy to use other people's words. Saves me a lot of work.

Tsk. Make sure to pick a subject that you find interesting, and a side that you personally really support. I will too.

Tsk, tsk, tsk. Such stereotyping. Shame on you.
I am me. Possibly you are you.
Should this be insufficient info for you, <a href="http://ii-f.ws/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=43&t=000012" target="_blank">you can find out more about me personally here.</a>
No worries.
Tsk tsk tsk. Argue to the subject, and not ad hominem, as you yourself would say.
Don't blame me for that new term "neurotheology". It results from the research into some various hard-wired components in the human brain that play roles in "mystical" experiences and in religion, and from various interested parties jumping all onto a new bandwagon,
It should eventually get some attention in theist evolutionary theory, but the only work of any note on theistic evolution is coming from the UK - Americans often seem so hung up on evolution.
You can <a href="http://ixquick.com/do/metasearch.pl?cat=web&cat=web&cmd=process_search&l anguage=english&query=neurotheology" target="_blank">find out a little more about neurotheology here</a>, just don't blame me for what you find there.
I must admit, that since I am not an American, I do not have a therapist, as Woody Allen might say, were he born on the other side of the Atlantic or Pacific. (*)
But no longer? Sad. What's there left to argue then?

Ah, you miss your youth. Signs of embitterment there? BTW, someone can be both a myth and an actuality of sorts.

Tsk. Tsk³.

Ever heard of Dame Edna Everidge?
"Hello, all you sweet possums!"

Dame Edna Everidge is even better in German:
"Hello, Ihr süsse Beutelratten!"

_____________

(*) This is not meant seriously.
Therapy is at the end not a joke, and is not something I would disparage.

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: Gurdur ]</p>

Sauron

A transparent attempt to shift the blame, Pollyfish. The "original issue", as you call it, was defined by Jeff Lowder. That issue was whether or not, as a sub-class of all possible statements and claims, extraordinary claims should require extraordinary proof before being accepted as true.

It was you, my dear Pollyfish, who tried to steer the topic away and turn it into a discussion on strong atheism. Here are your words:

So before you accuse others of trying to steer the topic away, you might want to check your own postings first. You know, like it says?
Moving on to the next part:

1. Please point to someone who said that no god exists.

2. All that skeptics are saying is that there is no affirmative proof for the existence of god(s), and that no phenomena exist that require divine intervention. That is different from what you said.

3. In true fundie fashion, you've deliberately mis-identified the topic of discussion. In an attempt to shift the burden of proof away from yourself, the claimant, and onto the skeptic.

Hope you didn't think it would work.
<img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

Gurdur

I might add, Polycarp, to my above post, that this particular area bores me, no disrespect intended.

Extraordinary claims are just that - out of the ordinary.
Now as for God:
Any claim for a God accomplishing extra-ordinary things - such as ominipotence, omniscience, etc., things which are definitely not everyday occurences in our world - while meddling every now and then irregularly in the affairs of erring humans, is by definition an extraordinary claim, thereby requiring extraordinary evidence.
Possibly it might well be just barely tenable to construct a good ordinary claim for an ordinary God, á la Martin Gardner's fideism in The Whys Of A Philosophical Scrivener, or a more deist idea of God, as in the writings of some theist evolutionary theorists.

Just thought I'ld add this small note, before I check out of this particualr topic (sorry, but I've heard this whole thing over and over before, and I tend ever more to stick to things I find new and interesting).

Read any Bishop Spong, BTW?

lpetrich

I wonder if Polycarp has an open mind about miracles that support other religions:

Statues of the Hindu god Ganesha drinking milk.

Islamic doodlings in such places as the insides of tomatoes and melons, the sides of fish, a line of bushes, clouds, and so forth.

Mohammed's cloak in Kandahar, Afghanistan making the blind see and the lame walk, though apparently doing nothing for Mullah Mohammed Omar's injured eye.

The Roman Emperor Vespasian healing a blind man and a man with a withered hand, thanx to the god Serapis.

The Gods taking sides in the war over Troy.

And legions of other examples.

Vorkosigan

My argument is that to say "No god exists" is an extraordinary claim. I'm repeating myself, but only because it seems like you're steering the topic away from this original issue.

Polycarp, can you explain why it would be extraordinary to say "no gods exist?" especially when taken as shorthand for the provisional conclusion that there is no evidence for gods? You've merely made a claim that it is extraordinary to say this.

If I say, "The Hart building is anthrax-free", I am making a positive claim. Likewise, saying that the universe is god-free is of an equivalent nature.

Well, in both cases, your "positive claim" is actually a provisional one based on the limits of knowledge. All you are saying is that the level of anthrax in the Hart building is below the detectable level, while all we atheists say is that so far no one has presented any strong evidence or arguments for the existence of gods. The "positive claim" is about evidence, not gods.

Further, the skeptic claim consists of two sets of arguments. One set is that there is no evidence. The other is positive; that gods are so inherently absurd, incoherent or contradictory that they rule themselves out. As a strong atheists, I rely on both sets of arguments/evidence.

Further, in your claim "gods" should be plural, otherwise you are in the same position as the skeptic: making the extraordinary claim that all gods are non-existent except your own. The different between your position and that of a strong atheist, after all, is only one god.

Finally, as another poster pointed out, your claim would turn all skepticism into extraordinary claims; it would be just as "extraordinary" to claim that unicorns do not exist, or UFOs are not aliens, or that psychics actually cannot predict the future with special powers.

Michael

[ December 27, 2001: Message edited by: turtonm ]</p>