Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 04:11 PM

DD, I do not care to. It is up to you to prove that I am not.

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


Hello Starboy,

I'm not sure how to respond to your previous post, since you didn't really address my question.

Sorry about that Vanderzyden. What in particular would you like me to address?

Starboy

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:
DD, I do not care to. It is up to you to prove that I am not.

Thud! What happened? If course I don't think I am god. But that is the essence of the religious view point. In summary that is how Vanderzyden would like the scientific community to treat ID and IC.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 04:52 PM

Sorry for the small pause.

I see your point, but I don't think that really is the ID attitude. ID claims that real scientific evidence against evolution exists in the form of IC. These claims can certainly be empirically evaluated (and they have been).

I agree with you that one sure fire way to get yourself excluded from science is to claim exemption from evidence, or to shift the burden of proof in the way you describe.

My point is that if you DID want demonstrate your godhood, you could do it in ways that are repeatable and observable, and thus empirical. This would not neccesarily automatically imply that you are natural. Thus, empirical evidence can theoretically confirm certain non-natural hypotheses.

Vanderzyden · 09-11-2002, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:
Vanderzyden, what else would they be? How about yours? May I call you John?

[ September 11, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

The question concerns the naturality of thoughts. Let me ask it differently:

Are you thoughts physical?

Please answer yes or no and provide an explanation. I think this is a key in moving forward in our dialogue.

Note: Well, if you call me John, then that will confuse my identity in the thread. Van or Vander or Vanderzyden is probably best, now that I'm known by that name here.

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 05:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Sorry for the small pause.

I see your point, but I don't think that really is the ID attitude. ID claims that real scientific evidence against evolution exists in the form of IC. These claims can certainly be empirically evaluated (and they have been).

I agree with you that one sure fire way to get yourself excluded from science is to claim exemption from evidence, or to shift the burden of proof in the way you describe.

My point is that if you DID want demonstrate your godhood, you could do it in ways that are repeatable and observable, and thus empirical. This would not neccesarily automatically imply that you are natural. Thus, empirical evidence can theoretically confirm certain non-natural hypotheses.

DD, what ID is doing is exactly that. Disproving evolution or anything else for that matter proves nothing. Yet that is considered proof for ID.

As far as proving my godhood, there is no amount of evidence that I could present to you that would prove I am god because you are a finite being in a finite universe. You could never verify my infinitude. There is a difference between a superior being and an infinite being and the Supreme Being.

God is the equivalent of division by zero. Sure it can be done, but it yields nonsense.

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 05:02 PM

Possible. However I think I could verify that you were at least supernatural, if not god for sure.

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 05:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


The question concerns the naturality of thoughts. Let me ask it differently:

Are you thoughts physical?

Please answer yes or no and provide an explanation. I think this is a key in moving forward in our dialogue.

Note: Well, if you call me John, then that will confuse my identity in the thread. Van or Vander or Vanderzyden is probably best, now that I'm known by that name here.

Thanks,

Vanderzyden

Van, that is a good question.

Yes, I think that my thoughts are physical. I think that because information is physical. It can be delt with and understood by science.

Starboy

Starboy · 09-11-2002, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doubting Didymus:
Possible. However I think I could verify that you were at least supernatural, if not god for sure.

What could I do that you could detect that would be super natural?

Starboy

Doubting Didymus · 09-11-2002, 05:11 PM

I can think of lots of things!

You could make my telephone come to life and sing a hymn of praise to the fridge. Would you consider that to be natural, just because it is verifyable by multiple witnesses?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

09-11-2002, 04:11 PM	#161
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	DD, I do not care to. It is up to you to prove that I am not.

09-11-2002, 04:52 PM	#164
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Sorry for the small pause. I see your point, but I don't think that really is the ID attitude. ID claims that real scientific evidence against evolution exists in the form of IC. These claims can certainly be empirically evaluated (and they have been). I agree with you that one sure fire way to get yourself excluded from science is to claim exemption from evidence, or to shift the burden of proof in the way you describe. My point is that if you DID want demonstrate your godhood, you could do it in ways that are repeatable and observable, and thus empirical. This would not neccesarily automatically imply that you are natural. Thus, empirical evidence can theoretically confirm certain non-natural hypotheses.

09-11-2002, 05:02 PM	#167
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	Possible. However I think I could verify that you were at least supernatural, if not god for sure.

09-11-2002, 05:11 PM	#170
Doubting Didymus Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: East Coast. Australia. Posts: 5,455	I can think of lots of things! You could make my telephone come to life and sing a hymn of praise to the fridge. Would you consider that to be natural, just because it is verifyable by multiple witnesses?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.