Huginn

Actually the reaction that I described is common enough for it to be recognised by canine behaviourists. It is known as 'Pain Agression'. See this website: <a href="http://canines.com/library/solutions/agressivefaces.shtml" target="_blank">Canines of America</a>

There are many other causes of aggression in dogs on that page.

You probably never got to see one close up, but did the hornets look like this one?

This species will aggressively defend its nest if sufficiently provoked. So it could have been nasty if you had collided with the nest.

In a reality that is independent of outside influences (from god, devil, invisible unicorn, or fairies) we would expect some people to have good fortune, others to have bad fortune, and most to have a mix of both. We would also expect there to be occasions in most people's lives where they have come close to disaster but have narrowly avoided it. We would also expect there to be people who come close to disaster and don't avoid it.

Those that do avoid it could choose to attribute it to simple luck of the draw. Others (usually religious or superstitious) will conclude that reality itself (through some god, magic etc.) is conspiring to bring them fortune. This makes them feel good. They hang on to this conlusion over other, more mundane, explanations.

Self esteem is not a good way of judging the truth of a hypothesis. Try Occams Razor and see how far you get.

rainbow walking

Jaliet: Rainbow Walking,

Rw: O’kay, I apologize for having missed this post. But now I will respond to this post and then make a separate response to your last reply.

jaliet: I am back in full force. Your intransigence, inertia and denial notwithstanding. I think I expected it to be easy to demonstrate to you that you were wrong in assuming that God saved you and not the dog, so now I will be more systematic. Feel free to label this as a waste of time and an excersise in futility. In the end, I am convinced that if you are sincere and earnest about your reasoning, you will see my points and your faulty reasoning.

Rw: I see your attempts at making loosely defined points and I see your faulty reasoning and logic in your attempts to do so. You have yet to demonstrate any faulty reasoning I have exhibited.

jaliet: My objective is not to bring you down to your knees and have you blubber "I was wrong, It was my cognitive dissonance that made me think that way". No, I know that will not happen here. It may never happen, but at the very least, someone who reads this thread, will see that someone here is wrong.

Rw: Really? And you are so cock sure that I am that someone…yet you just can’t figure out how to prove it and bring me “blubbering” to my knees. I give you credit for arrogance.

jaliet: Earlier, the easiest thing for me to do was say "if it works for you fine - but it doesnt work for me" and abandon the argument/ discussion. Or as Helen said, if your beliefs make you be a nice person, I should not attack them. That is, adopt a "the end justifies the means approach". But that would have been too easy.

Rw: No, actually it would have meant swallowing your pride and admitting that you are not the genius you thought you were.

jaliet: Fact is, if you use the wrong means, sooner or later we will have lots of bad ends.

Rw: You mean like using insult and bad manners to replace scholarship and sound debating techniques?

Jaliet: Selective assesment of the good ends cannot justify the means. We must apply the means across the board and test it rigorously before we can ratify it.

Rw: Sounds good in principle but it requires a person with principles to actually practice what they preach…yes?

Jaliet: If Newton thought "ah, since something cannot just move from one place to another on its own, unless its living, then, when non-living things move from higher to lower positions, it must be God moving them" - if that would have been the thinking he applied, Gravitational force
(10 m/s?) would have taken some years to discover. This is not a slippery slope I am introducing, but its a possible result we can get when we assign what we dont know - to what we dont know even more. Science is not limited. We are the ones who are limited. We just lack information. My approach to these matters is just as in courts: "without facts - we withold judgement". If we do not know, we should admit it. Period. If we have to speculate, we should do so logically.

Rw: Again, sounds good on paper…


jaliet: Of course where matters of faith are involved, cognitive dissonance complicates matters - people want to ascribe "great" deeds to their gods, as a matter of fact, the excersise itself is an act of worship - its giving credit, its a form of "praise". Human beings tend to try to blend reality with their beliefs - to deal with dissonance and create consistency between their cognition(beliefs) and reality, and this applies to atheists too - me included.

Rw: And then there are those who view any reference to anything outside their empirical epistemology and their sensory perception as being beyond cognition and so they ascribe a fictitious dissonance where none exists. Another unproven assumption and unsupported assertion that sounds convincing in a debate but actually holds no water when put to the test.

You, like all humans, have a VOICE inside your head that you perceive to be YOUR voice reading to you and voicing your thoughts yet it has no basis in reality according to your belief structure and is the most damning evidence of cognitive dissonance available if we ascribe your tenets to actual real time existence. How do you hear that voice inside your head? By which of your senses do you perceive it? How do you know it is YOUR voice? That those are YOUR thoughts it is expressing? Because you act on them they appear to be yours? Think again. Your only recourse is to ascribe it to your imagination rendering your identity, life and values to be nothing more than an extension of your imagination. Yet you arrogantly intend to prove that I am displaying cognitive dissonance because I choose to ascribe a divine intervention to an extraordinary event in my life. Until YOU can answer some very basic questions about simple human behavior I suggest you tone down the arrogant rhetoric and adopt a more humble approach to things you have no knowledge of.


jaliet: But there are cases when one is made to choose between one belief/ action and another - when there are alternatives. And that is what we are looking at here. This Guy RW, is a believer, to believe that God did it solidifies his beliefs, it makes his world complete, to admit otherwise, especially if the event is the basis of his beliefs brings down his belief structure (oh, I am fighting not to call it a "house of cards" - but I believe this is an opportunity for excercising restraint).

Rw: A perfect example of rudeness and crudeness. You assume too much dude. It is you who must resort to these less than scholarly tactics because it is YOUR world view that is threatened and must be bolstered by these non-substantive soapbox theatrics. You absolutely must extinguish my light.

jaliet: So what happens, the theist on one side clinging to his "God did it" and the atheist in the other side insisting "Where is the evidence". I believe the best way to go from there is to look at the evidence/ facts on the Ground, and then assess how each party handles/ interprets the facts. From there one can tell the "best" approach. Not the CORRECT one, but the best one between the two.

Rw: Again…sounds good in cyberspace.

Jaliet: I will start with the facts, then I will proceed to state the interpretation of those facts, and then show why they are false/ incorrect/ fallacious/ duplicitious.

Rw: Yawn

FACTS
1. RW was 7 years at the time the event occured.

Rw: Correct

2. The dog was brought to RW's home when the dog was two years old. It was not brought up at RW's home.

Rw: Correct

3. Dogs have been known to rescue mankind and his offsprings from dangerous situations, even lose their lives in the process.

Rw: Correct

4. Dogs are known to have a keen sense of smell, hundreds of times stronger than that of man.

Rw: Unsupported assertion. You have failed to establish the “hundreds of times stronger” claim.

5. Dogs are known to be able to detect thousands of different more smells than man can.

Rw: Unsupported assertion. You have failed to produce any corroborating evidence to support the “thousands of different smells” claim. Indeed, are there even that many smells that man’s sense of smell can’t detect?

6. Special dogs, dogs that have unique capabilities than the average dog, DO EXIST.

Rw: Unsupported assertion. Must establish a standard between what constitutes average from special.

7. Dogs that have been well trained can handle challenging situations more adeptly/ gracefully than untrained dogs.

Rw: Unsupported assertion. No such instances have been established in this discussion or any attempt made to show this to be true. The parameters of “challenging situations” has not been defined nor the difference in response to them been established and correlated with the “well trained” facet of the claim.

8. Dogs only respond to danger when they sense the danger either through sight, smell, hearing or instinct.

Rw: Unsupported assertion. How is instinct used as a sense?

9. Dogs handle "kids" differently from how they handle adults.

Rw: Unsupported assertion. This has not been established conclusively nor as a universal attribute of the relationship between dogs and humans. Dogs have been known to attack both children and adults with equal ferociousness.

10. There is No proof that God exists. ie. No factual proof that God exixts.

Rw: Correct

11. The Dog stopped RW from running into a hornets nest, thus saved him from the attack that could have ensued.

Rw: Correct

12. Hornets live in groups (colonies?). There are queens, workers etc that work together to keep the nest "going", some hornets die, they also mate, they also excrete some fluids - these combined, bring out a distinct smell - that of a hornets nest. Whether we can smell it or Not.

Rw: I have conceded this possibility but it hasn't tecnically been established as a fact.

13. Dogs' hearing capability is many times better than that of man, leave alone a running, screaming, shooting 7 year old.

Rw: Correct.

Thus far you have established six out of thirteen “facts” as literally true. The other SEVEN remain unsupported or factually false. What were you saying about the ends justifying the means?

Now it should be noted that the following labeled “assertions” have been concocted from jaliet’s inquisition and were not made in this manner as part of my testimony. But we shall play along until we get to the “accusations” made based on these alleged assertions, so I am going to reserve my replies until we get there.
Rw: I too can play the numbers game so let’s examine these conclusions for accuracy AND logical consistency:

Conclusions As Follows

1: faulty reasoning- The circularity of this conclusion is obvious as it was part of his original accusation that inspired the inquisition. He has again assumed the accusation as part of his conclusion without establishing the basis of the assumption.

2: blatant dishonesty- And this accusation was proven…where? It is easy to accuse someone of dishonesty without lifting a finger to isolate the exact statement or claim it as dishonest and show that the accused intentionally submitted it as such. I expect such a charge to be supported or an apology submitted.

3 enial of the facts- Again, the conclusion awaits support. Apparently jaliet believes that if he can conceive of it then it is a fact. I am under no obligation to share his expansive view of his intellectual capabilities. He must first establish the FACTS before he can accuse someone of denying them.

4: Fallacy of exclusion-Jaliet claims I have excluded an object involved. I can only assume he means the merits of instinctual behavior associated with dogs. I can only assume this because he has failed to elucidate with any clarity precisely what OBJECT it is I have excluded. He makes this claim apparently because I credit the actions taken to divine intervention whereas he credits them to instinctual animal behavior. Unfortunately for jaliet, he has yet to establish his position on any factual Grounds so I am perfectly within reason and rationally justified to continue to maintain my original position. His claim of a fallacy here is unjustified. Additionally, to support his conclusion he claims other objects not factually established were introduced. Again his conclusion wanes because he knows and admits as fact number 10 that Gods cannot be factually established. In as much as I have continually stated that this testimony was submitted only as a subjective experience and not as any type of logical proof for the factual existence of God, he indulges in dishonesty when he introduces this as supporting evidence for his claim of a fallacy here. I will however give him the benefit of the doubt and relegate this entire conclusion to the role of a greasy straw man.

5: Question begging-In as much as I have submitted to this inquisition and taken the stand in defense of my claims the first half of this charge is a mystery. If jaliet wishes to question my claims and further declare an alternative explanation to disprove my conclusions he must first establish his alternative as a plausible replacement. Question begging is just a fancy way of saying I have assumed my conclusion to be correct without any CONCLUSIVE proof. Since I haven’t offered this testimony as an argument for the existence of God there cannot possibly be a logical charge here. However, I readily admit I am assuming the conclusion because that is what theists do, just as anti-theists assume the conclusion is false. Remember fact number 10? If jaliet wishes to discredit my assumption he must submit a more plausible one and support its plausibility. Thusfar he has failed to do so and this expedition is just one more fruitless attempt.

6: Finally he concludes with this little gem of wisdom: The conclusion that God did it is not arrived at by looking at the facts we have but by using RW's beliefs/ prejudices.

When jaliet learns to distinguish between facts and his wishes he might have room to level this charge. The FACT that he doesn’t have very many facts is beginning to surface rather ostentatiously in spite of his Herculean effort to insert his wishes where the facts elude him. Additionally, judging from his opening statement, he can’t seem to make up his mind if I have arrived at my conclusion because of a lack of evidence or because I have failed to consider the FACT that he has established precious few FACTS to consider as an alternative. But he still insists that the FACTS “we” have are sufficient to establish an alternative explanation. The sad truth is, they are not and I am beginning to suspect that he will soon be indulging in the very miscreant behaviors he has continually accused me of in order to try to WIN an argument he should have never started.

Rw: In order to respond to this charge we must examine jaliet’s circular reasoning. Jaliet’s alternative explanation hinges on my salvation being entirely attributable to dogs instinctual behavior. So he naturally claims, “the dog did it.” My explanation is based on the very reasonable and rational conclusion that there is no precedent for such complicated behavior to be instinctual. The highly unusual circumstances around the incident comprises MY evidence against instinctual behavior and thus a naturalistic explanation. The speculation offered by jaliet thusfar has, in my opinion, been insufficient to establish a plausible alternative. So his claim that I am going against available evidence is false. He has, nor does there exist, any available evidence to go against in the parameters of this event. None. If there is any faulty reasoning involved it exists in jaliets desire to insert his speculation and wishes in place of substantiated facts.

Rw: Dogs are different, yes…but their instincts are not. Some are born capable of learning faster and retaining more than others, just as humans are, but their instincts are basically the same across the board and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise. You must make up your mind if this was a learned response or an instinctual one. An instinct is a behavior pattern that an animal is equipped with at birth. Your continual vacillation between training and instinct further erodes the credibility of your arguments. And let us be precise here. I did not say it could not have been done by a dog as it obviously was executed by a dog. I said it could not have been done by a dog based on instinct and or training that my dog had. You appear to be having difficulty establishing my position for me so I thought I better re-establish it before you get too far out there.

Rw: Oh brother, this one is fraught with insult and error. Where have you CONCLUSIVELY established that my dog sensed the hornets? And was compelled to stop me? I must have missed that one. As I have testified time and again, my dog gave no visible indication that he was aware there was a hornet within 500 miles of him or me. YOU must ASSUME he somehow sensed the hive and reacted as he did. Where is your evidence that hornets give off an odor? That dogs recognize it as a sign of danger? That instinct or training dictated my dog’s reaction in the specifics of my situation? You continually assert these claims without support. And all your speculation about what God would or wouldn’t do and why is just so much wasted bandwidth. I made it clear that I had no idea why God did it so your accusation of dishonesty and deception here is wide of the mark like all your other accusations. And what this shows is the flippant and irresponsible and uneducated manner in which you attempt to force your conclusions upon others without a shred of support or proof.

jaliet: Its pertinent to explain why God would save you and not save other kids who are bitten to death by bees etc.

rw: What other kids?

Jaliet: Why should you believe that God has a special purpose for you?

Rw: Who says I believe that? Why must there be a special purpose involved?

Jaliet: Has he told you that?

Rw: Why should he?

Jaliet: Do you know why he would choose you and not Helen or anyone else?

Rw: I don’t know that He has…do you?

Jaliet: are there some special abilities you have that you havent divulged?

Rw: Why must there be?

Jaliet: I am not saying that God has no special purpose for you, but please attempt an explanation, otherwise you are just irresponsible.

Rw: Why do you say this? Why does there have to be some special purpose? Who decided this?

Jaliet: You owe yourself an explanation and its only fair that you share it with me. Please enlighten me.

Rw: This is extremely presumptuous. I’ll be the judge of what I owe myself and if I thought I should share anything with you or anyone else.

rw: This assertion is false. Where did I say I don’t care? I don’t know why God allows people to leave this event horizon when and in the way they do. How could I? And how could I change any of it unless I happen to be in a similar position my dog was in? What’s so hard about these questions and how do you imagine the answers, (even if you had any), would shatter my faith? As far as that insulting statement about backbone, I suggest you look in the mirror. I’m not the one with the courage it must take to insult and demean people over cyberspace. I bet that takes real bravery. I suggest you stop sitting on your brain. No one lives in this event horizon forever. That doesn’t mean people cease to exist. In fact why does existence exist?

Rw: You are lying to yourself. These pretensions are so opaque you can’t possibly be serious. You are in effect saying, “I’m not anti-theist but since all theists are guilty of sloppy thinking and dishonest reasoning, (never mind I can’t support this accusation), and I’m against such things, well…you be the judge.”
O’kay, since you’ve opened the door I say you are as anti-theist as anyone who I’ve debated who doesn’t mind admitting it. As offensive as Koy can be sometimes at least he has the courage and moxy to claim strait forward that he is anti-theist. I respect that about him.

Rw: How stupid. It doesn’t matter what example I gave you’d always make this same complaint and or offer a different explanation. Aside from the irrelevancy it just opens the door for even more speculation from you that I’m not interested in exploring. This accusation does nothing to support your alternative claim.

rainbow walking

rw: Do you always have difficulty comprehending what you read? Allow me to clarify further my position and why I listed these two possibilities. They were submitted, not as a part of my official position, but as proof that your particular naturalistic explanation, you have been trying unsuccessfully to foist upon us, was not the only possible alternative. In fact, it is not even the best alternative. But you know this anyway. This feigned ignorance is just so much posturing to cover your tracks. And you might want to reconsider taking me serious enough to find an exit from this discussion because you are getting your brain waves adjusted by a theist in public before a majority of your peers and it ain’t looking good.


rw: Oh really? You didn’t seem to think so in your last response when you began to attempt a switcheroo by making it appear as if I was changing my position. How are they any more ridiculous or silly than the crap you’ve been trying.

rw: Hahahaha….I’m not defending your logic dude, I’m challenging it. You’ve zeroed in on one possible explanation as though it was THE ANSWER. I’m showing how weak it is by proffering alternatives to your alternative.


rw: And just exactly how do you know that? For all you know animals instinctual knowledge may have been deposited within their genetic structure by God. Animals have no problem acting on commands from humans so why are we to suppose they somehow wouldn’t react obediently to their creator?

rw: O’kay, I’m glad you agree. So if my dog recognized, (according to your theory), the hive as a source of danger, why did he turn on me rather than take the most common reaction? Why didn’t he just bow up at the hive and begin doing his dog thing at the bees?

rw: Oh pulease…Take 1000 bitches with pups and put a fox near their litter and see if all 1000 don’t react exactly the same. Instinctual behavior is the same across the board dude. That’s why it’s called instinct. It isn’t a pick or choose situation with animals. If they are confronted with a situation that engages an instinctive behavior they respond exactly as that automatic built in knowledge dictates. They don’t have a choice. Animals can also be trained to react contrary to their instincts in certain cases.

rw : Back peddling now will not help your credibility either. In the first place I never said these were not my speculations. I said they were not my official position. This particular speculation has nothing to do with the previous two that were submitted to demonstrate that your alternative wasn’t an exclusive. This particular speculation was submitted to demonstrate that a dog’s instinctive behavior to a perceived threat was to focus on the threat. This is a valid factual claim and not just a speculation and goes towards establishing the unusual qualities of my experience. Since you initially conceded the point and likely realized that you were giving away too much real estate I find it amusing that you now want to back peddle and disingenuously claim you aren’t required to respond any further. You and I both know the implications and the impact on your speculative theory this has.


[quote]rw: I see, so you are reneging on your promise to answer my questions? You made no such qualification that I must FIRST answer your questions before you would answer mine in your previous invitation for me to ask away. Is this another example of those atheist ethics in application?


jaliet: See, my strategy worked: if someone proposes something you find ludicrous, ask them a few simple questions, and they will either back out (as you have done) or they will say they must be mistaken. If neither of the above happens, then tell them what you think of whatever they have said/ claimed.
It was not a CONDITION that u answer my questions before I respond to yours. Please.
If u tell a doctor "Doctor, do you think there is an invisible pink icon in my head?", the doctor will not tell you "No, there is no invisible pink icon in your head"
He may ask you "Why would there be/ why do you think there is an invisible pink icon in your head?"
I ask the questions to determine the basis of your speculations. They are definitely baseless, which leaves me wondering why u make baseless speculations.

Rw: It was you what began this inquisition remember…doc? I was kind enough to ask if you would respond to my questions since you initially ignored them when I first asked. Then, when you realized how difficult it would be to keep up the dialogue without reciprocating you agreed to respond to my questions. Now you refuse to respond to very succinct questions by claiming I must first answer yours. You are waffling all over the board here. If this is some kind of strategy I suggest you get to the punchline cause the suspense has long since waxed dull.

[quote]rw: Then you can demonstrate it to be irrational? And I suppose you can demonstrate that theism is not consistent with human experience?


jaliet: Yes, theism is not consistent with human experience.

Rw: I see, then when I pass by a construction crew building another church this isn’t a human experience. When I talk to a recovering addict or alcoholic who attributes his recovery to his relationship with God this isn’t human experience. When I see a man dieing in a hospital consoled and at peace with his nearing death by the thought of going to a better place this isn’t consistent with human experience. When I see millions of dollars of food and clothing being gathered in a spirit of charity fostered by a belief that this is God’s will this too isn’t consistent with human experience. When I see my own son introduced to his wife in church this isn’t consistent with human experience. When I see bereaved families receiving consolation from their ministers and church family during their grief and see their loved ones laid to rest with last rites being performed in those same churches this isn’t consistent with human experience. Maybe you’d like to rip these very human experiences out of peoples lives and replace them with…?

Jaliet: There is no evidence that shows theism "works".

Rw: Yeah right.

Jaliet: No evidence (except isolated, poorly assesed and subjective cases like your dog saving you from wasps) that God(s) even exist except in folklore and myths. So, no theism is not consistent with human experience but with human beliefs.

Rw: Ah, I see. So human belief isn’t consistent with human experience. When the Wright Bro.’s believed their flying machine would actually fly and proceeded to prove it this wasn’t consistent with human experience.

jaliet: Is science consistent with human experience? Yes. Science tells us that water boils at 100 Degrees (at sea level?) and when u boil water, lo and behold, it does boil at 100 Degrees.

Rw: Science tells us about nature. Can you prove that nature is all there is to existence? Then proceed to demonstrate to us WHY existence exists? Why this universe? Why life instead of non-life? Can science tell you the answer to that?


jaliet: Tell me ONE, just ONE thing that theism claims that is consistent with human experiance.
JUST ONE.

Rw: See above.

jaliet: For example theists (The Bible in Leviticus) claims that rabbits do not chew cud. So I study a rabbit and Lo and behold it does chew cud.

Rw: Yeah, I bet you studied a rabbit. You must be referring to this text:

Leviticus 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

Seems to me you should study the bible a little closer than you did rabbits. Did you happen to ask that rabbit you studied just what “cud” is? Hey, maybe you chew the cud…


rw: I did no such thing. I asked you specifically why you didn’t practice what you preach here in this particular discussion. Learning to read for comprehension the words I have used will prevent future embarrassment


rw: Then you have misunderstood my question and reasons for asking it? I thought I was especially clear in my next paragraph.


jaliet: My being nice is irrelevant to what we are discussing and it does not disqualify my assertion.


Rw: Oh, it was irrelevant. But wasn’t it relevant enough to use in a rebuttal to Helen’s accusation? Conducting oneself in a friendly polite manner on the internet is irrelevant? So where do you draw the line in defining what is NICE. That is the word you used to describe what could be accomplished without any reference to faith. So if it can be accomplished and you claim it can be accomplished why do you not demonstrate that accomplishment here in this discussion? Why do you continually try to goad and irritate rather than win with superior argumentation and well trained intellectual scholasticism?

Jaliet: This is a logical fallacy - you are attacking the person - not his arguments.

Rw: I’m simply pointing out the obvious. I am questioning your attacks against me calling me irrational, dishonest, implying I am a fanatic, the list has grown quite extensively over the last few days. You seem to be out of control emotionally or perhaps struggling to keep an intellectual tone in your otherwise abusive debating tactics.

Jaliet: No one here will fall for such a cheap diversion.

Rw: Then make a sincere effort to remove yourself from such a stain by engaging in friendly meaningful and mutually respectful discourse.

jaliet: Whenever you claim that I have made an obtuse remark, please illustrate. Otherwise you are just being irresponsible by making unsupported claims
No one here will take your word. You must support each claim.

Rw: I have made note of your ill mannered claims on a number of occasions. And you have become quite the authority on how everyone here will take what I say. Do you presume to speak for every anti-theist in this forum?


rw: GREAT! Then we’ll be having no more of this brash mealy mouthed name calling and insulting mannerisms?


jaliet: You havent looked at my arguments at all.
You have a look at my evaluations first. PLEASE.

Rw: I can only assume you mean the post on page two. Again I apologize for having over looked it but have rectified the error by responding on a point by point basis.

Jaliet: I still remain awaiting. At first I was afraid you had "fled" - I regret my presumption.

Rw: You can ask anyone in this forum, “fleeing” isn’t my style. Sometimes my life takes over my leisure and forces me away for awhile but I try diligently to respond when I think a response is required and make every effort to do so.

rainbow walking

Hug: Actually the reaction that I described is common enough for it to be recognised by canine behaviourists. It is known as 'Pain Agression'. See this website: Canines of America

Rw: Thanx for the link. I read all of the pertinent info and found nothing to support your contention in my situation. Two reasons. My dog was extremely docile and would have had to have been terribly injured to have turned on me and had he been stung he would likely have given some indication after he settled down. This just didn’t happen.

rw: That looks very similar to the hornets I saw flying around my head and back when I was unknowingly blocking their path to the entrance to their hive. They favor bumblebees but are not quite as bulky. I don’t think I’ve ever been stung by one though.

Rw: That was a good speech. Can you prove there would even be a reality without God? I’m afraid the Razor wouldn’t serve you well in this case. I posit God. You must posit at least three corresponding natural sets of circumstances to arrive at my salvation.

Huginn

Probably not. But I don't have to. Can you prove that God is necessary for there to be a reality? Until then it is a non-issue.

You posit that an all powerful being (I'm just assuming this part, you haven't defined what you mean by God) made your dog growl at you to prevent you from running into a hornet's nest. How did this being do this? Why did this being not use a different method? Why did this being contravene a dog's free will rather than simply placing an inanimate object in your path?

You are also assuming alot. You assume that something called God has the power to temporarily alter a being's behaviour. You assume that this God did not have any influence on the location chosen by the queen hornet for her nest. You assume that God intervenes in reality whenever someone is going to die or get hurt when 'he' doesn't want them to but is unable or unwilling to help millions of others in similar situations.

It is possible to postulate thousands of naturalistic explanations for this incident. Most of them involve much fewer assumtions than your God explanation.

For example, my explanation that your dog was reacting to a hornet sting. It is known that hornets do, on occasion, sting dogs. It is known that hornet stings cause dogs pain. It is known that occasionally dogs will react to pain by directing aggression towards the nearest person or dog. I assume that your dog was stung. I assume your dog was exhibiting a 'Pain Agression' behaviour.

Using <a href="http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html" target="_blank">Occam's Razor</a>, it is clear that since my explanation involves fewer assumptions it is more likely to be true. Now this does not prove my idea right or your idea wrong but it does guide you towards explanations that are free from 'inconsistencies, ambiguities and redundancies.'

He didn't exactly turn on you. He growled at you. I have read many news stories where normally 'docile' dogs have savaged people. I think that if it wasn't for your dog's excellent nature and extensive training you might actually have been in more trouble with him than the hornets.

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_762000/762063.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/scotland/newsid_762000/762063.stm</a>

<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1651000/1651823.stm" target="_blank">http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/uk/england/newsid_1651000/1651823.stm</a>

Though it seems likely that your dog would have given some indication of a sting after he settled down, it is perfectly possible that he didn't. It is also possible that he did and that you either did not notice or don't remember (it was, after all, a long time ago).

[ January 08, 2002: Message edited by: Huginn ]</p>

HelenM

No offense, but my experience is that it is never easy to demonstrate to someone that their deeply held belief is wrong, sufficiently to change their beliefs.

I am assuming your goal is to change what rainbow walking believes; that you and/or other nonChristians feeling that you have 'demonstrated' your point would fall short of your goal.

love
Helen

[ January 09, 2002: Message edited by: HelenSL ]</p>

Baloo

Let me get this straight. A dog is running through the woods. It detects the menacing buzzing sound of an approaching hornets nest. From either prior experience or innate instinct, the sound sets off !DANGER! flags in the dog's mind. The dog slows, the noise grows louder, and the dog stops. Please note that noises like this are a common warning in nature, from the buzzing of hornets, to the rattle of a snakes tail, to the growling of a dog, to the hiss of a cat; and until an animal gets used to any such sound, without being harmed, it will react to the whole category of them with in a similar, defensive manner. Hell, even people do this. Moving on...

At this point, the dog has reached a fight-or-flight mode. It braces itself to either flee or viciously defend itself from an as-yet unidentified danger. (I encourage any pet owners who are skeptical of this reaction to simply play a loud buzzing sound on a radio, then throw a toy near the radio, and observe a dog's behavior as it approaches the buzzing sound).

So far, this has all transpired in a short time span of 3 - 5 seconds. This 3-5 seconds is just enough time for a child, who had been running many feet behind the dog, to catch up to the dog.

The dog, now in flight-or-fight mode, is startled by a quick approach from behind, and spins to defend itself, hair-raised, fangs bared. In just a fraction of a second, the dog reckognizes the child, and drops the viscious defense. Then, as would any well-behaved, domesticated dog, it feels guilt at having almost attacked its owner, and begins to cower and nuzzle to reassert its submissiveness. (I encourage anybody skeptical of this next series of behaviors to sneak up on a sleeping pet dog, make a loud, sudden noise, and observe the dog first react defensively, then guility at having reacted like that to their dominant owner).

Rainbow Walker, by telling this story, you merely assert an ignorance of very basic, common, and predictable responses and behaviors of domesticated animals. It also reveals a self-centered mentality, as you immediately assumed that your dog was protecting you (hah!) when ironically, you were in as much danger of being viciously attacked by the dog as you were the wasps.

madmax2976

I don't know why everyone keeps belaboring this issue. RW has already explicitly stated that he has not offered this story as any kind of rational or logical reason to believe his deity exists. He has stated that it could be incorporated into some kind of argument for the existence of a deity, but he hasn't attempted such an endeavor yet. Until he does this is just a cute little story, hardly all that interesting.

Huginn

It is an example of 'wishful thinking' and it is an interesing challenge for me to explain why. This isn't about proving or disproving god, just about how to evaluate claims.

rainbow walking

rw: Hi Huggin,
All of the attributes and capabilities you are trying to establish as seperate assumptions are contained in the definition of God, so it is only one assumption, not a combination of them. When one invokes the Goddidit each of the factors that may or may not have been necessary to "do it" are contained in the single concept GOD.

In all cases where a domesticated dog attacked its owner there was some type of provocation. I can think of no viable reason why my dog, in this particular instance, should or would have confused the possible instinctual alertness to a danger from the hive with my running behind him and playing army. It wasn't as if I was sneaking up on him or even close enough to have inflicted a wound that he might have sustained from a sting. But I think your explanaition approaches the plausibility factor except for the timing. While you would ascribe it to chance or good fortune I wouldn't.