keyser_soze

Damn, we need a rational theist to give us some input. I swear, everyone immediately saw it...but the theists that have weighed in so far. Do you think you guys may be a little overly defensive? Because you took the point and went so far out of sorts to make it fly over your head that it is amazing.

Dr Rick

Sagan said that, "Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veriditically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder."

In other words, such claims have no value; they tell us nothing useful about future events or present realities, they are "worthless."

If there are unmeasurable spirits, gods, dragons, and unicorns in your room right now, but you can't see them, touch them, smell them, hear them, or in any material way detect them, then what veridicality does that have? What does it mean to say that they exist? The information is of no value; it's neither predictive nor productive.

The assertion that "claims that cannot be tested...are veriditically worthless" can be verified because we can show that they have no present or predictive value. One might be tempted to argue that the comfort of some of these unverifiable assertions has value, but it's really the belief itself rather than its veracity or falseness that is of benefit.

It's no sillier than the putative loving, vengeful, forgiving, murderous, perfect god that made an imperfect world.

So is Allah.

Clutch

Are you still recycling this foolishness?

As you posted elsewhere, indeed! You wisely fled the scene.

You do nothing but embarrass yourself by attempting to lecture on things about which you haven't the faintest clue. Your local library must contain some basic texts on the philosophy of science; why not put them to use?

Family Man

Although Dr. Rick as already posted the same point, I'll repeat what I said earlier in this thread. Theophilius's assertion here is incorrect. The whole point of the dragon story is to demonstrate that if disprove a claim, then it's worthless. And unless Theophilius can demonstrate the worth of the claim of an invisible dragon, then he really doesn't have a point.

Is there any reasonable way to propose a test to prove the truth of these assertions, or have you set up a claim that is immune to disproof?

Bill Snedden

:notworthy

Normal

Wow, you guys jumped all over me for that slip... ah well

How is that different from eliminating him with Occam's Razor? For a lack of proof for something, and a lack of disproof for something, in both cases I'll say "I don't know". The only option is Proof ~ Proof. As for Santa Claus, I'll say "I don't know", but really the question is irrelevant so Occam's Razor takes him out.

To me, it's the lack of relevancy of Santa that takes him out with Occam's Razor.

Well, the way I see it, something is either irrelevant, or has a degree of relevence. I don't think there are degrees of irrelevancy.

I don't think this is a good example, because you can have proof you cannot fly when you flap your arms by flapping your arms, thus putting heavy emphasis on the rationality of accepting the second statement as more reasonable.

Again, the case of both "lack of proof ~ disprove" and "lack of disproof ~ proof", is that both outcomes are irrelevant based on their lack of proof either way, and what they are trying to prove should be cut out with Occam's Razor.

IOW: Atheists are correct in denying that "lack of proof ~ disproof", but I agree with them up to relevancy.

Normal

Edit:

"IOW: Atheists are correct in denying that "lack of proof ~ disproof", but I agree with them up to relevancy."

Should actually read

"IOW: Atheists are correct in accepting that "lack of proof ~ disproof" and denying "lack of disprove ~ proof", but I agree with them up to relevancy."

keyser_soze

You dismiss santa clause, not due to improbability, but due to relevancy? How has an invisible sky daddy garnered more relevance than santa? Because he means more to YOU? Even I can see the hypocrisy of that, and I'm really, really tired right now.

HRG

No, it does not. It is a claim about claims about reality - a metaclaim, if you want - and doesn't itself deal with reality. Thus it does not apply to itself.

All your following arguments fail for the same, or similar reasons.
No. It just means all claims about reality, not statements about claims.
Since your sentence is neither a moral statement *)nor a moral value, it is not self-referential.

*) it is descriptive, not prescriptive!
Invisibility means exactly one thing: "not visible". No one said anything about materiality or localization.
Just as the Dragon which is actually invisibly present in the garage and works regularly to accomplish his purpose according to his own will. Everything which happens is according to his will, BTW.

BTW, if God is everywhere present, he is extended in space. Which is it ?
The Dragon was actually incarnated in my cat, for a brief time.
Very little is self-contradictory in the supernatural. Only natural fires carry heat, only natural beings cannot be triune .....
This is called special pleading - unless you tell us the essential differences which make Sagan's Dragon a bad analogy and a category error, independent of your personal religious beliefs.


Regards,
HRG.

Normal

What makes you think I'm a theist?

Edit: If you look at the progression of my posts in this thread, you'll see I criticize both the theist and the atheists leaps of logic, then eventually partially side with the atheits. How this led you to believe I was in fact a theist is beyond me.