Evidence for design

292 posts / 0 new

Last post

Mon, 07/02/2018 - 06:12

(Reply to #151) #152

Someone

@arakish

Like you failing to do either (1) or (2) like I predicted?

Mon, 07/02/2018 - 07:03

(Reply to #152) #153

arakish

I already did, you just won't

I already did, you just won't accept the answer I gave.

When it comes to FACT, reality experiences nothing, our experiences count for nothing.

rmfr

Sun, 07/01/2018 - 05:11

(Reply to #153) #154

Sheldon

We're not interested in your

We're not interested in your red herring, you ran away as theists always do when asked to demonstrate objective evidence for design. All you could do was keep repeating that human experience evidenced design and that design was evidenced by human experience. Then laughably denying this was a vapid tautology.

"1) State what else is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

I've no idea, as I said, you're just trying to use a god of the gaps fallacy. Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

2) Paraphrase the original arguments correctly, and then point out errors with the arguments.

I've just done so, it's an appeal to ignorance fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam. We know that human consciousness exists, we know the human brain causes this, we know the human brain evolved. We know the material physical universe and natural phenomena exist.

Now what evidence can you demonstrate for your claim that supernatural design is a necessary addition to those facts?

Occam's razor, showing again that your claims are fallacious.

Sun, 07/01/2018 - 12:56

(Reply to #154) #155

Someone

You wrote:

@Sheldon

You wrote:
---
2) Paraphrase the original arguments correctly, and then point out errors with the arguments.

You have not just done so, you know full well that you have not paraphrased either argument. If you were to paraphrase either correctly then you would realise that neither involves the fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Mon, 07/02/2018 - 09:57

(Reply to #155) #156

Sheldon

I certainly have just done so

I certainly have just done so, and you have lied yet again, and everyone can see the truth for themselves. Your vapid tautology that design is evidenced by human consciousness, and consciousness is evidence for design is an appeal to ignorance, argumentum ad ingorantiam.

Your claiming this vapid tautology is valid without demonstrating any objective evidence despite being asked repeatedly to do so, but instead insisting a contrary position must be evidenced or your bare assertion must be valid. That is the very definition of an argument from ignorance. Again i am happy for others to decide for themselves whether this true, but your bare denials are meaningless deflection, that is axiomatic as you have offered nothing beyond this.

Sun, 07/01/2018 - 05:42

(Reply to #156) #157

Sheldon

"1) State what else is needed

"1) State what else is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

What else other then the natural material processes we understand so far you mean? So you're saying that either someone explain the gaps in our knowledge or you will insist it was achieved by inexplicable magic, from a fictional deity, based on a bronze age superstition about magic apples and talking snakes?

Oh no fallacies there, dear oh dear Someone.

"An argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), or appeal to ignorance ('ignorance' stands for "lack of evidence to the contrary"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It says something is true because it has not yet been proved false."

You're attempting to reverse the burden of proof. The natural phenomena and material universe as well as the outcome of human consciousness are objective facts, it's for you to evidence your claims that this can only have happened through supernatural magic from a bronze age superstition about a deity.

Off you go, please bear in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not vapid tautologies.

Sun, 07/01/2018 - 12:27

(Reply to #157) #158

Someone

@Sheldon

You wrote:
---
"1) State what else is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

You can do close readings and wilfully misinterpret them when you want. What you have so far avoided doing is answering the requests when they are reworded to avoid such wilful misinterpretation. I shall illustrate by rewording the request from:

1) State what else is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.

1) State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.

Mon, 07/02/2018 - 10:12

(Reply to #158) #159

Sheldon

"1) State what evidence is

"1) State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

It's still a meaningless vapid tautology. Do you accept the fact that human consciousness exists? Do you accept the fact that the human brain exists and the fact that it is the brain that enables human consciousness to "experience reality" as you baffling put it? Do you accept the fact that all life evolved, and thus the inferred fact that the human physical brain evolved? Do you accept the fact that all this happened in a physical material universe in which all of human knowledge has produced not none single piece of objective evidence for anything supernatural?

Its very revealing though perhaps typical that you have again completely ignore all of the questions put to you, and simply offer a repetition of your fallacious question, which is naught but an argument from ignorance, as even if no one can offer an answer for how human consciousness came to exist it still doesn't evidence your bare assertion that a designer deity from a bronze age superstition is required using vapid tautologies like "design is evidenced by human consciousness, and human consciousness is evidence for design". However you're ignoring the fact I have answered, we evolved as did all life and human consciousness is a product of the human brain that is itself a demonstrative result of that evolution.

As I said and you have again ignored, you're attempting to reverse the burden of proof. The natural phenomena and material universe as well as the outcome of human consciousness are objective facts, it's for you to evidence your claims that this can only have happened through supernatural magic from a bronze age superstition about a deity.

Off you go, please bear in mind that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, not vapid tautologies.

It's clear you have nothing or you wouldn't be blithely repeating the vapid fallacious tautology you entered the forum with.

Thu, 07/05/2018 - 06:15

(Reply to #159) #160

Someone

@Sheldon

It is not a tautology. It is not a repetition, nor is it a logical argument (so it not a logical argument where the conclusion is true regardless of the truth of the premises). It was simply a question. Either other evidence is needed, or it isn't. You realise that no other evidence is needed, but you won't admit it, as to admit it would be to admit that you were wrong to claim that personal experience is not sufficient to prove anything. So you disingenuously try to change the subject, by asking other questions.

I summarised what had been happening in the conversation back in post
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4...

Where I supply the quote from you
---
...since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs
---

But you continue to refuse to state what other evidence is required other than personal experience to validate the belief that at least part of reality is experiencing. You had made an assertion, I called you on it, and from then on you have been coming up with disingenuous attempts to avoid answering a simple question, because you choose not to admit that you were wrong and I was right. Funny given your avatar/picture on this forum.

There is a pattern of you avoiding answering this question and the request to paraphrase the arguments and supply a counter.

The reason I suspect that you won't paraphrase the arguments is that I suspect you realise that neither are logical proofs, they are inferences given the evidence. One clue was that the title was not "A proof for design" but "Evidence for design", another was that in the first argument it explicitly states it is a fine tuning argument. Anyone who understood what fine tuning arguments are would realise they aren't logical proofs. So your repeated assertions that the problem is that they contain logical fallacies such as argumentum ad ignorantiam are rubbish because neither arguments were logical proofs, and such fallacies are only found in logical proofs. If you had paraphrased and tried to turn them into logical arguments in order to make such claims, then I would have pointed out that you were creating a straw man argument. If you had paraphrased them correctly then you would have to admit that you had made a false claim about what was wrong with them (because it was a fallacy only found in logical proofs, and the arguments weren't logical proofs). So either way you would have been wrong. (Seems like there might be more than one pattern in my discussions with you).

For other readers that are interested fine tuning arguments can be considered to be effectively applying objective bayesian inference. If you are unsure what it is then perhaps check out section 4.2F in: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/epistemology-bayesian/

To see how this type thing might help, consider two types of cubicle, a Type 1 and a Type 2. Both types provide a count down from 10 to 0 after which the occupant is to state a number of their choice between 1 and 1,000,000. After the occupant has done so a Type 1 cubicle will state a psuedo-random number between 1 and 1,000,000 whereas a Type 2 cubicle will repeat the number stated by the occupant.

Consider the experiment is done by placing you in a cubicle. The cubicle performs 100 countdowns, and after each time you state a number the cubicle states the same number.

You are then given the option of guessing which type of cubicle it is. If you choose to but get it wrong, then you will be tortured to death over the period of 10 years, but if you get it right you will earn £1 trillion.

Given the result the theory that the cubicle was a Type 1 cubicle could be thought to rely on fine-tuning in order to explain the result (that the person's neural state was in the range of neural states which would result in producing the pseudo-random number the machine was going to produce each time for example), whereas the theory that it was a Type 2 cubicle doesn't rely on fine tuning. Presumably a few of you here would have felt that in such a circumstance the evidence was sufficient to allow a high degree of confidence in the assumption that it was a Type 2 cubicle. And that is in essence the type of argument the first argument I supplied was. It is not a logical argument, after all even with a high degree of confidence that it is a Type 2 cubicle it does not logically allow one to correctly logically conclude from the evidence that it was not possible that it was a Type 1.

The second argument is again a hypothesis comparison type argument, but in that case it just asks what other hypothesis is even up for consideration, given the situation it highlights (that your personal experience provides you a truth (that at least part of reality is experiencing) and how is it you can react to the personal experience to reach that truth?). If there was another theory to explain it then it would be an objective bayesian inference type situation again as in the first one. But while there isn't one it would seem unreasonable to reject the only explanation that we have.

In the meantime I assume my prediction will continue to be correct.
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4...

It should be noted though that I have subsequently reworded (1) because of Sheldon's wilful misinterpretation of it (despite its meaning being obvious given the context of the conversation in which it appeared). (1) was reworded to be:

1) State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.

Thu, 07/05/2018 - 09:43

(Reply to #160) #161

Nyarlathotep

why don't you start over and

why don't you start over and lay your argument out formally?

Thu, 07/05/2018 - 09:44

(Reply to #161) #162

Sheldon

"It is not a tautology. It is

"It is not a tautology. It is not a repetition,"

From your op, verbatim:

Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34
Someone

"the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."

It is a risible tautology and it is a repetition. You are the most repetitious poster I have yet encountered, ask anyone Someone.
---------------------------------------------------
"You realise that no other evidence is needed, but you won't admit it, "

A lie, I have stated plainly many times we ARE conscious beings, the only thing I have asked you to demonstrate objective evidence for is your claim that our consciousness requires magic from a deity in a bronze age superstition? You have provided none, merely asserted it again and again. As you are doing here again, a useless tautology. See quote above from your OP Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34.
--------------------------------------------------
Someone: "I summarised what had been happening in the conversation back in post
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... Where I supply the quote from you
---
"since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs"

See my response again then, since you are determined to distort my meaning.

Mon, 06/25/2018 - 09:57
Sheldon

"Not sure how many times you need the word ALONE capitalised before you stop misrepresenting what I am saying about personal experience."

Objective evidence is how we decide which of our experiences are true, if we want to believe only what is true of course, unlike religious beliefs where all the evidence is moulded to fit the belief rather than the other way around.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
" (because it was a fallacy only found in logical proofs, and the arguments weren't logical proofs)."

Complete nonsense, any claim assertion or argument can contain fallacies, and I never once claimed your assertion was a logical proof. This is as idiotic as it is dishonest from you. You are using an argument form ignorance fallacy and have been from the start. Any claim or argument that contains logical fallacies cannot be asserted as rationally true, and that is all i have claimed, despite this desperately dishonest wriggle. You asserted that you had evidence for design, it is in the title you gave your this thread, yet have demonstrated none. Your fine tuning argument would also need to be objectively evidenced and again you have demonstrated none, merely asserted it repeatedly, but by all means offer some now, I'm sure we'd all appreciate the change of pace, because this...

Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34
Someone

"the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."

...is all we've seen.
------------------------------------------------------

"1) State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

How does that evidence a deity from a bronze age superstition? Your claim was "Evidence for design", yet you provide none. What's more you have repeatedly lied when you claim no one has answered this. It is a fact we are conscious beings, it is a fact our reality is experiencing a material universe, and natural phenomena, it is a scientific fact beyond any reasonable doubt that all life evolved including humans through natural selection, it is a fact consciousness is only evidenced from living evoolved physical brains.

Now one more time, your additional claim that this evidences design need to be supported by objective evidnece, have you any?

Thu, 07/05/2018 - 15:05

(Reply to #162) #163

Someone

@Sheldon

You wrote:
---
"It is not a tautology. It is not a repetition,"

From your op, verbatim:

Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34
Someone

"the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."

It is a risible tautology and it is a repetition.
---

Firstly what you are quoting from original post on the thread. That was not found in the post you were replying to when in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... you wrote:
---
"1) State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

It's still a meaningless vapid tautology.
---

To which I replied in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...
---
It is not a tautology. It is not a repetition, nor is it a logical argument (so it not a logical argument where the conclusion is true regardless of the truth of the premises). It was simply a question. Either other evidence is needed, or it isn't. You realise that no other evidence is needed, but you won't admit it, as to admit it would be to admit that you were wrong to claim that personal experience is not sufficient to prove anything. So you disingenuously try to change the subject, by asking other questions.
---

I was clear I was referring to the question that you keep failing to answer as I predicted you would. And you knew that. Quoting some other text just illustrates how disingenuous you have resorted to being. Hardly a sign of you holding your own in the conversation.

You wrote:
----------
Someone: "I summarised what had been happening in the conversation back in post
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... Where I supply the quote from you
---
"since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs"

See my response again then, since you are determined to distort my meaning.

Mon, 06/25/2018 - 09:57
Sheldon

"Not sure how many times you need the word ALONE capitalised before you stop misrepresenting what I am saying about personal experience."

So back to the question that you keep attempting to disingenuously avoid as though somehow you think you might get away with it and it won't be noticed.

1) State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.

You have quoted yourself stating that personal experience ALONE is not enough to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing, so answer what other evidence is required?

You write:
---
" (because it was a fallacy only found in logical proofs, and the arguments weren't logical proofs)."

Well just consider the first argument. I supplied a fine tuning argument. There is no imbedded logical proof (such as a false dichotomy) in it which could be suggested to be an argument ad ignorantiam. The same as with the cubicle argument I outlined in
http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... . There is no conclusion that design was logically demonstrated to be true, nor that non-design theories were logically demonstrated to be false, and so no arguments that the argument that design was logically demonstrated to be true involved an argument from ignorance.

Analogous to the cubicle argument, the *possibility* that reality is without design (analogous to the cubicle being Type 1) is accepted. It is not denied, let alone denied on some basis of ignorance. So your claim that it was (which is what an argument ad ignoratiam effectively is) is false. So the "Sheldon being wrong" pattern continues.

But in numerous posts you have claimed that the problem with the arguments I put forward is that they contain an argument ad ignoratiam as can be seen in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...

I predicted you will not be able to correctly paraphrase the argument and point out such a fallacy. And you repeatedly respond and do nothing to falsify that prediction, as I predicted would be the case with any responses you gave.

Are you planning on just repeatedly responding while neither
1) Stating what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.
or
2) Paraphrasing the original arguments correctly, and then pointing out errors with the arguments.
?

If not could we just skip to the bit where you do one or the other or both?

As a side note anyone in the Atheist Republic is welcome to attempt to do either if they don't accept the evidence provided.

As another side note, I notice there hasn't been any evidence offered in response to the http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-if-we-atheist-her... question

Thu, 07/05/2018 - 19:09

(Reply to #163) #164

Sapporo

@Someone

@Someone
How do you define "physical"? Surely evidence is synonymous with the physical? But I don't see how that could prove something something non-physical.

Thu, 07/05/2018 - 23:16

(Reply to #164) #165

arakish

@Someone

Well, since you say you are not practicing tautology, that just proves how illiterate you are. You do not even know what tautology means. Look it up. I'll even give you a head start.

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tautology

Follow the link.

rmfr

Sat, 07/07/2018 - 04:14

(Reply to #165) #166

Sheldon

Someone "Firstly what you are

Someone "Firstly what you are quoting from original post on the thread. That was not found in the post you were replying to.."

Irrelevant red herring, I have pointed out from the start that you used a risible fallacious tautology in your OP, here:

From your op, verbatim:

Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34
Someone

"the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."

You now offer deflection rather than acknowledge the fact, and hilariously accuse me of being dishonest. You have used these tactics from the start, rather than focusing on the vapid nature of your fallacious claim for evidence of design.
--------------------------------------------------
As I keep pointing out and will keep pointing out there are some objective facts we cab start with.

1. We experience reality as you put it, because we are conscious beings.
2. The physical material universe exists.
3. natural phenomena exist, like species evolution through natural selection for instance.
4. Since it is a scientific fact that all life evolved, it is also a fact we evolved, and ipso facto our brains evolved.
5. Our consciousness is clearly a derivative of our physical brains, when the brain dies the consciousness that experiences that shared reality ceases to exist for those that are left still experiencing it.

Since I accept all this as objectively evidenced, and have stated so repeatedly it is extremely dishonest of you to ignore this and not say whether you deny these assertions,, or why? This is why your question:

"State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

Is pretty meaningless, however I'll answer it one more time as I have a few minutes to kill.

1) Firstly it's an appeal to ignorance fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, it is a logical fact that not having an alternative answer to any question or claim does not validate your claim or assertion. So for the sake of argument lets say I couldn't answer your question, this is not evidence for anything as you keep claiming it is.

2) It is something of a straw man fallacy as no one has claimed anything about our consciousness, or experiencing reality as you insist on wording it in your bizarrely verbose fashion, and no one has denied that we are experiencing reality.

3) I have repeatedly and again above with bullet points offered all the objectively evidenced facts that are salient to our consciousness (I'm not going to keep using your verbose phrase, so for brevity from now on i will call it what it is consciousness).

4) None of those facts evidences or requires anything supernatural, even if they do not offer complete knowledge of how our consciousness came to exist, this again is validated by the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam as I showed above, where not having any answer would not validate another answer someone offers. I am not offering an opinion and I didn't create the principles of logic, so whether you acknowledge this or not it entirely moot, so unless you get a kick our of pretending something is (logically) valid when it clearly is not you're achieving nothing from repetition. Anyone who wants to can Google an argument from ignorance and see if your question implies a fallacious appeal to ignorance or not.

5) Our consciousness is easily deceived, and can ipso facto be wrong, hence we need methods to validate beliefs about what we experience, hence we created first philosophy, logic and finally modern empirical science. We don't need these in order for our consciousness to experience reality or to know we experience reality (perhaps philosophy), but if we rely SOLELY on our experience of reality to believe what we experience then we cannot rationally or objectively assert those beliefs as true. Again I didn't create the principles of logic or the modern scientific method, so am not offering an opinion here.

So now you have your answer, again. Now once again I ask where in our experience of reality you think there is evidence for design? Since the experience itself can is consistent with the facts I numbered above, but evidenced nothing supernatural?

Which is where we were when I claimed you had produced no evidence, but only offered fallacious reasoning and vapid tautologies to assert this, like the one in your OP here:

"
Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34
Someone

"the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 06:48

(Reply to #166) #167

Someone

@Sheldon

You wrote:
---
"State what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing."

Is pretty meaningless, however I'll answer it one more time as I have a few minutes to kill.

So taking each point in turn:
---
1) Firstly it's an appeal to ignorance fallacy, argumentum ad ignorantiam, it is a logical fact that not having an alternative answer to any question or claim does not validate your claim or assertion. So for the sake of argument lets say I couldn't answer your question, this is not evidence for anything as you keep claiming it is.
---

It is not an argument, it is simply a question about your assertion that:
---
...since personal experience includes subjective beliefs that can be demonstrated to be objectively false, then it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs"
---

which you made way back in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design#commen... and your claim that personal experience ALONE is not sufficient to validate a belief (see http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... for example).

If I wanted to show that your assertion (that was put in form of a logical argument) that personal experiences ALONE were not sufficient evidence for validating beliefs was wrong, I could just provide the following counter example which uses the term "reality" to mean the totality of what exists.

A) I experience

B) Only what exists can experience.

Therefore

C) I exist

and

D) At least part of reality experiences.
.
Is an example of where C and D can be infallibly concluded based purely on personal experience.

Even in argument form, (D) is not an argument from ignorance as you claimed, but a logical consequence of premises (A) and (B). So your claim that it was an argument from ignorance is false.

On to point (2)
---
2) It is something of a straw man fallacy as no one has claimed anything about our consciousness, or experiencing reality as you insist on wording it in your bizarrely verbose fashion, and no one has denied that we are experiencing reality.
---

Firstly I do not ever recall using the term "experiencing reality", I do not even know what you mean by the term. Could you quote the post where I used that term? I thought the atheists first started using terms like that in this thread. I had presumed they were trying to sneak in the idea that the objects they were experiencing had an ontological existence.

Secondly, it is not a straw man argument, because

(a) it is not an argument it is a question

and

(b) it directly relates to your claim that "...it (personal experience) is axiomatically useless for validating beliefs".

So your second point was also wrong (that old Sheldon being wrong pattern seems pretty consistent).

Onto point (3)
---
3) I have repeatedly and again above with bullet points offered all the objectively evidenced facts that are salient to our consciousness (I'm not going to keep using your verbose phrase, so for brevity from now on i will call it what it is consciousness).
---
I may have misunderstood your bullet points but I was under the impression that you were claiming that the objects corresponding to your experience (such as fossils etc.) existing in a "physical" world was an objective fact.

If I am not mistaken then, I had asked the atheists in the forum post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/what-if-we-atheist-her...
---
What evidence did you have that objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world? (consider a Matrix type situation)
---

No one has answered. You seemed to try in this thread in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... by claiming that you could
---
Kick a stranger in the nuts, it should be ample evidence that our experience of reality meshes (painfully) with theirs.
---
It wouldn't actually be evidence that you both experienced, but even if that were simply assumed, that the participants experience meshed allows for reality being a Matrix type situation, or one where God exists but the "physical world" does not. So experience meshing would not be evidence that the objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world. You have no such evidence, Zilch, zero. If you were an agnostic, you would not claim a belief in such a "physical world". The existence of a "physical world" is simply a belief that you have which has no evidence to support it. I may have misunderstood your bullet points, so it would be useful if you clarified whether you considered them to entail the idea that at least some of the objects corresponding to your experience existing in a "physical" world was an objective fact

Onto point (4)
---
4) None of those facts evidences or requires anything supernatural, even if they do not offer complete knowledge of how our consciousness came to exist, this again is validated by the logical fallacy argumentum ad ignorantiam as I showed above, where not having any answer would not validate another answer someone offers. I am not offering an opinion and I didn't create the principles of logic, so whether you acknowledge this or not it entirely moot, so unless you get a kick our of pretending something is (logically) valid when it clearly is not you're achieving nothing from repetition. Anyone who wants to can Google an argument from ignorance and see if your question implies a fallacious appeal to ignorance or not.
---

Again I assume the "facts" you were referring to were those involved in your bullet points. As I said in my response to point (3) I was under the impression that in those bullet points you were claiming that it was an objective fact that objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world. If so again the pattern continues, you are wrong because that is not an objective fact.

Onto point (5)
---
5) Our consciousness is easily deceived, and can ipso facto be wrong, hence we need methods to validate beliefs about what we experience, hence we created first philosophy, logic and finally modern empirical science. We don't need these in order for our consciousness to experience reality or to know we experience reality (perhaps philosophy), but if we rely SOLELY on our experience of reality to believe what we experience then we cannot rationally or objectively assert those beliefs as true. Again I didn't create the principles of logic or the modern scientific method, so am not offering an opinion here.
---

But as pointed out there is no evidence that objects corresponding to your experience exist in a physical world. So all that is ever being validated by the person scientifically is whether their scientific hypotheses are supported by their subsequent personal experience when they perform their experiments, and possibly (if they are not working in isolation) that their personal experiences mesh with other peoples sufficiently for them to agree upon significant features of the experience, but the latter validation includes the assumption that the other forms they experience are also experiencing. So the evidence still reduces to personal experience all the way.

And the argument I already specified

A) I experience

B) Only what exists can experience.

Therefore

C) I exist

and

D) At least part of reality experiences.
.
Is an example of where C and D can be infallibly concluded based purely on personal experience.

So none of your points worked, and (as I predicted) you were unable to point out what evidence other than personal experience was required in order to realise that at least part of reality experiences.

I can provide you with an easier question which you could if you want provide an answer to:

On a Likert scale of 1 to 7 how much do you agree with the following statement: At least part of reality experiences?

As for your request for the evidence for design, I supplied the evidence in the first two arguments.

The bit you quoted from the original post wasn't part of either of the arguments.
---
Irony:

Those that believe reality is one without deities asking where is the evidence for design? Because the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence.
---

I had thought I might have made a mistake there, but on second thoughts it seems ok. The evidence for an argument could have been just a part of the evidence we have about reality, but in this case it is the experience itself, and since all the evidence we have about reality is experienced, the evidence is not just a subset of the available evidence but all the evidence we have about reality.

You still have not either
1) Stated what evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing.
or
2) Paraphrased the original arguments correctly, and then pointing out errors with the arguments.

Though since you seem to have confessed that you are not aware of what other evidence is needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing. Why don't you just move onto (2) and point out what errors you think there are with the arguments? Because if you are able to paraphrase them correctly you will have at least shown yourself capable of understanding what I am claiming as evidence.

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 07:21

(Reply to #167) #168

Sheldon

You neglected to answer my

You neglected to answer my question again.

Now once again I ask where in our experience of reality you think there is evidence for design? Since the experience itself is consistent with the facts I numbered above, but evidenced nothing supernatural?

Which is where we were when I claimed you had produced no evidence, but only offered fallacious reasoning and vapid tautologies to assert this, like the one in your OP here:

Fri, 06/08/2018 - 08:34
Someone

"the evidence is: all the evidence! As all evidence is that which is experienced, and it is what is experienced that is the evidence."

Your thread is entitled "Evidence for design" not endless questions that go nowhere.

-------------------------------------
You also ignored this...

"Sun, 07/01/2018 - 16:21 Permalink
Someone
Someone's picture
What evidence did you have that objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world? (consider a Matrix type situation)

Kick a stranger in the nuts, it should be ample evidence that our experience of reality meshes (painfully) with theirs. You're asking a question designed to be unfalsifiable, in religious apologetics I have experienced this usually precedes an argument from or appeal to ignorance fallacy. It's another attempt to reverse the burden of proof, and please no tedious lecture on the phrase as we all know it's also a legal term, it is meant in it's epistemological sense here.

Is there any objective evidence we live in "The Matrix"?

Until there is I don't believe the claim, same with deities. Agnosticism, the belief that nothing is know or can be known about something, applies to all unfalsifiable claims. It goes without saying I don't believe claims when nothing is or can known about them, otherwise you could believe literally anything."

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 09:19

(Reply to #168) #169

Someone

@Sheldon

You wrote:
---
You neglected to answer my question again.

Now once again I ask where in our experience of reality you think there is evidence for design?
---

I didn't neglect to answer it. I wrote:
---
As for your request for the evidence for design, I supplied the evidence in the first two arguments.

...

You ignored my question:

On a Likert scale of 1 to 7 how much do you agree with the following statement: At least part of reality experiences?

You also wrote:
---
Since the experience itself is consistent with the facts I numbered above, but evidenced nothing supernatural?

I assume you meant "Since the experience itself is consistent with the facts I numbered below"

Regarding the term experiencing reality, I had asked you to quote the post where I used that term, because as I said, I was not sure what it meant, and that I thought the atheists first started using terms like that in this thread to try to sneak in the idea that the objects they were experiencing had an ontological existence. You didn't do so.

Nor did you answer my question about whether you are implying that the objects corresponding to your experience exist in a "physical world". You seem to with (2) for example. If so as I pointed out, you have no evidence to support your claim, and so your assertion that the points are "facts" is simply a delusional assertion which you cannot justify.

The problem with them even as a theory is the evidence that I pointed out in the arguments that you continually fail to paraphrase.

You also wrote:
---
You also ignored this...

"Sun, 07/01/2018 - 16:21 Permalink
Someone
Someone's picture
What evidence did you have that objects corresponding to your experience existed in a "physical" world? (consider a Matrix type situation)

Is there any objective evidence we live in "The Matrix"?

I dealt with the "kick a stranger in the nuts..." suggestion. I pointed out that the experience (assuming the stranger experiences) meshing would also be expected in a Martrix situation and a God exists but no physical example. Perhaps you meant the
---
Is there any objective evidence we live in a "The Matrix"?
---

No. Nor is there any evidence that a "physical material universe exists". There is however objective evidence of design, and with the God exists theory, the existence of the "physical material universe" can be got rid of by the application of Occam's Razor. The evidence was given in the arguments you repeatedly refuse to paraphrase.

I think Huxley goes further than you claim. Huxley wrote that agnosticism "simply means that a man shall not say he knows or believes that which he has no scientific grounds for professing to know or believe." You do not seem to just say that you believe that a physical world exists, even though you have no scientific grounds for professing to believe such a thing. You go as far as stating that you know one does. That it is a fact. So is it that you wanted me to point out that you are either a deluded hypocrite when you claim not to believe claims when nothing is or can be known about them, or you were simply lying.

Do you agree that the idea that people are given the experience that they are in order to make moral choices based upon it is for all you know falsifiable?

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 10:00

(Reply to #169) #170

Sheldon

"I supplied the evidence in

"I supplied the evidence in the first two argument"

Well since you have dragged on and on lying about this i have no choice as you've offered nothing new since your unevidenced claims for design. I can't say I'm surprised your verbiage has led nowhere, still as long as it makes you happy.

"Nor is there any evidence that a "physical material universe exists". "

Sigh, this says it all really, you want to deny reality itself in order to believe in a bronze age superstition.Your arguments are fallacious, and they certainly don't represent objective evidence. Anyway I'm out for now as you don't seem to be interested in proper discussion just an endlessly attritional repetition of your claims.

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 11:45

(Reply to #170) #171

Someone

@Sheldon

You had claimed:
---
It goes without saying I don't believe claims when nothing is or can known about them, otherwise you could believe literally anything."
---

while hypocritically claiming without any evidence that it is fact that a physical material universe exists.

Regarding the evidence for design you had been supplied two arguments, and have failed to find a problem with either. Though that is not to say that you did not try.

First off you asserted that personal experience alone could not be used to validate any belief. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=1...

The idea being that the evidence for design was the experience in both arguments, and if you could claim that personal experience could not be used to validate any belief you could claim that it could not validate the belief that it was evidence of design.

I repeatedly gave you the chance to state what other evidence was needed to know that at least part of reality was experiencing and you have repeatedly failed to do so. You then resorted to claiming that you failing to do so didn't matter that any argument relying on that would simply be an argument from ignorance. I pointed out that what you were being asked to respond to was simply a question, it was not an argument. Though I did provide you by way of a counter example argument to illustrate that not only were you wrong that personal experience was not on its own sufficient, but that you were wrong that the point involved an argument from ignorance. http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5...

A) I experience

B) Only what exists can experience.

Therefore

C) I exist

and

D) At least part of reality experiences.

It was an example of where C and D can be infallibly concluded based purely on personal experience.

(D) is not an argument from ignorance but a logical consequence of premises (A) and (B).

You also tried to claim that the arguments for evidence of design were arguments from ignorance. But in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... for example I pointed out that
analogous to the cubicle argument (mentioned in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... ), the *possibility* that reality is without design (analogous to the cubicle being Type 1) is accepted. It is not denied, let alone denied on some basis of ignorance. And so your claim that it was an argument from ignorance was wrong.

Back in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=4... I made a prediction that you would fail to paraphrase the arguments and point out a problem with them. Your repeated avoidance of answering what evidence was needed other than personal experience to realise that at least part of reality is experiencing hinted that you knew you had no answer. When you made a point of imagining you hadn't "for the sake of argument" it was clear that that was why you had been avoiding answering the question all along. Likewise you continually avoiding paraphrasing the original arguments correctly, and then pointing out errors with them indicates that you knew you were not capable all along.

Incidentally the first argument represent objective evidence in the same way that the evidence in the cubicle thought experiment would be regarded as objective evidence. While the second provides objective evidence against opposing physicalist theories.

Anyway, since you are not capable of the evidence for design arguments supplied and pointing out any problems with them then there is no point in you replying.

Though the challenge is still there for any other atheists on the forum:

Paraphrased the original arguments correctly, and point out errors with the arguments.

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 12:30

(Reply to #171) #172

Sheldon

Someone "while hypocritically

Someone "while hypocritically claiming without any evidence that it is fact that a physical material universe exists."

You think there is no evidence that a material universe exists? Oh dear...

"I repeatedly gave you the chance to state what other evidence was needed to know that at least part of reality was experiencing and you have repeatedly failed to do so."

You're going to claim I haven't insisted objective evidence is also needed, even though I have stated this repeatedly?

"You then resorted to claiming that you failing to do so didn't matter that any argument relying on that would simply be an argument from ignorance. I pointed out that what you were being asked to respond to was simply a question, it was not an argument. "

It was part of your argument, so that's a rather puerile wriggle. You realise arguments can contain fallacies right? The clue would be it being called an ***ARGUMENT from ignorance fallacy.

"Incidentally the first argument represent objective evidence "

No it really doesn't, but then you have just claimed no evidence exists for a material universe so you're clearly either delusional or being duplicitous.

"Anyway, since you are not capable of the evidence for design arguments supplied and pointing out any problems with them then there is no point in you replying."

There's no point for you, but that's because your dishonest and / or delusional.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Paraphrased the original arguments correctly, and point out errors with the arguments."

Argument 1) is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Atheists don't have to offer alternative explanations to theistic ones, that's not evidence it is a fallacious argument.

Argument 2) is also an argument from ignorance fallacy as it again claims theistic explanations are valid because of what you claim are flaws in atheistic ones, again this is the very definition of a fallacious argument from ignorance, It also contains a begin the question fallacy, as it is using a deity it is arguing for in it''s argument. No attempt to explain why a deity is need beyond your claim that not having an alternative explanation validates your belief / argument. You could insret anything for deity, that's what makes arguments from ignorance fallacious.

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 14:25

(Reply to #172) #173

Someone

Supply the evidence that a

Supply the evidence that a material universe exists then, as opposed to say God existing and you being given the experience of having a form in this universe (like a Matrix type option but with God taking the place of the computer for example). Is it that you are claiming that you did not realise that you did not have any evidence for what you were claiming as a fact?

Regarding paraphrasing the original arguments correctly and pointing out errors with them, you again failed to paraphrase either argument.

Instead you wrote:
---
Argument 1) is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Atheists don't have to offer alternative explanations to theistic ones, that's not evidence it is a fallacious argument.
---

An argument from ignorance is one in which a certain proposition is stated as being false on the basis that it is not known how it can be true. So if the first argument was that because we did not know how it could be a universe without design, then it could not be a universe without design, then your accusation would have been true. But that was not the argument as it was pointed out in the argument that you were replying to:
---
You also tried to claim that the arguments for evidence of design were arguments from ignorance. But in http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... for example I pointed out that
analogous to the cubicle argument (mentioned in post http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/evidence-design?page=5... ), the *possibility* that reality is without design (analogous to the cubicle being Type 1) is accepted. It is not denied, let alone denied on some basis of ignorance. And so your claim that it was an argument from ignorance was wrong.
---

You also wrote:
---
Argument 2) is also an argument from ignorance fallacy as it again claims theistic explanations are valid because of what you claim are flaws in atheistic ones, again this is the very definition of a fallacious argument from ignorance, It also contains a begin the question fallacy, as it is using a deity it is arguing for in it''s argument. No attempt to explain why a deity is need beyond your claim that not having an alternative explanation validates your belief / argument. You could insret anything for deity, that's what makes arguments from ignorance fallacious.
---

Slightly embarrassing for me here. I have just noticed that looking back on the second argument it was poorly written, it should have been written as:
---
A theist theorist can explain it without it being explicitly observed (quantum randomness, and fluctuations of kinetic energy, and a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made (explainable by chaos theory) and the means to make them). Whereas with physicalist theories there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). The theist theorists can therefore explain how it is that my form can express that the person experiencing having it is infallible when it comes to the statement that "reality is not one in which none experience", for example. ]
---

The first argument was written that way, but not the second.

With the re-writing of the second argument there could be no accusation of an argument from ignorance.

With the way it was written it could be summarised as:

1) My form expresses a reaction to my experience.

2) No reaction to my experience is objectively observed.

3) For no reaction to my experience to be objectively observed the influence must be subtle and be such that the sensitivity of the system to those changes is such that the desired effect comes about.

4) To apply an influence to bring about a desired effect would require the knowledge of how the system would behave given the influence.

5) Nothing in a reality without deities has such knowledge.

Therefore

6) Reality is not one without deities.

There I accept that it could be argued that even though the conclusion follows from the premises, some of the premises contain arguments from ignorance type stuff, e.g. (5). It has not been proven that nothing in a reality without deities has such knowledge for example.

Though the wording was incorrect, and so I would prefer to use the reworded version that I supplied above. With that wording the argument is similar to the first one, it is just about comparing available theories. The first one considers the inference of the evidence, and the second examines the compatibility of the evidence with the theories. Neither suggest that if there were different theories in the future that the evaluation would not change.

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 14:55

(Reply to #173) #174

Sheldon

The evidence is beyond any

The evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt that the material universe exists. If you want to deny it then crack on, but that speaks volumes to me of any belief that it requires a believer deny reality to such an extent.

" Is it that you are claiming that you did not realise that you did not have any evidence for what you were claiming as a fact?"

Again it is an objective fact, as much as anything can be, I have no idea why anyone would even try to assert otherwise, though I don't particularly care why.

"An argument from ignorance is one in which a certain proposition is stated as being false on the basis that it is not known how it can be true."

It can also be an argument that a certain proposition is true as it has not yet been proven false, which is what you have been doing. Insisting that your claim for design is true because (you claim) atheism can't properly explain consciousness. However it doesn't matter whether atheism can explain anything at all, this doesn't evidence a deity.

"a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made"

Begging the question fallacy, you're assuming your conclusion in your argument.

" with physicalist theories there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured)."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, as again even if that claim were true it doesn't evidence a deity.

"2) No reaction to my experience is objectively observed."

I don't agree, unless I've misunderstood you, I'd say science can and does objectively observe our experience of reality. It's what science does and what it is for, the systematic study and observation of the physical natural world and universe.

"4) To apply an influence to bring about a desired effect would require the knowledge of how the system would behave given the influence."

Begging the question fallacy again, how do you know that what we see is a "desired" effect, this assumes a creator to "desire" it, in your argument for a creator.

"5) Nothing in a reality without deities has such knowledge."

Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again, atheism doesn't need to offer any explanation of anything as it makes no claims, but even if it can explain nothing (as you claim) this doesn't validate any claim for a deity.

"Even there, while some premises could be stated as being false, it would not be an argument through ignorance because the conclusion follows from the premises."

Incorrect, you are thinking of formal logical fallacies. A formal fallacy is contrasted with an informal fallacy, which may have a valid logical form and yet be unsound because one or more premises are false.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_fallacy

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 15:12

(Reply to #174) #175

Someone

@Sheldon

You wrote:
---
The evidence is beyond any reasonable doubt that the material universe exists. If you want to deny it then crack on, but that speaks volumes to me of any belief that it requires a believer deny reality to such an extent.
---

Well then state one piece, and explain why the theory that God exists, the physical doesn't, and that you are being given this experience by design could not equally explain it. Else it seems just like question begging.

As for your answers to the arguments I supplied (considering the reworded version of 2 now):

I am not question begging. There is no begging you to accept a certain proposition. Both arguments just compare different theories.

The first argument is a fine tuning argument. So it is just a case of comparing theories, and then examining whether either is using fine tuning. Like in the cubicles argument. I will just repeat it for the readers convenience.

Consider two types of cubicle, a Type 1 and a Type 2. Both types provide a count down from 10 to 0 after which the occupant is to state a number of their choice between 1 and 1,000,000. After the occupant has done so a Type 1 cubicle will state a psuedo-random number between 1 and 1,000,000 whereas a Type 2 cubicle will repeat the number stated by the occupant.

Consider the experiment is done by placing you in a cubicle. The cubicle performs 100 countdowns, and after each time you state a number the cubicle states the same number.

There is no question begging for the Type 2 theory, it is just where the evidence points given the fine tuning required for the "it's a Type 1" theory.

The second argument (reworded version):
---
A theist theorist can explain it without it being explicitly observed (quantum randomness, and fluctuations of kinetic energy, and a being (God for example) which knows the fine adjustments that can be made (explainable by chaos theory) and the means to make them). Whereas with physicalist theories there is not (there is nothing that knows how the brain is configured). The theist theorists can therefore explain how it is that my form can express that the person experiencing having it is infallible when it comes to the statement that "reality is not one in which none experience", for example. ]
---

Is just a question of what available theories are compatible with us reacting to our experience. There is no question begging. It just happens that only theories where deities exist are.

You start going into the old version of the second argument and there seems little point, since I already admit that I worded it wrong, and I had not realised. I guess I started out ok in (1) but got sloppy.

But there was one point that I thought I would address.

You wrote:
---
"2) No reaction to my experience is objectively observed."

I don't agree, unless I've misunderstood you, I'd say can objectively observe our experience of reality. It's what science does and what it is for, the systematic study and observation of the physical natural world and universe.
---

Well consider a robot that passes the Turing Test is it experiencing? How could you tell if you would expect that build of robot to behave the same even if it was not?

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 15:35

(Reply to #175) #176

Sheldon

"Well then state one piece"

You want evidence that the universe exists? I'm not wasting time on those sort of games sorry.

"explain why the theory that God exists, the physical doesn't, and that you are being given this experience by design could not equally explain it."

A lack of objective evidence is why, as I have said from the start.

"There is no question begging. There is no begging you to accept a certain proposition. Both arguments just compare different theories."

Begging the question is a fallacy in informal logic where the thing you are arguing for is assumed in the argument, as you did when in you argument for a design you included claims about that designer and what it can do.

"So it is just a case of comparing theories,"

Atheism is not a contrary theory to theism. This again is using argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy to reverse the burden of proof. I explained this from the start. A claim or argument cannot be asserted as valid because of a lack of contrary arguments or explanations, this is also known as a "god of the gaps" argument.

"There is no question begging. "

You have use a begging the question fallacy again here it is...in your argument for a deity designer you make assumptions for that designer deity. I'll paraphrase...a designer exists and you claim the evidence is our experience is fine tuned, then assert only a deity would know etc etc. That is a begging question fallacy because you have assumed the very thing you're arguing for in your argument.

I don't see the relevance of your robot analogy sorry. It is an objective fact that we are conscious beings, and that modern scientific empiricism can observe and test that reality to expand our OBJECTIVE knowledge of it.

Compare the successes of a few hundred years of empirical science in terms of what it has objectively learned, to the stultifying nonsense thousands of years of religion has produced, magic apples, talking snakes, virgin births, flying horses, geocentric universes etc etc.

Well another early start for me, so I'm out for now.

Sun, 07/08/2018 - 16:11

(Reply to #176) #177

Someone

@ Sheldon

You wrote:
---
"Well then state one piece"

You want evidence that the universe exists? I'm not wasting time on those sort of games sorry.
---

Are you claiming that you can provide evidence for what you claim is a fact, or is it that you cannot? You presumably know which way it is.

Given what I read when I first arrived on this forum, it seemed that people (well at least one person) respected you. Are you brave enough to provide honesty to yourself and them/him/her?

You wrote:
---
"explain why the theory that God exists, the physical doesn't, and that you are being given this experience by design could not equally explain it."

A lack of objective evidence is why, as I have said from the start.
---

So are you saying that when considering two theories, your's where a physical universe exists, and another where it doesn't, you cannot provide evidence why your theory is correct, because there is no objective evidence to prove that the other theory is correct?

Seriously do you have so much contempt for the atheists on here that you think they will go "Duh, that makes sense!"

Your theory, the one that a physical universe exists, lacks any evidence to support it. It is just a theory, and I have supplied an alternative theory. Sure you can say that you don't believe in the theory that I supplied because you do not believe it has objective evidence to support it, but unless you are a hypocrite why do you believe in the theory that you supplied because it doesn't either. There are lot's of scientific theories that don't have objective theories that place them over others. "Spooky action at a distance" for example is one that arguably doesn't have objective evidence for it. There is the multi-worlds interpretation given by Everett (different from the "multiverse" answer to the fine tuning of the physical constants) for example. Einstein (as I understand it) felt sure that there would not be spooky action at a distance in a physical universe. But apparently it seems to exist in the universe we are experiencing (at least in the sense that the experimental result was different from what Einstein presumably thought it would be). Spooky.

The point is you were being asked to supply a piece of evidence that shows that your theory is correct but not another. But I assume you weren't able to, because I assume if you were you would have done so. You have no more objective reason to believe that a physical universe exists than you have to believe that God exists, the physical doesn't, and that you are being given this experience by design.

If you were indoctrinated, I'm not saying you were, but if you were, then I think you owe it to yourself to at least realise that. Personally it seems as though I am talking to some kind of cult member that is starting to freak out as they realise that the castles they built were on clouds of their imagination.

You wrote:
---
"So it is just a case of comparing theories,"

I never said it was. I was not discussing atheism. I was discussing theism and physicalism. And they are contrary (well at least the types of theism that I am interested in are). I thought that the god of the gaps argument was a claim that appeared when there was no claimed cause within physicalist theories. That the claim was then that it was God that was the cause. I thought that stopped when the physicalists admitted that they had got to a position where they could tell there could be no known cause within physicalist theories. That instead they decided to abandon the scientific idea of there being a cause behind an effect in favour of accepting randomness. I guess then with the fine tuning of the physics constants the idea of them being variable random values should be taken into account. I assume the physicalists consider that it is lucky for us that not one of those physical constants randomly fluctuate. I assume you claim that is because of some multiverse thing, or perhaps you claim that it just happened to be fine tuned that way it is for some reason unknown to yourself. Bizarre that the way it worked out, especially with the experience, is that it just happened to be suitable for making moral choices based on what we experience and not fluctuations of some smell every time a neuron fired. And there we are back to the first argument that you never paraphrased.

You wrote:
---
"There is no question begging. "

You don't seem to be able to comprehend something I thought was quite simple. It is like the Cubicle 1 or Cubicle 2 example. Sure they both state different things, but it is not question begging which you chose. It is not question begging to have a different theory. People can have different theories. It is question begging if they ask you to accept their theory as correct (as you do about the physical universe existing) when that is a question under discussion. The arguments like in the Cubicle 1 and Cubicle 2 allow different "theories", there is no theory FORBIDDEN to think. It is just that the theories are then evaluated. Argument 1 -> Fine Tuning, Argument 2 -> Compatible with the evidence.

You write:
---
I don't see the relevance of your robot analogy sorry. It is an objective fact that we are conscious beings, and that modern scientific empiricism can observe and test that reality to expand our OBJECTIVE knowledge of it.
---
Well perhaps try answering the questions. As you attempt to do so, you might think about things that never crossed your mind before. Avoiding thinking about them, and avoiding answering would I think indicate that you are an intellectual coward. But if you are then that is a choice. I would advice you not to be, and to instead: Consider a robot that passes the Turing Test is it experiencing? How could you tell if you would expect that build of robot to behave the same even if it was not? Be brave! I have faith that it is possible for you to be so!

You wrote:
---
Compare the successes of a few hundred years of empirical science in terms of what it has objectively learned, to the stultifying nonsense thousands of years of religion has produced, magic apples, talking snakes, virgin births, flying horses, geocentric universes etc etc.
---
I am not against rigorous logical enquiry, or inductive inference, or objective bayesian inference, or the scientific method. And after years of it, you have no evidence of a material universe.

Mon, 07/09/2018 - 10:06

(Reply to #177) #178

Sheldon

Someone "Are you claiming

Someone "Are you claiming that you can provide evidence for what you claim is a fact, or is it that you cannot? You presumably know which way it is."

Already asked and already answered, several times. It wouldn't be an objective fact without objective evidence.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
(I don't care how you or anyone else perceives my intellect, it's a pointless red herring, move on)

Someone "So are you saying that when considering two theories, your's where a physical universe exists, and another where it doesn't, you cannot provide evidence why your theory is correct, because there is no objective evidence to prove that the other theory is correct?"

No, and I've offered no theory, just pointed to an objective fact. It never occurred to me that you were delusional enough to deny the universe existed, I stand corrected.

"I thought that the god of the gaps argument was a claim that appeared when there was no claimed cause within physicalist theories. "

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

"That the claim was then that it was God that was the cause. I thought that stopped when the physicalists admitted that they had got to a position where they could tell there could be no known cause within physicalist theories. "

Even if there is ABSOLUTELY NO explanation for the existence of the universe it doesn't validate your claims, and that is a textbook example of Argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy again.

"That instead they decided to abandon the scientific idea of there being a cause behind an effect in favour of accepting randomness."

The law of cause and effect only applies to material natural phenomena, unless you know something science doesn't, and can demonstrate objective evidence for a supernatural cause or effect, can you? Or do you deny material causes and effects, in fact how can you use the law of cause and effect whilst simultaneously denying a material universe exists?

" I guess then with the fine tuning of the physics constants "

I don't understand sorry, you deny a material universe exists, but think the scientific explanations for it do? This is getting more and more bizarre. That rather bizarre contradiction not withstanding I don't see how anyone can claim the universe is fine tuned with only 1 example in their test group.

"You don't seem to be able to comprehend something I thought was quite simple. "

Nice dodge, but you used a begging the question fallacy even if you lack the integrity to admit it. Here it is again....

".in your argument for a deity designer you make assumptions for that designer deity. I'll paraphrase...a designer exists and you claim the evidence is our experience is fine tuned, then assert only a deity would know etc etc. That is a begging question fallacy because you have assumed the very thing you're arguing for in your argument."

"Well perhaps try answering the questions."

Hilarious fair play, I'll resist the urge to indulge in tit for tat ad hominem.

"I am not against rigorous logical enquiry"

Yet you are happy to deny science, and the validity of objective evidence, to use informal logical fallacies, deny you have used them in what can only be described as a very dishonest fashion, and best of all deny reality itself by claiming the universe doesn't exist? I think you may not be as rigorous as you think with your enquiry and you don't come across as remotely objective to me.

So do you believe anything material exists? Or do things like natural phenomena exist in some kind of limbo with no material universe for them to exist in?

Do you accept scientific facts like gravity and evolution? If so is anything material involved? So when someone's brain dies and their consciousness disappears with it, are you denying there is any connection? Or is neither the brain nor the consciousness material? It's just a coincidence then that material damage to a brain can stop it working?

Weird. Tell me if the universe does't exist what exactly are you claiming was designed? Also why does the scientific world think the universe exists, I mean where have they gone wrong, but you have gone right here?

Mon, 07/09/2018 - 15:02

(Reply to #178) #179

Someone

@ Sheldon

You write:
----
Do you accept scientific facts like gravity and evolution? If so is anything material involved? So when someone's brain dies and their consciousness disappears with it, are you denying there is any connection? Or is neither the brain nor the consciousness material? It's just a coincidence then that material damage to a brain can stop it working?
---

I do not accept there is a physical universe. I assume that there is a model of the universe in the mind of God and that there are rules regarding how that model evolves. My form and yours would be within that model, and the experience we are given is appropriate for neural state of the forms in the model our respective experiences relate to. So change their neural state and what we will be given as an experience will change. Be given no experience, and we wouldn't even realise we existed. So any "room in Heaven" would be pretty much the same idea as in it is simply us being given an experience of it, though obviously some might not have forms, if there were forms the rules would presumably be different etc. So what in this room is designed is the rules by which the model evolves, and the experience that we would receive given the neural states of the forms we experience being. It could have been a flash of light every time a neuron fired, but that wouldn't really have been fit for the purpose of us being able to make moral choices in an unbiased room (which I assume is unlike rooms in Heaven, in which it would not even cross your mind to leave the loving selfless path) based on the experience. The idea that we have free will and can freely react to the experience is potentially scientifically falsifiable. Some seem to have mistakenly thought experiments such as the Libet experiments had done so, or thought that the Theory of Relativity had.

You wrote:
----
Someone "Are you claiming that you can provide evidence for what you claim is a fact, or is it that you cannot? You presumably know which way it is."

Already asked and already answered, several times. It wouldn't be an objective fact without objective evidence.
----

You have repeatedly asked to provide just one piece of evidence for the existence of a physical universe. And you haven't been able to provide one piece that the theory that God exists, the physical doesn't couldn't equally explain. You have also stated that if there is no objective evidence for a theory then you would not claim it to be a fact. So if you know you haven't one piece of evidence for the existence of a physical universe, then cease stating it is a fact. Conversely if you think you have a piece of evidence then provide it.

You also did not answer how you could tell whether a robot that passed the Turing Test was experiencing.

Regarding the arguments you wrote:
----
"You don't seem to be able to comprehend something I thought was quite simple. "

Nice dodge, but you used a begging the question fallacy even if you lack the integrity to admit it. Here it is again....

As I pointed out you seem to be having a problem understanding something simple. Both arguments (the first, and the reworded second) are about comparing theories. Theist theories and physicalist theories. Yes the theist theories are theories involving the existence of deities, but the physicalist ones aren't. It is not assumed that the theist theories are correct, so there is no question begging that they are as you seem to suggest. The first argument uses a fine tuning argument to argue that the evidence favours the theist theories. The second argument examines the compatibility of the theist theories and physicalist theories with the evidence, and points out that none of the physicalist theories are compatible. So the favouring of the theist theories is done by argument. There is no assuming the conclusion, and no question begging. Also neither argument concludes that it is not possible that physicalism could be correct, as neither perform an argument from ignorance such as arguing that because we lack physicalist theories which would change the evaluation, that physicalism *must* be false. They are just evaluations of where the evidence currently points to with respect to theist and physicalist theories.

I had pretty much explained that following on from the comment you chose to quote:
----
You don't seem to be able to comprehend something I thought was quite simple. It is like the Cubicle 1 or Cubicle 2 example. Sure they both state different things, but it is not question begging which you chose. It is not question begging to have a different theory. People can have different theories. It is question begging if they ask you to accept their theory as correct (as you do about the physical universe existing) when that is a question under discussion. The arguments like in the Cubicle 1 and Cubicle 2 allow different "theories", there is no theory FORBIDDEN to think. It is just that the theories are then evaluated. Argument 1 -> Fine Tuning, Argument 2 -> Compatible with the evidence.
----
Hopefully with the further explanation given above you will be able to understand it, and stop making strawman arguments.

You have still not paraphrased either argument. Is it that if you do it wrong, I can point out that you have done it incorrectly and your accusations of problems were done against strawman arguments, whereas if you do it right you can not longer make the claims of the problems that you have been making? If not, could you explain to the readers why you continue to avoid paraphrasing them?

Tue, 07/10/2018 - 00:08

(Reply to #179) #180

Sheldon

"I do not accept there is a

"I do not accept there is a physical universe. I **assume that there is a model of the universe in the mind of God and that there are rules regarding how that model evolves. "

Now we get to the truth of it. After weeks of vague claims for evidence, and ad hominem attacks at me for not being intelligent to understand the esoteric "evidence" you claimed in your title, we see you not only deny reality entirely, but hold a delusional belief based on pure assumption.

It took a while but we're now done. Since I have no desire to wade through fantasies based on assumption that deny reality totally, whilst you pretend that you are applying intellectual rigour, and scrutiny applying the strict principles of logic, and even science talking about cause and effect and the big bang theory when you secretly were denying everything the scientific method is based on.

Another grandiose claim for theistic evidence ends in an irony overload.

"the theory that God exists, the physical doesn't couldn't equally explain. "

There is no theory, it's based on assumption as you have now finally admitted. This is also yet another use of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy. No opposing theory, argument or evidence need exist and this wouldn't validate your assumption we're living inside the noggin of a deity. The fact you keep using this fallacy says it all really.

"explain to the readers"

I think most of the posters on here are amply capable of understanding what's been said and why. Though it's sad you think they're still reading this thread. Go back to the initial exchanges and measure their reaction to your bizarre verbiage. Most posters gave up on you after a day or two.

Do you find your ideas widely accepted elsewhere then? I'd be a little surprised at that even given the fact most humans still hang on to ancient superstions. Not that it matters either way. Ideas are not validated by numbers, that's an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Tue, 07/10/2018 - 05:20

(Reply to #180) #181

Someone

@ Sheldon

You wrote:
---
"I do not accept there is a physical universe. I **assume that there is a model of the universe in the mind of God and that there are rules regarding how that model evolves. "

I do not deny reality, I just disagree with you about what reality is. You have claimed that your belief that reality contains a material universe is an objective fact, and that you would not claim it to be so unless you have objective evidence for it being so. But you have no objective evidence for it being so, and you know that (which is why when you have been repeatedly asked to provide one piece of evidence to back your claim up you repeatedly fail to do so). So you are a liar. You do claim things are objective facts even when you have no objective (or subjective) evidence to even support those claims let alone prove them.

What I believe about reality has nothing to do with the arguments. It isn't mentioned in the arguments. In the post you were replying to I explained how the arguments worked when I wrote:
----
Both arguments (the first, and the reworded second) are about comparing theories. Theist theories and physicalist theories. Yes the theist theories are theories involving the existence of deities, but the physicalist ones aren't. It is not assumed that the theist theories are correct, so there is no question begging that they are as you seem to suggest. The first argument uses a fine tuning argument to argue that the evidence favours the theist theories. The second argument examines the compatibility of the theist theories and physicalist theories with the evidence, and points out that none of the physicalist theories are compatible. So the favouring of the theist theories is done by argument. There is no assuming the conclusion, and no question begging. Also neither argument concludes that it is not possible that physicalism could be correct, as neither perform an argument from ignorance such as arguing that because we lack physicalist theories which would change the evaluation, that physicalism *must* be false. They are just evaluations of where the evidence currently points to with respect to theist and physicalist theories.
----

And you knew that, so you were seemingly trying to deceive the readers when you suggested that the arguments were based on my theist belief.

It seems that responses like your's are the best the atheists on this forum have to offer, because none of the readers seem to be stepping in because they think they could do any better.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.

You are here

Pages