atheists weapon revisited: pink unicorn

[Silmarien]

I don't see how "faith" can ever lead to actual knowledge. It misses everything that is required to turn a mere idea into "knowledge".

Faith in the intelligibility of reality and the human mind's ability to grasp it has led to a great deal of actual knowledge. All of science has been a leap of faith towards the idea that the universe is knowable, and it seems to have borne a great deal of fruit. But at the end of the day we can't know how intelligible reality is nor how equipped our minds are to understand it. Faith is required.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Faith in the intelligibility of reality and the human mind's ability to grasp it has led to a great deal of actual knowledge. All of science has been a leap of faith towards the idea that the universe is knowable, and it seems to have borne a great deal of fruit. But at the end of the day we can't know how intelligible reality is nor how equipped our minds are to understand it. Faith is required.

That's not at all the same thing.
The assumption that reality is actually real and consistent enough to learn about it, is not at all the same thing as appealing to faith to decide upon an explanation of that reality.

Moreover, the assumption that the universe is real and that we can learn about it, is not "blind faith"- it is based on empirical observation and experience.

 

[Silmarien]

That's not at all the same thing.
The assumption that reality is actually real and consistent enough to learn about it, is not at all the same thing as appealing to faith to decide upon an explanation of that reality.

Moreover, the assumption that the universe is real and that we can learn about it, is not "blind faith"- it is based on empirical observation and experience.

It wasn't 2600 years ago when Thales of Miletus burst onto the scene and started trying to search for rational explanations for the workings of nature. He was wrong about pretty much everything, but in a culture where everything was attributed to the whimsies of the gods, that was a pretty radical leap of faith to the idea that rational explanations were even possible.

That leap of faith is still necessary (even though faith in science is as solid for us now as religious faith was 1000 years ago), given that current observations in physics might suggest that the universe is not intelligible and that we can't ultimately make sense of it. Resisting that conclusion is in part an act of faith, whether people are willing to admit it or not. (Contrast this to the people who've decided that truth is irrelevant and all that we should concern ourselves with is science's ability to provide technological advances. I doubt that approach is going to be producing any Einsteins.)

I'm not saying that the faith required to engage in scientific research and religious faith are exactly the same thing, because they're not, but you're throwing the concept of faith under the bus entirely. We should be distinguishing between faith and belief, because they're not the same thing. A deist need not have any faith, whereas an atheistic physicist certainly should. Sometimes enough that they brush up against a form of pantheism, so this stuff is much more complicated than you're allowing for.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

It is the dispute with UPU follower, together with math-proof for God:
EvC Forum: The roots of Creation Science and Darwinism
QUOTE:​

- How do you know the God isn't a pink, universal unicorn?

- Tell me more about your idol called "pink unicorn". Is it omnipresent idol? If yes, then why I can not see it in my home?

- Yes, it is sometimes omnipresent. Before you can see Him, you have to believe in Him.

- Do you believe in pink unicorn? Is it your idol? If it is your idol, then why it is not your God? If you do not believe in pink unicorn, then latter is debunked now. If unicorn is omnipresent, then it has no body: thus, no corn. So, unicorn is debunked.

- I am not unicorn believer.

- If you are not believer in pink unicorn, then latter is debunked. I am believer in Jesus Christ. But you have pretended to be believer in pink unicorn. Is it your idol?

- My non-belief in the Universal Pink Unicorn has no effect on its existence or otherwise.

- I am not believer in pink unicorn, and you are not. Then I have won this religious debate about pink unicorn. You have defended the pink unicorn, knowing for yourself, that it does not exist.

- I don't believe in the unicorn; but I don't know that it doesn't exist. And neither do you.

- Then you do say, that it is very likely, that pink unicorn, Barak Obama, the speaking head of Newton, and red dragon are under your bed now? Perhaps somebody needs some medicine?

- O.K. I am stupid, but do you have any evidence that any Spirits exist?

- How the Universe begun? "Michio Kaku - The Universe Shouldn't Exist", "by rights we should not be here,.... it is so frustrating, you wonna tear your hairs up":

- Sorry but again, that is not evidence. Even if we should not be here were true it is not evidence of any Spiritual thing or power.
Sorry, you really sound like a nice kid, but you need to learn some basics.

- You sound like: "Perhaps you are not adequate, your logic is false, imperfect. You need to learn basics." Empty words. Just empty words. In fact there are two Gods among the people: Existing God, and Non-existing god. The Non-existing god is idol, thus it does not exist. It exists only as the main psychic problem of humankind. But because the world is bi-polar, the conflicts, lies and wars are here.
Why the pink unicorn does very likely live under your bed? Because it is Non-existing god, which has many names, including "satan".

IPU (FSM, Tooth Fairy, Santa, Zeus, etc.) is a bait and switch tactic, as if there were empirical MSS evidence, Special Revelation to support an IPU. It is a philosophical sight of hand, often used as diversion for playing burden of proof games.

 

[DogmaHunter]

IPU (FSM, Tooth Fairy, Santa, Zeus, etc.) is a bait and switch tactic, as if there were empirical MSS evidence, Special Revelation to support an IPU. It is a philosophical sight of hand, often used as diversion for playing burden of proof games.

1. the burden of proof, is not a game. It's serious business in case you make claims and expect others to accept those claims

2. it's not a diversion. It is an illustration, to demonstrate why the burden of proof matters. Mythical creatures, like unicorns and leprachauns, are oftenly used for the simple reason that all of us, or most at least, will usually agree that it is not justified to believe that these exist. And the reason it is not justified is because….-drumroll-... those claims haven't met their burden of proof...

 

[devolved]

1. the burden of proof, is not a game. It's serious business in case you make claims and expect others to accept those claims

Well, it only works if our baseline presuppositions are in agreement. When you invoke a burden of proof as a demand to justify a baseline presupposition... such demand doesn't make much sense.

I can then ask, for proof for burden of proof concept, and you'll have to admit that you are invoking it circularly without the need to support it.

All things in existence meet the burden of proof. Why is burden of proof a valid argument, well because it helps us to prove things that exist.

it's not a diversion. It is an illustration, to demonstrate why the burden of proof matters. Mythical creatures, like unicorns and leprachauns, are oftenly used for the simple reason that all of us, or most at least, will usually agree that it is not justified to believe that these exist. And the reason it is not justified is because….-drumroll-... those claims haven't met their burden of proof...

Well, it doesn't work like that, mainly because few people are actually making claims that these magical entities are real, because there are no good reasons to make these claims.

A step up would be alien visitation and abduction claims. It's not that we don't plausibly conclude that there may be some technologically advanced entities that made it to our planet either from other sedimentation or from the past, or from other planets. Believing in these stories don't add any pragmatic meaning to our lives... generally speaking.

Of course there are plenty of researchers who would draw meaning from investigating that phenomenon, but it's not something that we are too concerned about in context of metaphysical meaning.

When we pose God, we are posing the baseline axiom here in context of reasons for order and balance that allow for intelligent life to exist in intelligible reality, and not a mere some arbitrary entity that can do magic.

 

[Apologetic_Warrior]

1. the burden of proof, is not a game. It's serious business in case you make claims and expect others to accept those claims

2. it's not a diversion. It is an illustration, to demonstrate why the burden of proof matters. Mythical creatures, like unicorns and leprachauns, are oftenly used for the simple reason that all of us, or most at least, will usually agree that it is not justified to believe that these exist. And the reason it is not justified is because….-drumroll-... those claims haven't met their burden of proof...

And when we provide a proof, the next charge is circular reasoning, but as it turns out, we all have to engage in it on one level or another. The question then becomes is it properly basic? So, the burden of proof is a game when one debatee continually attempts to shift the burden where none has been assumed, or where it has been accepted and proof provided but is ignored or another tactic is used in the attempt to for the debatee to stay on the offence, even though the other person provided a proof. The proof of a proof is not in whether the other person accepts a proof, surely you would agree from your perspective evolutionists providing "proofs" that creationists will not accept regardless. Are the evolutionists therefore not providing "proofs"? Sure, they are just not accepted, at least not completely by Creationists.

 

[Hawkins]

Are there any other kinds of faith besides blind faith? If no, the theists do not know their God.

Yes, of course. Perhaps without your own awareness, faith is a fundamental way for humans to get to a truth of any kind.

The fundamental difference between God and a unicorn is that,

1)
God is a result of human testimonies while a unicorn is the lack of human testimonies. Those claimed eyewitnesses are as faithful to the extent that they chose to martyr themselves in order for their testimonies to stand a truth.

2)
A unicorn is a passive being lacking the ability to hide from the discovery of humans. God on the other hand has all the ability to hide from the reach of humans, as long as He has a good reason to hide behind. Comparing God to a unicorn in this case is completely apples and oranges.

Modern secular education delivers a false impression that humans have to rely on evidence or proof to confirm a truth. That's simply not how this reality operates. Humans rather choose to put faith in a "middle man" as a witness to reach a truth of any kind (there are multiple kinds of truth of which science is just a very narrow one).

That said. Even science has to employ faith in witnessing to propagate and convey. That's why you (99.99% humans) know for a fact that black holes exist or even earth is revolving around the sun, but without direct evidence presented. Instead they trust with faith that our scientists (as the middle man or witness) know better and won't be mistaken.

This is science, while not every single truth is a science. Science is about a very specific kind of truth which ties to a repeatable phenomenon. You watch TV for daily events happening around this world, which are not repeatable. Science is basically futile about the past, while human history (not repeatable) is basically composed of human accounts of testimonies. History is yet another kind of truth besides science and our world's daily event. We put faith in what have been written down by historians to get to what could possibly happen in the past, without proof that is.

What left is yet another kind or category of truth. It's not science, not world's daily occurrence, not past history. It is future events possibly lying ahead. It's completely out of human capability to reach this kind of truth. Maybe it's without your awareness, humans are creatures of the present. Humans have basically no ability to reach past events and future events, or events happening outside our time-space. It is because our science is all experiment based.

Science stands firm provided that we physically go there to repeatedly confirm an existence by experimenting. Humans however can't go back to the past, nor can they go to the future or another space to establish repeatable experiments. Humans thus basically lack the ability to confirm events or existence in those environments (i.e., past, future and another time-space).

The only way humans can possibly get to know a future event is under the circumstance that a God exists to tell the "middle man" as a witness and for the rest of human majority to believe with faith. This is the same way how humans majority get to a scientific truth, our history and our daily events.

This makes a difference between faith in witnessing and a blind faith!

 

[Freodin]

It is the dispute with UPU follower, together with math-proof for God:
EvC Forum: The roots of Creation Science and Darwinism
QUOTE:​

- How do you know the God isn't a pink, universal unicorn?
[...snip the rest...]

Hm... that sounded fishy from the start. Most people who have engaged in apologetic discussions, or debates about the concept of "burden of proof" in a theological context would have know that it is an INVISIBLE pink unicorn (BBHHH). Nowhere in this context a "universal pink unicorn" has ever been mentioned... or would even make sense.

And then we have a QUOTED conversation with a "UPU follower".


But the problem is: this conversation does not exist in the given link. There is no mention of "unicorns" at all.

The OP made it up, as he made up his "math-proof for God". He sees absolutely no problems inventing stuff to make his point, misrepresenting other people and lying about the positions that other people really hold.

And he has the gall to tag this thread with "atheism is dishonest".

 

[DogmaHunter]

And when we provide a proof, the next charge is circular reasoning,

That would entirely depend on what it is that you are offering.
If, for example, you are using the bible to prove the bible, then yes that would be circular.

but as it turns out, we all have to engage in it on one level or another.

We do?

The question then becomes is it properly basic? So, the burden of proof is a game when one debatee continually attempts to shift the burden where none has been assumed, or where it has been accepted and proof provided but is ignored or another tactic is used in the attempt to for the debatee to stay on the offence, even though the other person provided a proof.

If the proof being offered isn't valid for some reason, then it needs to be pointed out.
And if it idd isn't valid for some reason, then the burden of proof hasn't been met and you find yourself right back where you started out.

I don't see the problem. I get that some find it annoying to have their arguments destroyed. But hey... not my problem.

The proof of a proof is not in whether the other person accepts a proof, surely you would agree from your perspective evolutionists providing "proofs" that creationists will not accept regardless. Are the evolutionists therefore not providing "proofs"? Sure, they are just not accepted, at least not completely by Creationists.

The offered evidence can be invalid.
What can also be invalid is the recepient's understanding of said evidence.

In my experience, creationists dismiss scientific evidence of evolution for reasons like "my bible says otherwise and my bible always wins" or their knowledge of evolution / biology is incredibly lacking that they simply don't understand the evidence.

It goes both ways off course.

And in the end, it is the argument and its merrit that has the last word.