Cows don't exist (a game).

[Assyrian]

who said that?

 

[Hespera]

I love these kind of discussions because they prove themselves irrelevant.

If the point is that one can't prove that cows exist then how could you prove the desk my computer sits on exists? Or even that I exist?

Well, that's a great use of time! If I can't prove to you that these things in front of me exist, how likely is it that I'd be able to bothering trying to convince you that God who is not manifested in physical form or quantifiable data, exists?


So yes, there are no cows, there is no internet, I don't exist. Now let's move on to useful conversation maybe?

Did you know that atheists would change their tune on this and a lot of things if your god would just speak up in a clear voice, instead of relying on a story about a piece of wool getting wet a few thousand years ago? i mean really.

 

[chris4243]

If the point is that one can't prove that cows exist then how could you prove the desk my computer sits on exists? Or even that I exist?

There's lots of points that could be made from this:
1) There is no such thing as indisputable proof, for anything that is not a tautology.
2) You won't be able to convince someone who does not want to be convinced, especially if they question your evidence or claim global conspiracy.
3) Sometimes, refusal to accept a belief could be seen as ridiculous, illogical, and/or stupid. Pertinent beliefs that many people don't accept might be "there is a god", "there is no evidence of a god", "evolution happened", "a global flood happened". If someone believes one of these odds are you won't be able to change their mind no matter how stupid you consider their position to be or how much evidence you assemble.
4) At some point, we all have to have faith in something, otherwise you won't be sure of anything (such as that cows exist). Even "I gotta see it to believe it" requires faith since you could be hallucinating or tricked. Alternately, you could acknowledge that you aren't sure of anything.

 

[Hespera]

There's lots of points that could be made from this:
1) There is no such thing as indisputable proof, for anything that is not a tautology.
2) You won't be able to convince someone who does not want to be convinced, especially if they question your evidence or claim global conspiracy.
3) Sometimes, refusal to accept a belief could be seen as ridiculous, illogical, and/or stupid. Pertinent beliefs that many people don't accept might be "there is a god", "there is no evidence of a god", "evolution happened", "a global flood happened". If someone believes one of these odds are you won't be able to change their mind no matter how stupid you consider their position to be or how much evidence you assemble.
4) At some point, we all have to have faith in something, otherwise you won't be sure of anything (such as that cows exist). Even "I gotta see it to believe it" requires faith since you could be hallucinating or tricked. Alternately, you could acknowledge that you aren't sure of anything.

1) There is no such thing as indisputable proof,


would be if "god" would care to speak up

2) You won't be able to convince someone who does not want to be convinced, especially if they question your evidence or claim global conspiracy.

ive really been surprised how many creationists really think that all them scientists are in on a conspiracy

4) At some point, we all have to have faith in something

true dat. i believe that the light will come on when i flip the switch.
i have a lot of that kind of faith. None in the invisible undetectable tho, surely not of a sort that would plunge me into total existential despair if i entertained even the possibility that it might be false.

 

[keith99]

I am a professed cowist. I have seen cows. I have touched cows. I have been chased down a hill by a herd of cows. That was so scary.

Does that make you a COWard?

 

[keith99]

Come visit me in CA, there are more dairies than you can shake a stick at. I can take you to dairy in about 15 min from my house. You can milk a cow if you'd like. I can show you the incredible amounts of manure they produce. Then I can introduce you to one of the farmers that grows hay to feed the dairy cows. Lastly, I can take you to any number of grocery stores and buy a 16 oz. New York cut to throw on the BBQ.
If that's not enough, then nothing is.

You near Fresno? Or a bit East of San Francisco? I remember driving through both areas where the aroma of cows was everpresent for what seemed like hours (and may actually have toped the hour mark). I can still identify where local dairy used to be. I'm sure Pierce College still has cows (and we could sneek in at night and check that they are not robots).

And in my early teens I spent a fair amount of time one summer in Pony Montans on a small farm where the cows were milked by hand each morning. Oh and I milked one (poorly).

I was a bit of a rebel erlier in life, so I'll be happy to take ony cow disbeliever on a raid of Pierce or let them go ti alone if they do not tryuse me!

 

[hollyda]

I'm allergic to cows, robot or otherwise.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There's lots of points that could be made from this:
1) There is no such thing as indisputable proof, for anything that is not a tautology.

Is mathematics ultimately tautologous?

2) You won't be able to convince someone who does not want to be convinced, especially if they question your evidence or claim global conspiracy.

Questioning evidence is fine and dandy, it's the stubborn refusal to accept perfectly valid evidence for the sheer fact that it would disprove your beliefs, that's the problem.

3) Sometimes, refusal to accept a belief could be seen as ridiculous, illogical, and/or stupid. Pertinent beliefs that many people don't accept might be "there is a god", "there is no evidence of a god", "evolution happened", "a global flood happened". If someone believes one of these odds are you won't be able to change their mind no matter how stupid you consider their position to be or how much evidence you assemble.

Are you saying those four claims are examples of "ridiculous, illogical, and/or stupid" beliefs, immune to rational or empirical rebuttal?

4) At some point, we all have to have faith in something, otherwise you won't be sure of anything (such as that cows exist). Even "I gotta see it to believe it" requires faith since you could be hallucinating or tricked. Alternately, you could acknowledge that you aren't sure of anything.

Which is the logical and scientific point of view - broadly speaking, we really aren't sure of anything. That's why science accrues evidence to support its hypotheses and theories, and doesn't go out to prove them.

One can axiomatically assume X, Y, and Z is true, and deduce things with absolute certainty from there, but as you say, this is faith - and why on Earth would we want that?

 

[chris4243]

Is mathematics ultimately tautologous?

Yes! Formal math is done axiomatically, and it is all of the form if [things equivalent to A] then A.

Are you saying those four claims are examples of "ridiculous, illogical, and/or stupid" beliefs, immune to rational or empirical rebuttal?

They're examples of beliefs. What people do with beliefs is a different story.

Which is the logical and scientific point of view - broadly speaking, we really aren't sure of anything. That's why science accrues evidence to support its hypotheses and theories, and doesn't go out to prove them.

One can axiomatically assume X, Y, and Z is true, and deduce things with absolute certainty from there, but as you say, this is faith - and why on Earth would we want that?

But science still needs axioms, if only really reasonable ones such as that the universe is objective and consistent. They may not be formally stated axioms, but think of what the implicit requirements are for the scientific method to work.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Yes! Formal math is done axiomatically, and it is all of the form if [things equivalent to A] then A.

Mathematics is more than syllogisms, though, and even they aren't all tautologous.

They're examples of beliefs. What people do with beliefs is a different story.

Nonetheless, are you saying that, for instance, belief in evolution is done without regard to the evidence?

But science still needs axioms, if only really reasonable ones such as that the universe is objective and consistent. They may not be formally stated axioms, but think of what the implicit requirements are for the scientific method to work.

The scientific method makes assumptions in order to work, sure, but they aren't based on faith - we have very good reasons for assuming various things about the universe. The core 'axioms' of science are just higher-level examples of empirical observations. Some might consider the conservation of energy as an axiom of science, but even it is ultimately empirical.

 

[EphesiaNZ]

Wow, a simple thread about cows existing (or not) turns into a rather deep academic debate with big words like tautologous, axiomatically and syllogisms. It's all getting a bit existentialistic-ally deep for me.

Oh, that was a big word too...

 

[chris4243]

Mathematics is more than syllogisms, though, and even they aren't all tautologous.

Could you give an example?

Nonetheless, are you saying that, for instance, belief in evolution is done without regard to the evidence?

Everyone has already talked to the death about the beliefs themselves. I was actually talking about the failure to accept beliefs (especially when people really think you should accept the belief to be reasonable, eg cows). The same metacognitive things will be true regardless of whether the belief is "true" or not.

The scientific method makes assumptions in order to work, sure, but they aren't based on faith - we have very good reasons for assuming various things about the universe. The core 'axioms' of science are just higher-level examples of empirical observations. Some might consider the conservation of energy as an axiom of science, but even it is ultimately empirical.

Sure, but it is a circular argument just like everyone else's. Have you seen a Christian try to justify their faith in the Bible by referencing the Bible? That's what you're trying to do with your faith in science. How do you propose conducting these so-called "empirical observations" if the person you are trying to convince does not accept the universe as objective and repeatable?

As you said, the scientific method makes assumptions in order to work, but they're not based on faith -- they're based on the scientific method!

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Could you give an example?

The derivation of Euler's identity isn't a conclusion derived from two a priori premises, it's derived from a number of disparate sources. Neither is it tautologous, since it is not necessarily true for all values of its variables.

Everyone has already talked to the death about the beliefs themselves. I was actually talking about the failure to accept beliefs (especially when people really think you should accept the belief to be reasonable, eg cows). The same metacognitive things will be true regardless of whether the belief is "true" or not.

Sure, but it is a circular argument just like everyone else's. Have you seen a Christian try to justify their faith in the Bible by referencing the Bible? That's what you're trying to do with your faith in science. How do you propose conducting these so-called "empirical observations" if the person you are trying to convince does not accept the universe as objective and repeatable?

As you said, the scientific method makes assumptions in order to work, but they're not based on faith -- they're based on the scientific method!

The assumptions of science aren't based on science, they're based on logic, which is itself built upon self-evident propositions. Occam's Razor is logical and is a stone in the scientific method, but is itself not derived wholesale from the method. Rather, it's derived from logic and mathematics. The notion that the most well-evidenced explanation is the most probable one is rooted in the same logic as Occam's Razor.

Moreover, the sheer fact that science works means that we can implicitly trust it without having to make any leap of faith - it has already justified itself and its central premises.

This is different to the (rather rare) instance of a Christian justifying the Bible with the Bible.

 

[Cabal]

The assumptions of science aren't based on science, they're based on logic, which is itself built upon self-evident propositions. Occam's Razor is logical and is a stone in the scientific method, but is itself not derived wholesale from the method. Rather, it's derived from logic and mathematics. The notion that the most well-evidenced explanation is the most probable one is rooted in the same logic as Occam's Razor.

Moreover, the sheer fact that science works means that we can implicitly trust it without having to make any leap of faith - it has already justified itself and its central premises.

Following on from this post, perhaps, the reason why I find creationism and indeed most arguments for Christianity to be dissatisfying is that they fly in the face of logic. Yes, you have to accept something as axiomatic at some point, no-one will deny that but the difference between Christianity and science in the context of this argument is science is based on nothing more than logic. Everyone accepts it, everyone uses it.

To then come along and arbitrarily suspend it to justify your religious belief is, simply put, inconsistent.