The stumbling block for atheists.

[Freodin]

Does that mean that you have no methodology to distinguish the designed from the non-designed?

If not, then what does that mean?

That is exactly what it means. This is his whole spiel, his whole approach: point to one thing and shout:"This must be designed! It is obvious! You are blind not to see it!"... and next point to something else and tell us "Asking whether this is designed is irrelevant. This question makes no sense. We will never have an answer."

 

[bhsmte]

Can the hole be dug any deeper?

 

[Freodin]

Can the hole be dug any deeper?

It's holes all the way down.

 

[quatona]

You would take any answer as a long-winded yes. What you are not wiling to take as a yes is any admission from any scientist that your abiogenesis is hilariously bogus.

What do you mean - "my" abiogenesis?

 

[Radrook]

What do you mean - "my" abiogenesis?

Beats me! It's just a sound I make without even knowing why.

 

[Radrook]

It's holes all the way down.

All the way down and beyond. Then we have yellow purple polca-dotted butterflies! Then after that its Trumps an Hillaries all the way to infinity.

 

[Loudmouth]

Doesn't need to be in order to be compellingly rational to infer without a shadow of a doubt.

It does have to be falsifiable in order to be a compelling rational inference. If every conceivable observation is consistent with your beliefs then you have an irrational belief.

I don't need to prove that the sun shines in order to know that the sun shines.

That's not falsification. Do you even know what falsification entails?

For ID, what observation would you need to make in order to conclude that ID is false?

Some things are self evident.

Pronouncing something as self evident is not a rational argument. It is just a bare assertion.

 

[Loudmouth]

No it isn't quite simple. Once more. That is like asking you to identify which essential functioning parts of a computer are not designed to be part of the computer.

That would be easy. If we found a chunk of matter that we can demonstrate comes about through natural processes then we could conclude that this chunk of matter is not designed.

See how easy that is?

The question in relation to the intelligent design of the universe is nonsensical and un-answerable.

In other words, you will conclude intelligent design no matter what the evidence is. That is an irrational conclusion.

 

[Chriliman]

No, you said the opposite, that we have to accept it as true:

"no matter what evidence or explanation is being presented, one still has to take the step and accept it as true"​

I know and if you'd kept this quote in context you would see that I also explained that if one doesn't accept an explanation as true then they're in a state of uncertainty or even denial, not accepting any truth.

Because it corresponds better to states of affairs in the world than does false certainty, i.e. it's closer to the truth. I'm only talking about synthetic propositions. You can be certain about analytic propositions.

Synthetic propositions are based on experience. "God is real" is a synthetic proposition, which means you may not actually believe the proposition until you have an experience that convinces you that it's true.

I agree, and your certainty is logical, i.e. analytic, so is justifiable; unfortunately, we can never certain of the truth about states of affairs in the world (i.e. synthetic proposals), so however good certainty based in truth might be, it's an unattainable goal. It's the aspiration of science to get as close to it as possible, but it's explicitly acknowledged as unattainable.

I think it's nonsense to say we can't be certain about synthetic proposals. If I tell you that it's raining outside, you may not believe me, but when you look out the window and see the rain for yourself, then you'd believe me because you have experienced the truth for yourself, apart from my claim.

It seems your argument boils down to saying you can't be certain of a synthetic proposal such as "it's raining" even though you can clearly see and feel the rain for yourself.

 

[bhsmte]

I know and if you'd kept this quote in context you would see that I also explained that if one doesn't accept an explanation as true then they're in a state of uncertainty or even denial, not accepting any truth.




Synthetic propositions are based on experience. "God is real" is a synthetic proposition, which means you may not actually believe the proposition until you have an experience that convinces you that it's true.



I think it's nonsense to say we can't be certain about synthetic proposals. If I tell you that it's raining outside, you may not believe me, but when you look out the window and see the rain for yourself, then you'd believe me because you have experienced the truth for yourself, apart from my claim.

It seems your argument boils down to saying you can't be certain of a synthetic proposal such as "it's raining" even though you can clearly see and feel the rain for yourself.

What truth are you referring to?

 

[HitchSlap]

... I also explained that if one doesn't accept an explanation as true then they're in a state of uncertainty or even denial, not accepting any truth.

Do you accept that thunder is a result of Thor throwing lightning bolts towards earth?

If not, I'd say if you don't accept this "explanation as true then they're in a state of uncertainty or even denial, not accepting any truth."

 

[Chriliman]

Do you accept that thunder is a result of Thor throwing lightning bolts towards earth?

If not, I'd say if you don't accept this "explanation as true then they're in a state of uncertainty or even denial, not accepting any truth."

Actually, I accept that explanation as false, however, personally experiencing Thor throwing lighting bolts towards earth would change my mind.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know and if you'd kept this quote in context you would see that I also explained that if one doesn't accept an explanation as true then they're in a state of uncertainty or even denial, not accepting any truth.

Yes, and ?

Synthetic propositions are based on experience. "God is real" is a synthetic proposition, which means you may not actually believe the proposition until you have an experience that convinces you that it's true.

Pretty much, except that because you can't be certain of your perceptions or experiences, you can't be certain that it's true. That is the problem with synthetic propositions.

I think it's nonsense to say we can't be certain about synthetic proposals. If I tell you that it's raining outside, you may not believe me, but when you look out the window and see the rain for yourself, then you'd believe me because you have experienced the truth for yourself, apart from my claim.

You may think you have experienced rain falling, but you can't be certain that is the case - you could be dreaming, hallucinating, misperceiving some other phenomenon, etc. Having an independent opinion may increase your level of certainty, but given our tendency to perceive what we expect to perceive and corroborate reports (e.g. rain falling), doesn't necessarily increase the likelihood that you are correct.

In practice, you generally assume your experiences reflect reality unless shown otherwise.

It seems your argument boils down to saying you can't be certain of a synthetic proposal such as "it's raining" even though you can clearly see and feel the rain for yourself.

Yes. Perceptions and experiences are mental events that are not infallibly reliable, and also the results of sensory input, observations, and measurements that can be flawed, and may not necessarily reflect reality. It's not my argument in particular, but an argument that goes back to the ancient Greeks (restated by Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, etc.).

You can have degrees of certainty about synthetic propositions, but not absolute certainty.

[any experts in this field are welcome to correct me if I've gone astray here]

 

[bhsmte]

Actually, I accept that explanation as false, however, personally experiencing Thor throwing lighting bolts towards earth would change my mind.

Why do you accept the explanation as false?

 

[Michael]

It does have to be falsifiable in order to be a compelling rational inference. If every conceivable observation is consistent with your beliefs then you have an irrational belief.

That's exactly why all those negative results from LHC, LUX, PandaX, AMDx, etc. demonstrate that you have irrational beliefs.

That's not falsification. Do you even know what falsification entails?

Do you?

 

[Michael]

Pronouncing something as self evident is not a rational argument. It is just a bare assertion.

Well, there goes your 'space expansion is self evident' assertion too.

 

[Chriliman]

Yes, and ?

Pretty much, except that because you can't be certain of your perceptions or experiences, you can't be certain that it's true. That is the problem with synthetic propositions.

You may think you have experienced rain falling, but you can't be certain that is the case - you could be dreaming, hallucinating, misperceiving some other phenomenon, etc. Having an independent opinion may increase your level of certainty, but given our tendency to perceive what we expect to perceive and corroborate reports (e.g. rain falling), doesn't necessarily increase the likelihood that you are correct.

In practice, you generally assume your experiences reflect reality unless shown otherwise.

Yes. Perceptions and experiences are mental events that are not infallibly reliable, and also the results of sensory input, observations, and measurements that can be flawed, and may not necessarily reflect reality. It's not my argument in particular, but an argument that goes back to the ancient Greeks (restated by Descartes, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, etc.).

You can have degrees of certainty about synthetic propositions, but not absolute certainty.

[any experts in this field are welcome to correct me if I've gone astray here]

I appreciate your non-combative tone and willingness to be corrected. Always refreshing to see.

I think when it comes to synthetic propositions, we can be as certain as humanly possible, which to me just means plain old certain. If I see and feel it raining, I'm certain enough that it's actually happening to motivate myself to take action and open an umbrella. I see no need to question my certainty of what's happening in reality at that point because it's having a real time effect on me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I appreciate your non-combative tone and willingness to be corrected. Always refreshing to see.

Thanks.

I think when it comes to synthetic propositions, we can be as certain as humanly possible, which to me just means plain old certain. If I see and feel it raining, I'm certain enough that it's actually happening to motivate myself to take action and open an umbrella. I see no need to question my certainty of what's happening in reality at that point because it's having a real time effect on me.

Well, it depends on the experience. An 'everyday' physical experience like rain, that is persistent, repeatable, and verifiable in many different ways, is hard to be mistaken about, but there are many other experiences that are not like that, and which it is surprisingly easy to be mistaken about.

 

[Radrook]

It suddenly and inexplicably, albeit predictably becomes surprisingly easy whenever an intelligent designer might be involved.

 

[Speedwell]

It suddenly and inexplicably, albeit predictably becomes surprisingly easy whenever an intelligent designer might be involved.

What do you expect? Your views may not be the same as the Discovery Institute's in detail, but your modus operandi is the same--ID as a thin cover for the magic Bible god. It's entirely possible that if atheists really shy away from an Intelligent Designer as you claim, it's because they fear with good reason that it will turn out to be the magic Bible god.