Evidence for God from Science

August wrote:You have not shown anything of the sort. You have not even started to deal with any formal logic, all you have done was to provide a couple of cute but absurd answers to examples.

Lol, and don't flatter yourself about the RLN issue. The RLN discussion ended because you, as you did throughout this whole discussion, refused to answer questions in a straightforward and intellectually honest fashion, because you are simply unable to do so. Creationists do not get uneasy because evolutionists are unable to string a coherent argument together, and then assert victory.

Yes I have. In fact, you failed to prove a negative despite trying quite hard. Not that that proves my point, necessarily, but it supports it.

You've derailed the RLN discussion with a lot of flim-flam about the argument from ignorance -- an argument which creationists very often use themselves.

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:You have not shown anything of the sort. You have not even started to deal with any formal logic, all you have done was to provide a couple of cute but absurd answers to examples.

Lol, and don't flatter yourself about the RLN issue. The RLN discussion ended because you, as you did throughout this whole discussion, refused to answer questions in a straightforward and intellectually honest fashion, because you are simply unable to do so. Creationists do not get uneasy because evolutionists are unable to string a coherent argument together, and then assert victory.

Yes I have. In fact, you failed to prove a negative despite trying quite hard. Not that that proves my point, necessarily, but it supports it.

You've derailed the RLN discussion with a lot of flim-flam about the argument from ignorance -- an argument which creationists very often use themselves.

I'm sorry, maybe you should run us through that proof again. Only in you mind did you prove anything. I, on the other hand, proved two negatives which you could not disprove, despite venturing into the realms of the absurd.

Like I say, if you really want to prove that "You can't prove negatives", then deal with the formal logic that allows it. Deal with Bertrand Russell and his true existential negative beliefs to start with. But it is even more simple than that, for your proof to hold you have to overcome the logical fallacy of affirming a positive conclusion from a negative premise, something you have not even touched.

August wrote:I'm sorry, maybe you should run us through that proof again. Only in you mind did you prove anything. I, on the other hand, proved two negatives which you could not disprove, despite venturing into the realms of the absurd.

Like I say, if you really want to prove that "You can't prove negatives", then deal with the formal logic that allows it. Deal with Bertrand Russell and his true existential negative beliefs to start with. But it is even more simple than that, for your proof to hold you have to overcome the logical fallacy of affirming a positive conclusion from a negative premise, something you have not even touched.

I don't need to, it is a logical fallacy.

Surprising you should mention Russell, as his teapot is a prime example! So is "God", by the way.

Sceptic wrote: I don't need to, it is a logical fallacy.

Assertion is not an argument or proof.

August wrote:Assertion is not an argument or proof.

Your pelican example fails on two levels: lack of experience of all pelicans, and also the reliance on your perceptions. You can't prove a negative, so why are you asking me to?

Russell's teapot illustrates the point perfectly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:Assertion is not an argument or proof.

Your pelican example fails on two levels: lack of experience of all pelicans, and also the reliance on your perceptions. You can't prove a negative, so why are you asking me to?

Russell's teapot illustrates the point perfectly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot

I have proved a negative. You added an absurdity to the argument, which, unless you can show that your absurdity is valid, fails to address my argument. But I don't want to play your childish games, I want you to deal with the formal logic, which you appear utterly incapable of doing.

Russell's teapot argument is fallacious at several levels. I need to go for now, but will show that later.

August wrote:I have proved a negative. You added an absurdity to the argument, which, unless you can show that your absurdity is valid, fails to address my argument. But I don't want to play your childish games, I want you to deal with the formal logic, which you appear utterly incapable of doing.

Russell's teapot argument is fallacious at several levels. I need to go for now, but will show that later.

You haven't proved a negative because you haven't proved there's no pelican in your pocket. Your assertion that there isn't one there could be wrong for many different reasons. But it is our ignorance of all possible pelicans which is the main reason why you can't prove it. If you think this is a childish game, look back at who started playing it.

Again, you brought up Russell in this context. I'll look forward to your proof that his teapot doesn't exist.

Sceptic wrote: You haven't proved a negative because you haven't proved there's no pelican in your pocket. Your assertion that there isn't one there could be wrong for many different reasons. But it is our ignorance of all possible pelicans which is the main reason why you can't prove it.

I have proved it, and you cannot refute it except by adding to the argument by being absurd. If you want to hold to a belief in small invisible flamingo's or pelicans, then be my guest. But that belief is patently absurd unless you prove it. Under that supposition we are to suppose that anything is possible, and if that is what you want to believe and promote, fine. You are the one appealing to evidence elsewhere here, so time to buck up and deliver.

But since you want to continue to argue about this, your own argument refutes itself. You are arguing from ignorance that negatives cannot be proven, since you are ignorant of all possible negatives.

Like I said, there are many examples and we can play this game for years. I'd rather deal with the underlying formal logic which is decisively against your argument, yet you are unwilling or incapable of doing that. I have asked you many times to provide a formal argument for your position, which you have steadfastly declined to do. I, in the meantime have provided several arguments which you have chosen to ignore while clinging to your belief that you have refuted them.

If you think this is a childish game, look back at who started playing it.

You made a statement which you cannot or will not prove. Instead you prefer to keep repeating your assertions, so it is quite easy to see who is playing games here, instead of answering straightforward questions or providing a valid logical proof for said argument.

Since you appeal to Russell's teapot, why don't you deal with all of his arguments?

August wrote: I have proved it, and you cannot refute it except by adding to the argument by being absurd. If you want to hold to a belief in small invisible flamingo's or pelicans, then be my guest. But that belief is patently absurd unless you prove it. Under that supposition we are to suppose that anything is possible, and if that is what you want to believe and promote, fine. You are the one appealing to evidence elsewhere here, so time to buck up and deliver.

But since you want to continue to argue about this, your own argument refutes itself. You are arguing from ignorance that negatives cannot be proven, since you are ignorant of all possible negatives.

Like I said, there are many examples and we can play this game for years. I'd rather deal with the underlying formal logic which is decisively against your argument, yet you are unwilling or incapable of doing that. I have asked you many times to provide a formal argument for your position, which you have steadfastly declined to do. I, in the meantime have provided several arguments which you have chosen to ignore while clinging to your belief that you have refuted them.

If you think this is a childish game, look back at who started playing it.

You made a statement which you cannot or will not prove. Instead you prefer to keep repeating your assertions, so it is quite easy to see who is playing games here, instead of answering straightforward questions or providing a valid logical proof for said argument.

Since you appeal to Russell's teapot, why don't you deal with all of his arguments?

Your assertion that there is no <whatever> in your pocket doesn't constitute proof. You could take some comfort from the knowledge that "God" can never be disproved.

I'm not appealing to the teapot, you mentioned Russell, and it popped straight into my addled brain.

Sceptic wrote:Your assertion that there is no <whatever> in your pocket doesn't constitute proof. You could take some comfort from the knowledge that "God" can never be disproved.

I'm not appealing to the teapot, you mentioned Russell, and it popped straight into my addled brain.

It is not an assertion. I have evidence that there is nothing in my pocket.

But again you ignore everything else I say. We will let that stand as proof that you are unable to provide a logical proof for your position, while ignoring the formal logic that contradicts it.

In addition, I have showed that your statement is self-refuting, and therefore invalid.

August wrote:It is not an assertion. I have evidence that there is nothing in my pocket.

You only have evidence that there's no bird in there of a type which you have previously encountered.

You'd be the first to howl if I said I have evidence there's no God because I can't see one.

Since this thread has gone off topic, I think I will add a few more things to my argument for any of the readers following it.

Asymmetric to symmetrical design complexity (ASDC) is nothing short of a consequence of what we observe. An embryo, for example, seems to evolve backwards, where the symmetry precedes any asymmetry. In other words, the whole precedes the parts. Logically, this is the best way to make sure that the parts (asymmetric or not) "fit neatly" into the whole, by giving it a whole from the onset rather than like we humans do with cars and computers, which is slapping on a case or hood to hide the underlying components and therby creating the illusion of aesthetically pleasing. We see very little of that in design of biology. We see a process that anticipates certain things from the start instead of the end. Biology, in all its wonders is anything but an illusion of aesthetically pleasing or design.

Sceptic wrote:There's a ton of evidence in favour, and none whatsoever against.

You want me to refute an entire page? that's a "Gish gallop" if ever there was one! But what I've read of it is the usual half-understood creationist representation of evolution.

There is absolutely no evidence for macro-evolution... What's the matter, can't answer our questions?

Sceptic wrote:

August wrote:It is not an assertion. I have evidence that there is nothing in my pocket.

You only have evidence that there's no bird in there of a type which you have previously encountered.

If you want to change the definition of what a flamingo is to prove a point, then like I said, all things become permissible. If you can prove the existence of small invisible flamigno's, then go ahead and do so, or otherwise we shall just let it stand as an absurdity.

Your statement is still self-refuting.

You'd be the first to howl if I said I have evidence there's no God because I can't see one

Howl? Nice.

godslanguage wrote:Since this thread has gone off topic, I think I will add a few more things to my argument for any of the readers following it.

Asymmetric to symmetrical design complexity (ASDC) is nothing short of a consequence of what we observe. An embryo, for example, seems to evolve backwards, where the symmetry precedes any asymmetry. In other words, the whole precedes the parts. Logically, this is the best way to make sure that the parts (asymmetric or not) "fit neatly" into the whole, by giving it a whole from the onset rather than like we humans do with cars and computers, which is slapping on a case or hood to hide the underlying components and therby creating the illusion of aesthetically pleasing. We see very little of that in design of biology. We see a process that anticipates certain things from the start instead of the end. Biology, in all its wonders is anything but an illusion of aesthetically pleasing or design.

Sorry GL. Maybe one of the mods can spin it off for us.