[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 05:17 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 30 2009, 03:08 PM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 30 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

a. josh believes the universe wasn't designed for a purpose
b. there is insufficient evidence for josh to hold this belief
therefore all josh's beliefs are suspect

is that pretty much what you're saying?

Yes. It is not proof that all my other beliefs are wrong, it is simply evidence that points in that direction and that should be considered.

Of course that example was hypothetical since, even ignoring that your statement b. is wrong, see what I say below.

no, the syllogism states that since you're wrong in one belief you can be wrong in all beliefs... this is an example of faulty or hasty generalization (among other things), and is fallacious...

"Suspect" and "wrong" are not synonyms, so perhaps you didn't say what you meant to say. If you had used the word "wrong" in your example I would not have agreed, nor is that what I (or I believe anyone else) is claiming about you.

To be clear, the claim isn't that your belief based on insufficient evidence makes you necessarily wrong about other things. It's that your belief makes it more likely than it would otherwise have been that you are wrong about other things. And that is not a fallacious line of reasoning.

I mean it's hard to dispute. With which of the following claims do you disagree?
- A person who bases a conclusion on insufficient evidence in some given situation is more likely to do the same in any other randomly chosen situation than a person who did not base a conclusion on insufficient evidence in the given situation.
- A person who is more likely than another to base a conclusion in a randomly chosen situation on insufficient evidence is also more likely than the other to be wrong in his conclusion in that situation.

I think it would take some real combination of creativity and pig-headedness to disagree with either statement.

Quote

btw, how is premise 'b' wrong?

Sorry new policy, $50 fee for answering stupid questions. I'll give you my paypal if you want.

Quote

Quote

The burden of proof is on showing that something is true, not false, else remember my invisible floating pink elephant theory...

not necessarily, it depends on the question... for example, you and i could hold a debate on "do invisible floating pink elephants exist" and we would both rightly have to present arguments for whichever side we took

Do you know what the expression "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means? Why is the burden on me to prove there is insufficient evidence that the universe was designed for a purpose, but on both of us to prove there are/aren't invisible elephants floating over our heads right now?

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.
B. The facts do not not support that belief.
C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

I think this more corretly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

that's about right, right? i've said in other places that we all have our own presuppositions and it's likely that we can all appeal to authorities of our choosing... in this case though, even some pretty famous scientists agree that the first premise is true... whether it is or not might not be known, but just dismissing their thoughts and words out of disagreement seems arbitrary... you can easily find scientists, some even notable, who think as i do... btw, if i was arguing against you here i'd say that your 2nd premise needs some proof or at least some argumentation

jdonn, on Mar 30 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

With which of the following claims do you disagree?
- A person who bases a conclusion on insufficient evidence in some given situation is more likely to do the same in any other randomly chosen situation than a person who did not base a conclusion on insufficient evidence in the given situation.
- A person who is more likely than another to base a conclusion in a randomly chosen situation on insufficient evidence is also more likely than the other to be wrong in his conclusion in that situation.

I think it would take some real combination of creativity and pig-headedness to disagree with either statement.

i agree with both... do you?

Quote

Do you know what the expression "you can't have your cake and eat it too" means? Why is the burden on me to prove there is insufficient evidence that the universe was designed for a purpose, but on both of us to prove there are/aren't invisible elephants floating over our heads right now?

it isn't and i never meant to imply otherwise... there are two sides to almost every question and both sides are held to certain standards

[TimG]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 05:33 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.
B. The facts do not not support that belief.
C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

And:

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

[bid_em_up]

mikeh, on Mar 30 2009, 01:53 PM, said:

Maybe someone like bid-em-up might be persuaded by our postings, and I would be happy to continue to try to explain to him the fundamental difference between evidence-based understandings and dogma-based beliefs, until and unless it becomes apparent that he has a firmly closed mind on the subject.

Mike, I ask that you show me anywhere where I have stated my opinion on any of these subjects (the Ark, global warming, evolution).

I am amazed that as a lawyer, you are willing to make such assumptions. One day, it will bite you in the ass.

All I did is ask a question as to whether or not, if given irrefutable evidence that something such as the Ark existed, would you be willing to reexamine your position? Because, it was not clear (to me) whether you (and others) are the same type of person that you accuse Jimmy of being or not. Someone who is blinded by their beliefs (opinions), no matter what the evidence may say or are you someone who is willing to look objectively at the facts, and then form or change your position. It's easy to say that you will. Actually doing so when confronted with such evidence is more difficult because it affects your core being.

So I was asking if, in fact, you actually *would be* willing to change your position when confronted with evidence otherwise, or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass when you say that.

And that was all I wanted to know.

(For the record, I believe in God, and Jesus Christ. Whether or not the Ark actually existed, I do not know, when they find that Big Boat I asked you about, then I will know with certainty. I believe that evolution occurs, and that global warming is a scientific fact. I do not believe that everything in the Bible (I assume this is the dogma you refer to) is to be taken as the "Absolute Truth", however, I also believe that there is enough basis in history for there to be some element of "Truth" in it as well. It's just a question of whose version of history you are reading.)

[mikeh]

bid_em_up, on Mar 31 2009, 10:22 AM, said:

I am amazed that as a lawyer, you are willing to make such assumptions. One day, it will bite you in the ass.

All I did is ask a question as to whether or not, if given irrefutable evidence that something such as the Ark existed, would you be willing to reexamine your position?  Because, it was not clear (to me) whether you (and others) are the same type of people that you accuse Jimmy of being or not.  Someone who is blinded by their beliefs (opinions), no matter what the evidence may say or are you someone who is willing to look objectively at the facts, and then form or change your position.   It's easy to say that you will. Actually doing so when confronted with such evidence is more difficult because it affects your core being.

So I was asking if, in fact, you actually *would be* willing to change your position when confronted with evidence otherwise, or are you just blowing smoke out of your ass when you say that.

And that was all I wanted to know.

(For the record, I believe in God, and Jesus Christ.  Whether or not the Ark actually existed, I do not know, when they find that Big Boat I asked you about, then I will know with certainty.  I believe that evolution occurs, and that global warming is a scientific fact.  I do not believe that everything in the Bible (I assume this is the dogma you refer to) is to be taken as the "Absolute Truth", however, I also believe that there is enough basis in history for there to be some element of "Truth" in it as well.  It's just a question of whose version of history you are reading.)

Finding the remains of a big boat with lots of animal droppings would hardly amount to irrefutable proof of the literal truth of Noah's Ark Unless, of course, your belief structure predisposed you to uncritical acceptance of it as such.

I understand that there is compelling evidence that in relatively recent pre-history, massive flooding occurred over a wide area of what we now refer to as the Middle East... and as Richard has suggested, there is some reason to suspect that this was associated with whatever led to the breakthrough of the Mediterrean into the Black Sea... inundating many sqaure kilometres of what was presumably populated low-lying areas.

It would not be surprising, to me at least, that such a breakthrough was triggered by an unusually rainy period.

It would not be beyond the realm of possibility that some person or people, possessed of what was by those standards a relatively large boat, would have rescued some livestock, which was then the foundation for a new herd or herds after the immediate effects of the flood receded.

It would then make sense, given the nature of oral history and the then-current propensity to attribute anything not readily understood to the will of a god or gods, to conjure up a legend or myth.

To me, this sequence of events would be infinitely more plausible than the literal truth of God speaking to Noah. One scenario affords a complete explanation without invoking the supernatural.. it requires only a basaic understanding of human societies, while the other requires an enormous and unwarranted assumption about something literally unprovable.

One is evidence based. One depends on dogma.

You appear to believe in the biblical Noah's Ark. Therefore you believe in dogma rather than evidence. QED.

Now, if you don't believe in the myth of Noah's Ark... if your immediate reaction to the discovery of the remains of an appropriately-dated large boat containing various samples of animal feces (edit) would be similar to mine... then I take it all back, in terms of seeing you as a dogmatist... and I apologize for my mistaken assumption. I trust you can see how I came to make the assumption, based on the way in which you framed your question... the idea that finding such a relic would be 'irrefutable evidence' makes me laugh.

As for not-so-subtly accusing me of 'blowing smoke out of [my] ass, all I can say is that my views on many, many matters have indeed changed over the years, in response to new information. Of course, that is easy for me to claim, and, since you know nothing of me other than what you glean from my postings, easy for you to reject... especially since seeing me as a zealot of similar inclinations (altho polar opposites in p.o.v.) as Jimmy no doubt gives you a warm and fuzzy feeling

[luke warm]

TimG, on Mar 31 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 05:33 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.
B. The facts do not not support that belief.
C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

And:

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

that's fine, although i'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

TimG, on Mar 31 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 05:33 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.
B. The facts do not not support that belief.
C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

And:

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

that's fine, although i'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed

You are at it again. "Shows signs" is an awful guideline. Doesn't the universe show signs of having been colored in by a giant sharpie, since it's black and sharpies color in black? That doesn't mean any intelliigent person believes it is true though.

A better guideline would be something more like "the preponderance of evidence supports".

[TimG]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 11:00 AM, said:

TimG, on Mar 31 2009, 07:34 AM, said:

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 05:33 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Mar 30 2009, 07:05 PM, said:

I don't think you framed the original idea correctly.

A. Lukewarm holds a certain belief.
B. The facts do not not support that belief.
C. It would be wise to check whether or not the facts support his other beliefs

I think this more correctly defines the position.

jimmy believes the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed for a purpose
there is insufficient evidence to support this belief
so it would be wise to check his other beliefs

I think that many of us believe:

B ) A preponderance of the evidence refutes Jimmy's belief (intelligent design).

And:

C) If, based upon all the evidence, Jimmy can come to the wrong conclusion in this matter, he is likely to come to the wrong conclusion in other matters.

For me, C) is especially true when "other matters" involve religion. I likely would not question your bridge opinions based upon your "error" when it comes to intelligent design.

That's fine, although I'd ask if you'd say the same about anyone who believed that the universe shows signs of being intelligently designed.

I think I would say the same about anyone who claimed that the preponderance of the evidence shows that the universe was intelligently designed.

I will readily admit that there are many signs that could easily (perhaps reasonably or understandably) be misread as indicating an intelligently designed universe. But, seeing these signs is far different from coming to a studied conclusion that the universe was intelligently designed.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 11:06 AM, said:

A better guideline would be something more like "the preponderance of evidence supports".

better for whom? besides, i think the preponderence of evidence supports the premise that the universe was intelligently designed, especially if one takes the big bang as the beginning... you obviously disagree, but i don't know what "preponderence" of evidence you're speaking of, even if evolution is held to be true

granted that beliefs aren't evidence, but i'm sure you've heard the many quotes from some notable scientists concerning this

"Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say “supernatural”) plan." Arno Penzias

"Amazing fine-tuning occurs in the laws that make this [complexity] possible. Realization of the complexity of what is accomplished makes it very difficult not to use the word “miraculous” without taking a stand as to the ontological status of that word." George Ellis and Roger Penrose

"It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as an act of a God who intended to create beings like us." Stephen Hawking (in fairness, he stated this attempting to show that the BB has problems, which he tries to alleviate via string and other theories)

"One would have to conclude that either the features of the universe invoked in support of the Anthropic Principle are only coincidence or that the universe was indeed tailor made for life. I will leave it to the theologians to ascertain the identity of the tailor." Bernard Carr

"When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it." Tony Rothman

"Here is the cosmological proof of the existence of God. The fine tuning of the universe provides prima facie evidence of deistic design. Take your choice: blind chance that requires multitudes of universes or design that requires only one. Many scientists, when they admit their views, incline to the theological or design argument." Edward Harrison (i'm not sure who he is, but he's obviously a crank)

"If we need an atheist for a debate, I go to the philosophy department. The physics department isn’t much use." Robert Griffiths

"[There] is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all…It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe…The impression of design is overwhelming." Paul Davies

as you know, there are many many more such quotes... now i know that most of those people are atheists (or at most agnostic) and this isn't meant to show that they've changed their minds, merely that they don't see the same prepoderence of evidence disputing universal design as you do... i also know that some, if not all, hold views that don't necessarily incorporate design

[mike777]

"Curious whether any of the poster's here are willing to admit that they believe the story about Noah and the ark..."


I think some posters have forgotten the story and theme of Noah and the Ark.

The theme is why did God bother to save anyone.
This theme is repeated in numerous holy books in many faiths.

If you do not believe an Involved God exists then of course you do not believe the story as truth or parable.

[jdonn]

Most of those quotes do not mean what you are trying to use them to support.

They are along the lines of

Quote

The universe was either 'intelligently designed' or turned out this way by coincidence.

(a statement with which technically I agree)

or

Quote

There are scientists or other people out there who believe in intelligent designe even though they won't admit it.

(uh, isn't the point for you to show who those people are, not take a tally of how many others believe they exist?)

or

Quote

It's very difficult to explain the origins of the universe unless it was intelligently designed.

(obviously a far cry from believing in intelligent design)

The only quotes I can see that support your belief are the first and last ones. The first person clearly believes in god (it took about 15 seconds for me to find out he was a devout Jew). Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced.

Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see.

On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive...

[Lobowolf]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

The first person clearly believes in god (it took about 15 seconds for me to find out he was a devout Jew).

Does that undercut the credibility of his position, in your view?

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Mar 31 2009, 12:54 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

The first person clearly believes in god (it took about 15 seconds for me to find out he was a devout Jew).

Does that undercut the credibility of his position, in your view?

That isn't why I made that statement. I was trying to concede to lukewarm "The first person clearly agrees with you." Just to show I had bothered to take a moment to check.

[luke warm]

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced.

Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see.

On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive...

yes, he does claim that... you claim, i take it, the opposite... as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design... i'm glad you don't provide quotes from those who deny the possibility of design seeing as how your interpretation of those quotes would be proof of your "blindness"

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 01:08 PM, said:

jdonn, on Mar 31 2009, 12:50 PM, said:

Speaking about the last one, that professor claims there is very powerful evidence, although he doesn't (in that quote) say what that is beyond that it "seems" that way to him. Pardon me for being hardly convinced.

Your interpretation of these quotes as supporting your belief is what Mike is talking about when he refers to your 'blindness'. You will see whatever you want to see.

On the other hand, would you like to try to find quotes from scientists who believe in evolution? I bet there are a lot more and that they are a lot more definitive...

yes, he does claim that... you claim, i take it, the opposite... as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design... i'm glad you don't provide quotes from those who deny the possibility of design seeing as how your interpretation of those quotes would be proof of your "blindness"

It's funny. You accuse us of falacious reasoning, and then seem to reason that anyone who disagrees with you must be guilty of whatever they accuse you of. Um, hello?

It makes it very easy for you to ignore that you picked a bunch of quotes that do not support you at all. Do you want me to find a bunch? Frankly I don't want to bother because I hoped we could very easily agree they exist. But say the word and I will.

[hrothgar]

luke warm, on Mar 31 2009, 09:08 PM, said:

as for evolution, there are many scientists who believe in evolution and in the possibility of design...

I'd be curious how many of them have any relevant publications in peer reviewed journals...

[ASkolnick]

Because I like to stir up the pot.

What was actually the purpose of this post? It seems to me this is the perfect case of entrapment. Hrothgar did not care what people's position on Noah's Ark actually was since he already had made his mind up about certain people.

There is really no reason that this was posted unless the purpose is to pick a fight with Luke Warm with the Religion versus Science argument. In which case, it worked.

Some people tend to lean more towards science. Some people tend to lean more towards faith. There has been many documented cases where someones "belief" or "will" helped them get through many different types of crises. There have been many documented cases where people have used science to get through different types of crises. And in some cases, these things are not butting heads, but are intertwined into a person's being.

We could also challenge whether a supreme being(s) actually exists or not? The answer itself may not even be important, it may be more important that the belief itself exists. Maybe because I have that belief, I contribute to society in a much better way, more charitable, help others etc. Maybe if I believe the story of the Ark is true, I have a better understanding of how we should treat each other.

I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point.

[PassedOut]

ASkolnick, on Mar 31 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point.

Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth.

[hrothgar]

ASkolnick, on Mar 31 2009, 11:11 PM, said:

What was actually the purpose of this post?  It seems to me this is the perfect case of entrapment. Hrothgar did not care what people's position on Noah's Ark actually was since he already had made his mind up about certain people.

There is really no reason that this was posted unless the purpose is to pick a fight with Luke Warm with the Religion versus Science argument.

Close, but no cigar...

I posted the original question for a couple reasons

1. I was curious whether anyone would admit to believing in Noah's ark.

40 days and 40 nights of rain
The great flood
two of every kind of animal

2. If anyone did admit to such a belief, I was planning on using this the next time a debate regarding evolution, etc cropped up.

There was (obviously) a chance of an argument breaking out in this thread. However, I wouldn't cite this as a primary goal.

[TimG]

PassedOut, on Mar 31 2009, 03:53 PM, said:

ASkolnick, on Mar 31 2009, 03:11 PM, said:

I personally believe the stories themselves are to set guidelines or standards of how people should act, the actual stories may have been embellished to make a point.

Yes, the value of the stories is in the lessons one can draw from them, not their literal truth.

Is this true of the stories of Jesus, too?