if naturalism is the base assumption of evolution...


Zachriel wrote:
"snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1155245842.509902.45300@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Bob Casanova wrote:
On 9 Aug 2006 15:01:43 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx>:


Bob Casanova wrote:
On 8 Aug 2006 15:37:13 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx>:


Bob Casanova wrote:
On 8 Aug 2006 14:01:58 -0700, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by "snex" <snex@xxxxxxxxxxx>:


Kermit wrote:
Ye Old One wrote:
On 8 Aug 2006 04:04:26 -0700, "Tiny Bulcher"
<RSGD9000@xxxxxxx>
enriched this group when s/he wrote:


Ye Old One wrote:

No, the short version is "can you believe in something for
which no
evidence exists, and for which a lot of contrary evidence
exists?"

Present said evidence for the non-existence of a deity, then.
An
expectant world awaits.

I'm still waiting for someone to post even a single scrap of
evidence
that god(s) exist.

Been waiting a very long time.

Think I've still got a long time to wait.

Care to try?

--
Bob.

The non-existence of positive evidence for a deity does not
imply
positive evidence of non-existence of a deity.

No good reason to believe X is not, by itself, a good reason to
believe
[not X].

*You said that "a lot of contrary evidence exists" for the
non-existence of a deity.

This is not true, *except for deities which would be expected to
leave
certain verifiable evidence. One example of this are those
people (like
McCoy, or Jerry Falwell, or my preacher grandpa) who claimed
that their
God and biblical literalism (with all of those traditional
miracles)
are true and necessarily interdependent.

There is no contrary evidence for a creator deity like the
Deists'
"stand back and disappear" entity.

how many testable deities need to be destroyed before you start to
think that theyre all man-made?

Kermit is correct. What difference does it make *what* you,
he or I believe? The point is that the deity described by
Kermit is *not* testable and is thus not the provenance of
science, and there is (and IMHO can be, given their
postulated nature) no contrary evidence regarding such
deities. Do you begin to see why science is mute on the
subject?

if something is not testable, then there is no justification to
believe
in it.

Almost nothing subjective (emotions, dreams, consciousness,
etc.) is testable in a scientific sense. Does that mean they
don't exist?

care to name something specific that is not testable?

Sure. Pick any emotion; Dislike, for instance. The *effects*
of dislike are demonstrable

this is why dislike is testable. you cannot observe or demonstrate a
single electron, but you can observe or demonstrate its effects.

, but the emotion itself is not
demonstrable, observable or quantifiable. The same is true
for dreams; we can accept the testimony of individuals that
they dream, and we can observe both REM sleep and brainwave
patterns, but neither one can tell us the *content* of a
dream. That takes testimony from the individual dreamer, and
is neither demonstrable to, nor repeatable by, an observer.

So neither emotions nor dreams, according to your criteria,
exist.

not with current technology, but thats merely a limit to our
technology. saying "we cant currently view the content of a dream,
therefore it must be supernatural" is the same argument from ignorance
used by IDers.


Um, that wasn't your assertion. You said that "if something is not testable,
then there is no justification to believe in it."

So tell us. Do people dream?

do people who claim they dream have any physical things in common when
they claim they are dreaming? why yes they do! they all have the same
rapid eye movement and types of brain activity. do people who awaken
from a "bad dream" show signs of distress just prior to waking up? why
yes they do!

your problem is that you insist on imposing supernatural claims onto
things like "dreaming" and "thoughts," when these are purely physical
phenomena and can be studied as such.



--
Zachriel
http://zachriel.blogspot.com/






--

Bob C.

"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless


.

Relevant Pages
Loading