Persistent Bugger - Argument From authority

[Saul]

1. I am not a dog, I do not chase my tail in circles.

Yet you seem perfectly happy to hold your logical tale in your mouth and insist that you're walking in a straight line.

2. When you are a member of MENSA and have a PhD in TAPiR, OR a burning bush with the voice of God coming out of you, THEN AND ONLY THEN you can bring your positions to me, where after carefully listening I will tell you see #1 above.

I had no idea that these qualifications were a requirement to know anything about the subject of religion and how convenient it is that this allows you to close off your ears to such a great majority of the population and singing "lalala I'm not listening."
And there's me with a meagre masters degree in physics and only a former membership of Mensa. If only I'd studied the structure of the universe a bit longer I would have had so much more to say about the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagawat Geeta and so on.
And what a great number of people out there who don't even have a physics degree, who must be so ludicrously ignorant of contents and understanding of any religious text and must be incapable of any form of logical thought. It's a good thing we have physics PhDs that clearly separate everyone of moderate intelligence from everyone else.
It's interesting how frequent it is that religious people set up a challenge before they'll listen to you, whose criterion are so narrow that no-one can ever get into that position where their criticism will be listened to. You remind me very much of Kent Hovind and his 250,000 dollar challenge to prove evolution.

We all bow to your superior knowledge of all matters of religion because you have a Physics PhD.

Actually I am relying on something I heard Hawking say. In 2008 at NASA 50th anniversary celebration, he said that he was an agnostic, that the existence of God by science is unknowable. (as I already explained). He also stated that he is "not religious in the normal sense" and he believes that "the universe is governed by the laws of science. The laws may have been decreed by God, but God does not intervene to break the laws." When asked why he studied the Universe he said he wished to "Understand the mind of God". Now when you have met Hawking, then you can tell me what he said until then you are just rambling. At no time has Hawking been quoted as claiming to be an atheist.

For someone who claims to be a physicist you seem to make an awful lot of logical errors. Perhaps you should read what I said again.
Quote of myself:
HAWKING DOES NOT BELIEVE IN GOD
Neither did Einstein. You are relying on quotations taken out of context to develop this rediculous belief.
Look it up and you will find that when directly asked; Einstein said the belief in a 'god' was childish.
Meanwhile Hawking has stated that he does not believe in a 'god.'
At what point did I say that Hawking was an atheist? You need to spend a little more time reading what is written and thinking about it rather than inventing some claim and criticising the result. That's what's called a straw man argument and is a logical fallacy. Take some time to study critical thinking and come back to me.
Your quote does not give any indication that Hawking believes in a god, merely that he is agnostic. He does not believe one way or the other.
Agnostics do not believe in a god. They accept it as a possibility, but they do not 'believe' in it. While a theist believes in a god and an atheist either believes that there isn't a god or has never encountered the concept (an isolated tribesman and a child alike may be atheist simply due to the lack of exposure they have had to the idea of a god).
Also further analysing your quote Hawking appears to be agnostic to 'deism' and not 'theism.' Deism being the belief in a creator god, but one that does not interfere after the creation.

Einstein did not say he was an atheist. He said he did not believe in a personal God but "I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with the fates and actions of human beings." Spinoza Monism argued the philosophical view which holds that there is unity in a given field of inquiry, where this is not to be expected. Thus, some philosophers may hold that the Universe is really just one thing, despite its many appearances and diversities; or theology may support the view that there is one God, with many manifestations in different religions. You have to remember Einstein did a LOT of cocaine, he contradicted himself on more than one occasion with the God thing.

Again a straw man argument, I did not say that Einstein was an atheist.
The straw man argument is commonly used by religious types and spin doctors who wish to incite and encourage more devoted support from those already on their side and to curry favour with the fence sitters by presenting a false image of the opposition.

Again you quote "proof" but you off no works cited page, offer no quotations, just your rant.

I don't know where you got the idea that I was 'quoting proof' AGAIN, since I've only used the word proof in one of my posts here (me senses the attempts at another straw man here):

Actually we have plenty of scientific proof of the falsity of countless religious claims. The age of the earth. The fact that the number pi is not 3 as the bible suggests. The shape of the earth. The genetic origins of all humans.

Or course we have no hard proof that one religion is right and another wrong, but we do have hard proof that none of these religions is right about everything, despite their internal claims that they are. As such we can safely ignore all of their claims.
"That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence" - This is a key aspect of logic and reason (the essence of reasonableness) put in a very succinct mannor.
I didn't realise it was necessary to provide cited works proving that pi was not 3, or that the earth is more than 6000 years old or that humans had evolved rather than being made of dirt and then a rib.
Of course if you would like me to cite some evidence, then I'd be happy to find some sources for you.
Meanwhile I certainly supplied numerous Biblical quotations in a previous post. If you would like me to provide 'quotations' of any other of my claims I would be happy to. In fact I know of a letter from Einstein regarding his stance on 'god' which I'd be happy to look up and quote for you.
However I do not think that 'quote mining' is a reasonable tool when arguing matters of scientific importance and so I have not supplied any in those regards.

You argue the same way that the people who believe in Atlantis, Reptilian races, the moon landing was faked, and Big Foot.

Pot-kettle-black
You've yet to come up with any tangible proof of your belief. You simply rely on the claim that the subject is too complicated for our understanding. That's what you call a copout.

For decades every book on fitness taught that Newton's Laws of Motion proved that running and walking burned the same number of calories. Millions of people deluded themselves walking thinking it was as good for health as running. Papers were written, books published, experts quoted and the whole world believed. They were wrong. Newtons Laws of motion do not solely govern the number of calories you burn when walking or running. Physiology comes into play, grade, surface, and dozens of other factors. By your arguments we should abandon the Laws of Motion because people who were doing the best their understanding could allow them to to, misunderstood the Law Newton devised.

I'd like to know which particular of my arguments would fit this criterion.
However that should be unnecessary to point out the clear error you are making here. You are conflating a scientific document openly written by a human subject to all the limits in understanding and communication as the rest of us with a document supposedly written by, or at least inspired by, the creator of the universe who is claimed to be infallible, omniscient and omnipotent.
As such is was surely possible for a being of such power to create a document that could not in any way be misinterpreted, misunderstood or misquoted. That would be within the capabilities of an all knowing infallible god. This 'god' character surely knew beforehand all of the possible interpretations that would come of its creation and subsequent intervention in the universe and therefore must be held accountable for all such interpretations. For if 'god' did not want people to misinterpret its intentions then it would have been well within its power to make sure of this.

For years the speed of light was unattainable because of special relativity. Everyone believed this and all the experiments proved us right. Then Miguel Alcubierre came up with is metric, and now we know that it is possible to travel FTL locally. Should we now throw out Relativity too? Just because everyone made a mistake understanding the Law does not negate the Law.

Again the difference here is that special relativity was never claimed to be written by someone who was infallible and one would hope that the humility of individual scientists would have made sure that they did not claim to understand it perfectly. While the bible and other religious texts are claimed to be written or inspired by an infallible and omniscient being.
We are only human. We take account of the fact that other humans can be just as fallible as ourselves. The same is not true for our beliefs in a 'god.'

Mileva Maric, Einstein's first wife was preported in a PBS special to have been responsible for many of Einsteins break troughs. While there is little evidence to support this, and tons to refute it, there are still people who believe Einstien was a fraud. Do we throw out all the things he came up with because of this?

Again another straw man argument used here. You claim that I am suggesting this when I have done nothing of the sort.
The answer to your question there is NO. I have never said otherwise (and if you think I'm contradicting myself here at any point please show the relevant quotes and I will either defend myself or concede).

I have a MENSA certificate on my wall and a PhD in TAPiR, and still I have no idea what the Bible says

Yet again your amazing qualifications come to bear. It's a wonder that you ever listen to anyone when their opinions or their ability to reason are so impaired by their lack of these specific qualifications.

and believe it or not there are secrets of the Universe that I have not unlocked. That does not mean that they are not there.

How humble of you to say.
Yes, but it is up to you to prove that they are there and not me to disprove that they are there. Just as it is not up to you to disprove my belief in an invisible cat-llama that has no effect on the universe other than to have the intricacies of their diets revealed through complex mathematical calculations.

BTW, earth is the center of the universe IF you are standing on it.

It is not the centre of 'the universe' it is the centre of 'YOUR OBSERVABLE' universe. You know this! So let's not misrepresent the reality of the situation to other people.

The world is flat within the frame of reference they had 2,000 years ago. It is all frame of reference.

This is an atrocious forgiving attitude of the belief that the earth is flat.
It is also an appalling error in both dates and simple observation on your part.
I'm sure that you can agree that our maritime accomplishments exceed far beyond the last 2000 years of our history and that it is a rather trivial observation to note that as a ship appears over the horizon it is the tip of the mast that first becomes visible before the rest of the ship. It then requires very simple reasoning to determine that the surface of the earth was in fact curved.
This observation and many others like it were clearly well within the frame of reference of our ancestors going back many years.
Furthermore you seem to miss the fact that is was in fact in the 3rd century BC that Eratosthenese quite accurately calculated the circumference of the curved surface of the earth by taking observations of shadows at the equator and 800k north in Alexandria, having someone pace the distance and then work out the angle which 800k represented.

If you want to be taken seriously then you should take some Philosophy classes and learn reasoning. Your arguments are good, but with proper framework and flow of logic, they could be great.

This is a very cheap trick. Implying yourself to be an authority on this by offering little old me some advice on forming arguments. That would certainly curry favour with those already sympathetic to your arguments.
I also think I should say pot-kettle-black.

Actually if you hold Evolution to the same scrutiny you do other theories, it is easily disproved. One of my Physics professors was pretty hard core about the law of falsifiability. According to convention falsification is one of the most effective methods by which theories can be criticized. branching out from this, Science does not attempt to prove itself right, it attempts to prove it is not wrong.

There are many significant ways in which evolution could be falsified and so it does at least stand up to the initial criterion to become a scientific theory. One such disprove would be a fossil rabbit radio-actively dated to have died in the Jurassic Period.

In evolution the law of falsifiability has been by passed. The Theory of Evolution says in part, " Evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms through successive generations. (1) While the changes produced in a single generation are very small, the accumulation of these differences over time can cause substantial changes in a population." It limits changes to small a small number of individuals(2) in a species who by random chance((3) mutate to have an edge. The key word throughout the theory is individual. The whole theory is based on it.

That is one of many definitions of Evolution by natural selection others of which do not use the term 'individual' and are therefore not subject to the problems you claim to exist.
Please show us where you got this particular definition of evolution by natural selection.

The thing about intelligent design that intrigues me is the math that supports it. The watch analogy has yet to have an logical math based counter proof to it. Logically speaking if you found a watch on a tree stump in the woods next to a watch factory that exploded, would you assume it assembled itself as a result of the explosion?

Seriously dude? Seriously?
Yet again your arguments come from a complete misunderstanding of the problem. Just like your probability that the universe wasn't "CREATED." It's as bad as those people who spout the idea that 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts' and believe this to be some profound statement. When it is simply the fact that they are using the wrong mathematics for the problem. (The processing power of your brain is greater than the sum of the neurons simply because it's the connections between the neurons that's important and so it's a problem of multiplication, not addition.)
A watch is not composed of self replicating mutually attractive components.
This is yet another straw man argument that you seem to accept and tout without critical thought.
Please watch this video, it will help you understand the situation involved: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0

As for the 3% difference that is true, but that means there are a maximum of 3.9 x 10^38 differences between the DNA of man and the DNA of a chimp. Just between you and I the odds of the same DNA is 1 in 100 Billion. In the history of man there is 0 chance that anyone has ever had or will have the same DNA. Our DNA is 99.9% similar. My point is while there is only a 3% difference between man and ape that difference is infinite.

Let's not misrepresent the truth again. The difference is not infinite, just very large.

If you take a school of gold fish, and put them on the bottom of a cave with no light, their off spring will be born without sight, but with advanced "sensors" in their heads that act like sonar.

Are you suggesting this happened in a single generation?

Many years ago when one of the Galapagos islands volcanoes erupted, all the islands vegetation was destroyed. Prior to the eruption the birds on that Island were flight capable, they ate insects and small plants etc on the ground and they nested in trees. The next generation to be born after the volcanoes, were born flightless and with larger lungs that allowed them to dive for fish.

Well you asked me for citations. I think this requires a pretty hefty one!

In both of these cases and many more, the new generation could no produce offspring with the older one. By definition this is a new species.

That is just one of many possible definitions of a species. By that definition every bacteria is a species unto itself because it cannot procreate offspring with a previous generation (or any generation).

More importantly none of the criteria, i.e., a small number of individuals:through successive generations: random chance, are present. The case studies show that it was a large number of individuals, in one generation, and when all the similar cases are viewed, a correlation between events and the sudden change seems to rule out random chance in favor of a cause & reaction event

You're still going to need a hefty citation of the previous cases before this claim should be seen as anything more than probably bullshit.


I'll leave you with this: It's a sad state of affairs when the best that can be said of the Bible is that much of it can be safely ignored in the light of modernity.

Sylph, If you belonged to MENSA, and there is no "former MENSA" once a member always a member, what is the 5th paradigm. It is something you should know as it is a piece of the MENSA dogma (for lack of a better word).

When I was 14 my dad asked me to take the home test and then forced me to take the official moderated one. I got a score of 155 and my dad enrolled me in mensa. I kicked up a fuss and told him I wanted to leave because I had no interest in the organisation and I never heard anything from them after that.

Mensa means I am way smarter than you are.

Another idiot statement (notice here I do not call you an idiot, merely what you say. I'm sure you are quite an intelligent and reasonable person). How can you claim to be so smart yet come up with shit like that.
It's the equivolent of saying: I've got a high paying job which means I'm richer than you, or; I'm in a basketball team which means I'm taller than you, or; I've rolled a 5 on the dice, there are hundreds of other players but I've got a higher number than everyone else is going to roll.
Clearly your ability to represent and possibly even understand simple logical statements is lacking.
I will agree that mensa means you have an IQ score in the top 2% on the earth, but the assumption that everyone within that top 2% has to be in mensa is ludicrous and you know it.
Furthermore you have no evidence of my intelligence other than the claim I made at the top of this post to have been measured as 155 when I was 14 (of course this was an adolescent rating and short of a perfect testing system is in fact subject to variation, therefore I do not claim that my IQ today would be 155, it is perhaps considerably lower as far as I know and perhaps considerably higher as far as you know, it is simply an unknown variable, yet one you feel perfectly capable of assuming without evidence).
Furthermore your conconclusion that since you have a higher IQ it makes you more qualified to comment on religious matters is another spurrious (and highly dubious for a supposed scientist) comment.
How can you possible know how much time I have spent studying the subject material. Perhaps I should start telling graduate geographers with a lower IQ than myself that I know more about tectonic activity than them.
Perhaps I should tell random children that I know more about their parents than them, because I'm smarter.
Your intelligence says nothing of your knowledge of philosophy until you have picked up a book on the subject.
Maybe you're going to claim next that you know more Afrikaans than me because of your greater intelligence.
Clearly the notion is rediculous. You are digging yourself into a hole of irrationality. You claim to be intelligent and smarter than me, yet insist on making completely illogical statements.

I should also point out that this is another clear example of poor argumenting skills (notice I do not criticise you, but your arguing skills) that you have yet again used an ad hominem.
Attacking the individual instead of their arguments or claims is yet another tactic used by religious preachers hoping to undermine science.
It is a tactic employed by people who wish to gain support from those without real knowledge of the subject and offers nothing to the debate.
Yet again it is a way to shelter yourself from the criticism of others. By simply marking them off as less intelligent (even without evidence to this effect) you are able to safely ignore any uncomfortable arguments you may be confronted with. Well done for clearly demonstrating the strength of your faith which you are afraid cannot stand up to the criticism of those of lesser intelligence than you.

Giving you the same cred as me would be like giving a High Schooler the same cred as a MIT Professor.

Again it depends what arena this is in. I would prefer an experienced high school teacher to teach my young children than an MIT professor who does not have experience teaching children.

unless you give me a rational well thought out argument with supporting evidence, citations, research, etc. I am going to take what you say as gibberish. Just like the guy at my former job who though the moon landing was faked. Yes I will listen but with the understanding it is for entertainment value more than logical debate. That is not arrogance it is simple and common sense.

Gibberish is perhaps a little harsh but I would agree with the general sentiment of this if I had been claiming that 'god' did not exist.
Rather I have been consistently claiming that the belief in a 'god' is unfounded, that the rationale behind these beliefs are untenable and that religious thinking is the cause of many problems in todays global society.

I find it quite incredible though that you have such a strict criterion to have your reasons for your religious faith questioned, yet you did not require such stringent argument to form that belief in the first place.
That is not logical. It is up to the person who proposes a positive belief to provide evidence, citations and research, not the person who refuses to accept that belief or counters the claim. Otherwise we are back to Russle's tea-pot and the giant flying spagghetti monster. That is a very basic logical premis and I'm surprised that it continues to illude you.

 

[Squawk]

Quite frankly I don't know what you want here. Reading a discussion between two people of this length is tedious at best. Could you maybe isolate a couple of quotes that you would like help attacking or that make your point?