Was reading these threads on reddit askscience and had an interesting thought, see below.
Now to challenge some philosophical arguments.
Solid... doesn't exist
Atoms are mostly empty space, sub-atomic particles seem to act like both waves and particles, in that they diffract, and can cancel the other out in a wave like pattern.
We look at a cup, a table, a wall, and perceive it as solid. This is simply a mistake of our senses, it is made up of atoms all jiggling around depending on their temperature, interacting with each other via short and long wave forces mediated by tiny sub-atomic particles, but never touching.
Yes nothing is truly solid, if lights wavelength were small enough you could see it shining through anything, if you could selectively nullify the electromagnetic force you could likely walk through that wall, or fall through the floor without an atom of yours touching another.
Touch... doesn't exist
When I touch these keys on the keyboard, my atoms are not actually coming into contact with the atoms of the keys, the electromagnetic force keep a space between them. Where my electrons to interfere (not even touching) with the electrons of a keyboard atom the atoms would join to form a compound, where my protons to interact with the keyboard atoms protons I wouldn't finish this sentence due to release of energy via a fusion reaction.
This is all science, well known and understood. Atoms do not touch in the sense that we think of touch, a field similar in idea to a bar magnets field lines reachs out from our hand and interacts with a field on the mouse we are touching, the chair, everything, even one cell in your body to another cell, even one water molecule in that cell and another, they never touch.
Nothing... doesn't exist.
You may have worked out where I was going with this, nothing doesn't exist the same as touch and solid don't. Nothing is a word we use to describe the absence of everything. Problem is modern research has found that nothing doesn't exist anywhere in the universe. Nothing as Lawrence Krauss describes in his book "A universe from nothing", actually gives way to a lot of something. Virtual particles that pop into existence for a brief moment, then wink out as they interact with their opposite that also pops into existence.
William Lane Craig likes to rail against this position that the nothing of Krauss is not the nothing of philosophy, and thus the true nothing in which his God would work. Just like solid and touch, this nothing doesn't exist. It is a left over from language used by creatures that were not knowledgable enough to know that this phenomenon didn't actually exist.
So next time someone says Krauss was redefining nothing ask them to touch you, or show you a solid object and then explain to them the error of their thinking.
Showing posts with label appologist. Show all posts
Showing posts with label appologist. Show all posts
Friday, 20 February 2015
Thursday, 3 April 2014
Ray Comfort
If you don't know who Ray is, I will spare you a link to his videos. But he is known colloquially as Bananaman, and here is the humorous video that was done when he won the 2009 Crockoduck award, really I'd rather give traffic to the excellent Potholer54 than living waters, or whatever Money making scheme Ray has dreamt up.
So Ray, has a line he uses a lot in his videos and "debates", I say debates as he doesn't really debate, just soapboxes and proselytises, he is good "fun". You would think he is a comedy act if you didn't know it was for real.
Anyway here is his general line of argument, with Ray in bold, and the unwitting respondent following on.
Have you ever said a lie? Yes.
have you ever stolen anything? Yes.
Have you ever taken the lords name in vain? Yes
Have you ever looked at a woman/man with lust? Yes
So, Jesus says if you look at a woman with lust, then you have committed adultery in your heart.
By your own omission you are a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterers at heart. If God judges you by the standards of the ten commandments where are you going, heaven or hell? Hell/Don't think God would send his loving children to hell (followed by then you think Hitler is in heaven*)
How are you going to escape the damnation of hell? Don't know
Because you know the bible says the wages of sin is death. But there is a way out, God gave his only son for your sin, so you have to accept Jesus into your life and confess your sin, then you can have everlasting life.
************************************
I am always surprised that this gives people even the supposed Atheists on his videos a moment where they seem to pause and reflect on it, almost deciding well hey I may as well believe just in case hey... or the old "I have to get right with my faith" line. It is Pascals wager, badly disguised in a long form to baffle people.
I have written the below to counter it;
Have you ever stolen from someone you are not at war with? Yes
Have you ever been a coward? Yes
Have you ever Betrayed anyone? Yes
Then by your own omission you are a thieving, cowardly, betrayer. And by those standards, Woden would send you to Heck to be tormented. So where do you think you are going? (don't wait for an answer, think what would Ray do... beyond creative editing aka lying)
But there is hope, if you trust in Thor who petitioned Woden on man kinds behalf, if you fight with bravery and honour, and die in a battle while upholding these standards then you will not enter Heck, the Valkyries will rescue you to Valhalla to drink mead with Woden for all eternity.
Obviously few believe this now, and even if they do I see very few Nordes marching off to a Just war (is there any such thing now-a-days?). It is a perfect refutation of Ray's dumbed down Pascals wager, but he will never hear it, or respond with... "oh but how many people actually believe in Woden or Thor", an Argument ad Populum, a logical fallacy, Woden and Thor are just as likely to be True (if not a little more so as their claim is less than omnipotence) than Yahweh and Jesus.
*The counter to is Hitler in heaven is an easy one... How many people did Hitler kill, in the order of tens of millions right, do you think even killing tens of millions deserves an eternal torment and torture... if so then you are lacking in empathy as I doubt any person could sentence even the worst person to an unjust amount of torture for their crimes, let the crime fit the punishment, eternal can never fit a crime carried out in a limited time such as a human lifetime.
This was just a quick post, I am working on a couple big ones at the moment, a takedown of the some (hehe) Catholic apologetics, and a skeptics annotated catechism, and a full on book (I have written way to much and self-editing is hard)... So yeah posts may be a little sporadic.
So Ray, has a line he uses a lot in his videos and "debates", I say debates as he doesn't really debate, just soapboxes and proselytises, he is good "fun". You would think he is a comedy act if you didn't know it was for real.
Anyway here is his general line of argument, with Ray in bold, and the unwitting respondent following on.
Have you ever said a lie? Yes.
have you ever stolen anything? Yes.
Have you ever taken the lords name in vain? Yes
Have you ever looked at a woman/man with lust? Yes
So, Jesus says if you look at a woman with lust, then you have committed adultery in your heart.
By your own omission you are a Lying, thieving, blasphemous, adulterers at heart. If God judges you by the standards of the ten commandments where are you going, heaven or hell? Hell/Don't think God would send his loving children to hell (followed by then you think Hitler is in heaven*)
How are you going to escape the damnation of hell? Don't know
Because you know the bible says the wages of sin is death. But there is a way out, God gave his only son for your sin, so you have to accept Jesus into your life and confess your sin, then you can have everlasting life.
************************************
I am always surprised that this gives people even the supposed Atheists on his videos a moment where they seem to pause and reflect on it, almost deciding well hey I may as well believe just in case hey... or the old "I have to get right with my faith" line. It is Pascals wager, badly disguised in a long form to baffle people.
I have written the below to counter it;
Have you ever stolen from someone you are not at war with? Yes
Have you ever been a coward? Yes
Have you ever Betrayed anyone? Yes
Then by your own omission you are a thieving, cowardly, betrayer. And by those standards, Woden would send you to Heck to be tormented. So where do you think you are going? (don't wait for an answer, think what would Ray do... beyond creative editing aka lying)
Obviously few believe this now, and even if they do I see very few Nordes marching off to a Just war (is there any such thing now-a-days?). It is a perfect refutation of Ray's dumbed down Pascals wager, but he will never hear it, or respond with... "oh but how many people actually believe in Woden or Thor", an Argument ad Populum, a logical fallacy, Woden and Thor are just as likely to be True (if not a little more so as their claim is less than omnipotence) than Yahweh and Jesus.
*The counter to is Hitler in heaven is an easy one... How many people did Hitler kill, in the order of tens of millions right, do you think even killing tens of millions deserves an eternal torment and torture... if so then you are lacking in empathy as I doubt any person could sentence even the worst person to an unjust amount of torture for their crimes, let the crime fit the punishment, eternal can never fit a crime carried out in a limited time such as a human lifetime.
This was just a quick post, I am working on a couple big ones at the moment, a takedown of the some (hehe) Catholic apologetics, and a skeptics annotated catechism, and a full on book (I have written way to much and self-editing is hard)... So yeah posts may be a little sporadic.
Saturday, 15 February 2014
Rebuttal to reasons atheism is stupid
Sometimes I read an article and get incensed enough I have to write a reply, the below did that for me, don't worry they are the same arguments you have heard for years; http://thereforegodexists.com/2013/11/5-reasons-atheism-stupid-2/
Lets start with the opening, yes the bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God... it also said; "anyone who claims another is a fool is in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22. So I guess that writer of Psalms and this writer are going to hell if it exists.
I shouldn't need to point out that an insult is the lowest form of attack, a simple ad hominem attack, with no merit. I agree that ideas need to be challenged and they can be insulted, but if you ever complain about someone calling your beliefs stupid then you have no right to put that label on someone Else's lack of belief... even if your beliefs include a talking snake, a talking donkey or a being who sent them self to earth to atone for their creations sin that offended itself, to appease itself so it wouldn't send its creation to a hell it created or allowed to be created... If we are going to go on stupid, surely buying the story of a virgin birth is stupid, surely buying the water into wine, walking on water, and the posthumous empty promise of punishment or reward is right up there with the stupidest things mankind has ever believed. But I digress, lets get into it.
The analogy here with the ball is silly, we have explanations for how balls come into existence from existing matter, as do we for planets, stars, galaxies and the entire visible universe, they are all natural explanations. Sure the explanation for the initial conditions the singularity are not yet known, but it is more honest to start with "I don't know" and search for an answer than to start with "Magic pixies started the universe off" and then only look at things that confirm your assumption.
Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies.
Atheists I know are happy with whichever way the evidence points, atheists like Bill Nye and Matt Dillahunty have both said all it would take to convince them that their position on God/s is wrong is evidence, theists like Ken Ham just said nothing could convince him his position is wrong, which is more intellectually honest.
So again to take your argument and give it undue merit, lets say the universe had a definite beginning 13.8billion years ago, not the 6-10,000 that creationists argue, not the length of time humans have been around as a literal interpretation of the bible suggests, but 13.8billion years ago. OK, so what, it doesn't have to have a supernatural cause, everything so far observed has had a natural cause why should this be any different. There are plenty of possible causes from quantum mechanics to the bounce theory of universe inflation deflation, all of them infinitely more likely than a timeless, spaceless pixie... sorry God.
Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies, which are both a lot less likely than natural causes we have observed.
3 - The design of the universe.
There is a bit of an argument to authority here, just because one previously atheist cosmologist now believes in God, doesn’t mean there is any evidence in modern physics or cosmology to point to God. In fact to counter your argument to authority with an argument ad populum (argument to numbers), 70% of the USA’s national institute of science, doesn’t believe in a personal God, Hawking has said God is un-needed and Victor Stenger has written a very good book debunking these cosmological constants need to be just perfect for life to exist. The truth is we just don’t know, life could actually be more likely in a universe with different constants, or it could be worse, we don’t have another universe accessible to us with these different constants in place in which to test your hypothesis that life is only viable in universe with constants with these particular values.
No one is suggesting that life came about by chance, no biologist or physicist I have ever spoken to is that naïve. Natural selection seems to be a driving force for biological life. The constants being the way they are may not be chance, they may not be able to be any different. There is a principle called the anthropic principal, which basically states that the universe is capable of supporting life because we are here to observe it, eg I have seen these arguments before, because I tend to read websites with these arguments. It would be more amazing and confounding if we existed in world incapable of supporting life, or if everywhere was capable I mean the 99.999% of the universe that is extremely hostile to us the vacuum of space, the radiation… if all that was not there and the entire universe was habitable then your argument would hold more water, at present it is weak.
My favourite quote on this is from Douglas Adams;
“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”
The universe doesn’t appear at all designed for us, surely if it were designed for us the entirety of space would contain breathable air, no deadly radiation. It is as likely for a God to exist that created the universe like this as it is for a tornado to whip through a scrap yard and build a 1979 Valiant charger.
Yes Dawkins is right a single DNA molecule has a lot of information, but he didn’t suggest that just popped into existence one day, that is the theists claim. He proposes as do a whole swath of scientists investigating abiogenesis that life took millennia to form even the simplest of single celled bacteria. DNA is not data, or code or a message. It is just chemistry writ large, it only has a code that we have assigned to it, a message due to the way we or amino acids interpret it. Therefore DNA didn’t require a mind, just as chemistry doesn’t, therefore God doesn’t need to exists.
These all have their own cases, the Nazareth bit of the name is supposedly a town, that didn’t exist till well after Jesus’ death, the time line in the gospels is wrong, the story inconsistent between the gospels, as well as known forgeries and additions, look up “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” for some fun, a section that there is almost consensus on it being a forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Saying that the willingness to die for ones beliefs validates them is also wrong, the suicide bombers the world over are willing to die for their beliefs, the Romans fought and died for their Gods as did the Greeks, Egyptians and others.
Again an argument to authority here, a historian can’t explain the rise of the popularity of Christianity unless Jesus rose from the dead… I can’t explain the rise in the popularity and wealth of the Mormon church unless Joseph Smith did get those golden plates and speak to the angel Moroni, I can’t explain the rise of Islam so quickly across the middle east unless Mohammed did speak to the angel Gabriel. These are erroneous arguments, the popularity of an idea even the quick rise in popularity does not lend any credence to the claim.
Not all of the previously mentioned claims of religions can be true, but they can all be wrong.
The best idea is to way the existing evidence for a claim with the logical possibilities or impossibilities of that claim, say if I claim I have a mobile phone. It is not that impossible a claim so you may accept it out of hand, say I am God and you can see the logical impossibilities in this statement (why do I bother working, why aren't I killing the first born of Egypt etc), and you can also weigh this with the fact I have given no evidence of my God-like abilities and you can dismiss my claim. This is all that an atheist does with religions.
Lets start with the opening, yes the bible says the fool has said in his heart there is no God... it also said; "anyone who claims another is a fool is in danger of hell fire" Matthew 5:22. So I guess that writer of Psalms and this writer are going to hell if it exists.
I shouldn't need to point out that an insult is the lowest form of attack, a simple ad hominem attack, with no merit. I agree that ideas need to be challenged and they can be insulted, but if you ever complain about someone calling your beliefs stupid then you have no right to put that label on someone Else's lack of belief... even if your beliefs include a talking snake, a talking donkey or a being who sent them self to earth to atone for their creations sin that offended itself, to appease itself so it wouldn't send its creation to a hell it created or allowed to be created... If we are going to go on stupid, surely buying the story of a virgin birth is stupid, surely buying the water into wine, walking on water, and the posthumous empty promise of punishment or reward is right up there with the stupidest things mankind has ever believed. But I digress, lets get into it.
1 - The existence of the universe.
Yes the universe exists, wow that must be proof of God... uh no, it would clearly be better evidence for the existence of God if we humans existed in a space that was not a universe, say a floating realm where all our need where met...The analogy here with the ball is silly, we have explanations for how balls come into existence from existing matter, as do we for planets, stars, galaxies and the entire visible universe, they are all natural explanations. Sure the explanation for the initial conditions the singularity are not yet known, but it is more honest to start with "I don't know" and search for an answer than to start with "Magic pixies started the universe off" and then only look at things that confirm your assumption.
Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies.
2 - The Big bang.
The universe contracting back and forth forever isn't quite settled, some evidence is pointing to that it may in fact be part of a multiverse. Regardless if all of this fails to bring sufficient evidence, you can't say "I don't know"..."therefore God", as this will put your God in the ever receding pocket of ignorance that its forebears occupied, ignorance such as Thor being responsible for lightning (sorry Thor, you are totally the reason for lightning), a giant wolf eating the sun during eclipses, and the earth being held aloft by a giant tree.Atheists I know are happy with whichever way the evidence points, atheists like Bill Nye and Matt Dillahunty have both said all it would take to convince them that their position on God/s is wrong is evidence, theists like Ken Ham just said nothing could convince him his position is wrong, which is more intellectually honest.
So again to take your argument and give it undue merit, lets say the universe had a definite beginning 13.8billion years ago, not the 6-10,000 that creationists argue, not the length of time humans have been around as a literal interpretation of the bible suggests, but 13.8billion years ago. OK, so what, it doesn't have to have a supernatural cause, everything so far observed has had a natural cause why should this be any different. There are plenty of possible causes from quantum mechanics to the bounce theory of universe inflation deflation, all of them infinitely more likely than a timeless, spaceless pixie... sorry God.
Therefore God is as likely to exist as universe creating pixies, which are both a lot less likely than natural causes we have observed.
3 - The design of the universe.
There is a bit of an argument to authority here, just because one previously atheist cosmologist now believes in God, doesn’t mean there is any evidence in modern physics or cosmology to point to God. In fact to counter your argument to authority with an argument ad populum (argument to numbers), 70% of the USA’s national institute of science, doesn’t believe in a personal God, Hawking has said God is un-needed and Victor Stenger has written a very good book debunking these cosmological constants need to be just perfect for life to exist. The truth is we just don’t know, life could actually be more likely in a universe with different constants, or it could be worse, we don’t have another universe accessible to us with these different constants in place in which to test your hypothesis that life is only viable in universe with constants with these particular values.
No one is suggesting that life came about by chance, no biologist or physicist I have ever spoken to is that naïve. Natural selection seems to be a driving force for biological life. The constants being the way they are may not be chance, they may not be able to be any different. There is a principle called the anthropic principal, which basically states that the universe is capable of supporting life because we are here to observe it, eg I have seen these arguments before, because I tend to read websites with these arguments. It would be more amazing and confounding if we existed in world incapable of supporting life, or if everywhere was capable I mean the 99.999% of the universe that is extremely hostile to us the vacuum of space, the radiation… if all that was not there and the entire universe was habitable then your argument would hold more water, at present it is weak.
My favourite quote on this is from Douglas Adams;
“Imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, "This is an interesting world I find myself in - an interesting hole I find myself in - fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!" This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, it's still frantically hanging on to the notion that everything's going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise.”
The universe doesn’t appear at all designed for us, surely if it were designed for us the entirety of space would contain breathable air, no deadly radiation. It is as likely for a God to exist that created the universe like this as it is for a tornado to whip through a scrap yard and build a 1979 Valiant charger.
4 – The design of mankind.
We don’t know what the first life was, just like a lot of first things they aren’t around anymore. The other issues is microscopic weak early cells don’t fossilise or leave much of a trace. Darwin was likely right, the first life was likely simple, probably not even DNA at all, but RNA like viruses that contain half the information that DNA does. I am no biologist, but they are currently looking at non-biological replication, such as rusts and the like that are leading us to some interesting conclusions. Again why does life have to start with a supernatural cause, when every other thing we have witnessed gets started with a natural cause.Yes Dawkins is right a single DNA molecule has a lot of information, but he didn’t suggest that just popped into existence one day, that is the theists claim. He proposes as do a whole swath of scientists investigating abiogenesis that life took millennia to form even the simplest of single celled bacteria. DNA is not data, or code or a message. It is just chemistry writ large, it only has a code that we have assigned to it, a message due to the way we or amino acids interpret it. Therefore DNA didn’t require a mind, just as chemistry doesn’t, therefore God doesn’t need to exists.
5 – The resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.
Which historians have come to a consensus that Jesus even existed. A consensus means all the historians agree, this is simply false; there are plenty as listed below;These all have their own cases, the Nazareth bit of the name is supposedly a town, that didn’t exist till well after Jesus’ death, the time line in the gospels is wrong, the story inconsistent between the gospels, as well as known forgeries and additions, look up “let he who is without sin cast the first stone” for some fun, a section that there is almost consensus on it being a forgery. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christ_myth_theory
Saying that the willingness to die for ones beliefs validates them is also wrong, the suicide bombers the world over are willing to die for their beliefs, the Romans fought and died for their Gods as did the Greeks, Egyptians and others.
Again an argument to authority here, a historian can’t explain the rise of the popularity of Christianity unless Jesus rose from the dead… I can’t explain the rise in the popularity and wealth of the Mormon church unless Joseph Smith did get those golden plates and speak to the angel Moroni, I can’t explain the rise of Islam so quickly across the middle east unless Mohammed did speak to the angel Gabriel. These are erroneous arguments, the popularity of an idea even the quick rise in popularity does not lend any credence to the claim.
Not all of the previously mentioned claims of religions can be true, but they can all be wrong.
The best idea is to way the existing evidence for a claim with the logical possibilities or impossibilities of that claim, say if I claim I have a mobile phone. It is not that impossible a claim so you may accept it out of hand, say I am God and you can see the logical impossibilities in this statement (why do I bother working, why aren't I killing the first born of Egypt etc), and you can also weigh this with the fact I have given no evidence of my God-like abilities and you can dismiss my claim. This is all that an atheist does with religions.
Monday, 28 October 2013
William Lane Craig dishonest?
So if you don't know who William Lane Craig is (sometimes referred to as simply WLC), I will spare you having to sit through one of his rhetorical debates. He is the lead apologist for Christianity, which basically means he delights in arguing for the Christian viewpoint, and publishing books on his philosophy, one that attempts to proves God's existence, not just any God but the empty tomb God of the bible, with Jesus as his son. He is actually fairly intelligent, very well spoken and very well presented. He does however use faulty logic that has been cut down at every turn by atheists on youtube. He will of course sometimes dismiss their arguments with an appeal to authority, saying he is a published PHD, they are youtubers... yeah sorry that doesn't hold water, your argument must be sound.
If you really want to see his arguments or the beautiful take downs, have a look, I will recommend some videos at the end.
But the video I want to refute is here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMop6q3dxYIt is only 2 minutes, but I will give you a quick recap. Carl Sagan once said in his truly skeptical fashion "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A good phrase to sum up a decent skeptical position to hold. If someone tells you they can fly, you may ask for a demonstration, if they say they can't demonstrate it now, then you are smart to withhold judgement and ask them when they can demonstrate this extraordinary ability. If they put some condition on it, you could attempt to still test them while fulfilling this condition, but if they refuse to be subject to testing then you would be wise to disbelieve them till some extraordinary evidence came in. Their say so is not enough, even a photo can be faked, you need some testable evidence.
WLC goes on to probability theory, and says that things that are unlikely to happen statistically should be questioned. Yes that is right, WLC then uses the lottery numbers that were picked as a highly improbable event that should be questioned. It is two improbabilities, surely someone of WLC's intelligence knows this. The likelihood of lottery numbers being picked on a night that they are picked is nearly 100%, the likelihood that a set of numbers a particular individual has chosen maybe 1 in 100 million. But once the numbers have been picked, like a quantum wave function the probability is collapsed to 100%. This is why they record it and have overseers to ensure that it is all legitimate and no cheating is performed.
The lotto numbers that were picked weren't picked due to some Divine hand, nor was the fact that they were picked an extraordinary claim. What would be an extraordinary claim is if one of the numbers picked contained a letter, but that claim would be satisfied with video evidence. If one of the numbers picked started talking then, maybe even a single source of video evidence may not be enough... if one of the numbers picked, talked (but only to certain people), and managed to create a universe and sentient beings in it, and send a lesser number that was somehow still the same to one of the planets in that created universe then no matter how many sources you had you may never have enough. A book written by ancients who witnessed this miraculous talking number would definitely not be enough evidence.
So try this on for size WLC, varied levels of claim require equivalent levels of evidence. If you claim a dice landed on 6, and it causes no cost to me, I would likely just believe you. If my house were riding on this dice roll, not only would I want to see the 6, but I would throw the dice myself a few times to ensure it wasn't rigged... if my life were riding on it... well I don't think I would gamble that, but I would spend all my effort to ensure the roll was fair even going so far as to not let another roll the dice.
He then goes on to try and tie in the bible saying you can offset that probability, one I have already dismissed by determining what is the probability that it would have been reported had it not occurred... Hmm papers and broadcast have misreported the lottery numbers several times, a quick google shows three in the first page of results, just for 2011 (http://www.northjersey.com/news/116970228_Lawsuit_says_ABC_got_lottery_numbers_wrong.html) so there is a possibility that it was misreported.
The same thing can be applied to the bible and other texts, was Homers Odyssey misreported, or did Poseidon have it in for Odysseus, were the writings of Heracles (Hercules) misreported, or did Zeus really have an extra-marital affair with a human that ended in a mighty warrior half-god son? These stories are mutually exclusive, so it is best to refrain from judgement till one has evidence for or against. The bible and its stories and adherents are not evidence, any more than the now lost (presumed destroyed by early Christians) books of stories of the Cult of Heracles and his known followers are evidence for his existence. Anecdote and here say does not equal evidence.
Evidence has mounted against all of them, there are no Gods atop mount Olympus, none yet found in the seas, no signature for Yahweh the God of the bible, and some scholars including one who recently spoke for Sydney atheists are starting to questions Jesus' validity.
Reserving judgement, on all of these is the only honest approach. You can go one step further and dismiss all of the hypothesis till one has clear evidence in its favour. Dismissing hypothesis' such as Zeus, Woden (Odin), FSM and Yahweh (God, Jehova, Elohim, Adonai) .
All of this I watched, only a few weeks after I saw WLC debate Lawrence Krauss in Sydney were he goes on here to say he is an agnostic, this seems a little dishonest, maybe he isn't convinced by his own water tight arguments? Well small steps Craig, you'll get there eventually.
Of course I make this rather large claim and have some video evidence to back it up, of course WLC can back peddle all he likes but here it is, shortly after Lawrence Krauss states the position that he doesn't claim certainty, as any good scientist should: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V82uGzgoajI#t=3767
WLC take downs;
Theortetical Bullshit's awesome takedown
Contingent argument takedown/Morality This is the same as the age old logical fallacy, some doctors are men, some doctors are tall. Does that mean some men are tall?
You can't actually answer yes with only those two pieces of information, the tall doctors could be all females and all the men in this hypothetical world could be short.
And of course the Awesome skydive Phil, who seems to knock WLC's argument down again and again, yet he continues to use them.
If you really want to see his arguments or the beautiful take downs, have a look, I will recommend some videos at the end.
But the video I want to refute is here; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=koMop6q3dxYIt is only 2 minutes, but I will give you a quick recap. Carl Sagan once said in his truly skeptical fashion "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". A good phrase to sum up a decent skeptical position to hold. If someone tells you they can fly, you may ask for a demonstration, if they say they can't demonstrate it now, then you are smart to withhold judgement and ask them when they can demonstrate this extraordinary ability. If they put some condition on it, you could attempt to still test them while fulfilling this condition, but if they refuse to be subject to testing then you would be wise to disbelieve them till some extraordinary evidence came in. Their say so is not enough, even a photo can be faked, you need some testable evidence.
WLC goes on to probability theory, and says that things that are unlikely to happen statistically should be questioned. Yes that is right, WLC then uses the lottery numbers that were picked as a highly improbable event that should be questioned. It is two improbabilities, surely someone of WLC's intelligence knows this. The likelihood of lottery numbers being picked on a night that they are picked is nearly 100%, the likelihood that a set of numbers a particular individual has chosen maybe 1 in 100 million. But once the numbers have been picked, like a quantum wave function the probability is collapsed to 100%. This is why they record it and have overseers to ensure that it is all legitimate and no cheating is performed.
The lotto numbers that were picked weren't picked due to some Divine hand, nor was the fact that they were picked an extraordinary claim. What would be an extraordinary claim is if one of the numbers picked contained a letter, but that claim would be satisfied with video evidence. If one of the numbers picked started talking then, maybe even a single source of video evidence may not be enough... if one of the numbers picked, talked (but only to certain people), and managed to create a universe and sentient beings in it, and send a lesser number that was somehow still the same to one of the planets in that created universe then no matter how many sources you had you may never have enough. A book written by ancients who witnessed this miraculous talking number would definitely not be enough evidence.
So try this on for size WLC, varied levels of claim require equivalent levels of evidence. If you claim a dice landed on 6, and it causes no cost to me, I would likely just believe you. If my house were riding on this dice roll, not only would I want to see the 6, but I would throw the dice myself a few times to ensure it wasn't rigged... if my life were riding on it... well I don't think I would gamble that, but I would spend all my effort to ensure the roll was fair even going so far as to not let another roll the dice.
He then goes on to try and tie in the bible saying you can offset that probability, one I have already dismissed by determining what is the probability that it would have been reported had it not occurred... Hmm papers and broadcast have misreported the lottery numbers several times, a quick google shows three in the first page of results, just for 2011 (http://www.northjersey.com/news/116970228_Lawsuit_says_ABC_got_lottery_numbers_wrong.html) so there is a possibility that it was misreported.
The same thing can be applied to the bible and other texts, was Homers Odyssey misreported, or did Poseidon have it in for Odysseus, were the writings of Heracles (Hercules) misreported, or did Zeus really have an extra-marital affair with a human that ended in a mighty warrior half-god son? These stories are mutually exclusive, so it is best to refrain from judgement till one has evidence for or against. The bible and its stories and adherents are not evidence, any more than the now lost (presumed destroyed by early Christians) books of stories of the Cult of Heracles and his known followers are evidence for his existence. Anecdote and here say does not equal evidence.
Evidence has mounted against all of them, there are no Gods atop mount Olympus, none yet found in the seas, no signature for Yahweh the God of the bible, and some scholars including one who recently spoke for Sydney atheists are starting to questions Jesus' validity.
Reserving judgement, on all of these is the only honest approach. You can go one step further and dismiss all of the hypothesis till one has clear evidence in its favour. Dismissing hypothesis' such as Zeus, Woden (Odin), FSM and Yahweh (God, Jehova, Elohim, Adonai) .
All of this I watched, only a few weeks after I saw WLC debate Lawrence Krauss in Sydney were he goes on here to say he is an agnostic, this seems a little dishonest, maybe he isn't convinced by his own water tight arguments? Well small steps Craig, you'll get there eventually.
Of course I make this rather large claim and have some video evidence to back it up, of course WLC can back peddle all he likes but here it is, shortly after Lawrence Krauss states the position that he doesn't claim certainty, as any good scientist should: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=V82uGzgoajI#t=3767
WLC take downs;
Theortetical Bullshit's awesome takedown
Contingent argument takedown/Morality This is the same as the age old logical fallacy, some doctors are men, some doctors are tall. Does that mean some men are tall?
You can't actually answer yes with only those two pieces of information, the tall doctors could be all females and all the men in this hypothetical world could be short.
And of course the Awesome skydive Phil, who seems to knock WLC's argument down again and again, yet he continues to use them.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)