Iggy

I can't figure out why you keep asserting there is some difference in the evidence in support of either one...

Yeah, I said that. You can quote it. Sure.

I am not trying to say god and dragons are the same thing...

Could you go so far as to ask iNow to stop doing it too? I realize it's a lot to ask... but if you could. Also.. if you could stop saying "I will assert there is no difference" then that will be fine too.

It's like you're attacking me, and I honestly don't know why.

My claim is self evident

Isn't that exactly what every religious person you've ever met said? They say something stupid, like "I can't prove anything I'm saying, but it's all perfectly self-evident"

I don't believe it from you any more than I believe it from them.

I will assert there is no difference

Between corn dog pooping dragons and God? Do you own a dictionary?

This is getting more and more embarrassing.

It's called an equivocation fallacy. You can't assert that there is no difference while two things are distinctly different.

It's just an equivocation fallacy. That's all you're doing.

Where is Tar? That guy does it like nobody else. He'll tell you that god is no different from the laughter of children. "There is no difference?" That's what you say? Tar is going to be unbelievably happy about this.

can you demonstrate there is?

Yeah, I'm going to prove your claims for you. Sure.

After a while it becomes clear that what you are doing is the equivalent of small child saying "I know what the answer is, but I'm not telling you". They are trying to cover for the fact that they don't really know, but don't want to admit it.

 

Yeah, you're going to compare me to a small child. In a bit you're going to compare me to woman, and after that it'll be every other nasty thing you can think of. You said "there is no difference". You just in the last day said that. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to show that corn dog shitting dragons are equivalent to God.

It sounds fun. There are all kinds of principles of logic that could be applied to your faith. I'm just standing here wondering how you're going to do it. It's fascinating to watch. And, of course you compare me to a kid in the mean time. Of course you do.

I'm sorry, "there is no difference"? Can you repeat that?

Thank you for making it clear that you are unable to show that there is a difference between God and the dragon because there is no difference.

We can move on now.

You get that I never said they're different, but iNow said they're equivalent? You know that?

Refusing to answerer how they're different doesn't prove they're equivalent.

What part of that is so hard to understand? Read the above sentence again. Then read it two or three... maybe four or five... more times. Still don't understand it?

You don't get to say X then beggar everybody else to prove X false. That isn't how it works. You can go ahead and prove your own claims, and iNow can go ahead and prove his. I won't be bothered to do either.

Your paraphrasing is inaccurate. That doesn't come across as a valid summary of the thread...

I thought it was pretty good.

All unsupported statements are equivalent.

Exactly.

iNow, your unsupported statement that God is equivalent to dragon poop is no different from a claim "my father raped me in the bathroom". Your announced claim of the former does nothing to address the latter.

I welcome any evidence I can find, But, the unevidenced nature of both those make them exactly in kind. I couldn't agree with you more, John.

Honestly, iNow.... did your father rape you in the bathroom?

Realize... I'm going to ask this question 20 more times while you refuse to answer. And, in the mean time, you can't show that God is equivalent to dragon poop. Because... these unsupported claims are equivalent. Just like John said.

As has been shared already, I responded to your request and have shared why I believe they are equivalent.

You "believe" they're equivalent, but you can't in the least explain or show why.

This is like someone believing that God exists but can't in the least explain or show why.

You don't get to do that!

Your refusal to answer...

We are both refusing to answer. You said it first. You said god is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. You said it. I'm not going to be dragged into proving your private beliefs for you. Either show they are equivalent, or admit they aren't, or shut the hell up with that particular claim.

Equivocation fallacy 101. Embarrassing!

You're above this.

You're smart enough to tap Tar on the shoulder when he says "God is equivalent to child's dreams and all kinds of lovely things", or whatever he says, but you can't see exactly the same thing when you do it? It's disgusting. Hypocritical and disgusting.

I'm still waiting for a response to this...

I know how you feel.

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent.

Please do so. Thanks.

I summarized my position for you in post #353 and also several before it. I won't do it again.

Yeah, I read it. Twice now. I didn't see you show that God is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons. Nor did I see you say that you were wrong in that assumption.

You could say anything else in the world to me, but those really are the only two things I'm looking for. You said that God is equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons, and before that you compared god to pixie farts, and before that it was leprechaun erections. It's dirty every time. I get that you're trying to drag religion through the mud. You're trying to be smutty. I get it. I don't exactly disagree with your desire to do that.

It's just that your attempt to do it is so crude and wrong... "God is equivalent to pixie farts"... I mean... it's laughable. You're making us look bad.

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent.

Please do.

You said it before I confronted you in the least. You're glad. Please do. Please do so in your next post. Please don't ask someone 20 questions before you get on with it.

Your next post, do what you said you would, or admit you can't.

Again, you seem incapable of responding without the introduction of strawmen. I am talking about assertions of existence, not beliefs.

Yeah, I welcome you to assert some evidence.

So, I ask a question about 20 times... A question that you and others continue to evade. I asked, "Besides popularity, in what way(s) do you think that claims that god(s) exist are functionally different than claims that dragons who shit corndogs exist?"

Right, you asked "how are they different" after you said they are equivalent.

I'm gonna fall for that. Sure.

You said it. You freakin prove it. Your kicking and screaming about it only makes it look worse.

Just say "God isn't equivalent to corn dog pooping dragons". I won't even point out your hypocrisy if you do that. Just say what I just said and we'll be behind this. Nothing more said.

But, you don't get to say "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent" then beggar everybody else with 20 questions to show you their differences. I won't do that.

That's not true. Once you ask "What do you mean X?", things change. All you have to do is show that one or more of the parts of what it means to be X is not instantiated by anything or is mutually exclusive with another one of the properties.

 

If you want to be able to say anything about what the world would be like if X exists, then "X exists" is falsifiable. How do you think science disproves things like "The Luminiferous Aether exists"?

So, yeah.

I'm qualifying what I'm saying. In general "X exists" is not falsifiable. That is to say... if X is well defined. I think religion's god usually qualifies. The judeo-christian god is, in my opinion, not just falsifiable, but already falsified.

So, I agree with you, and I like what you're saying and how read up you are on this. But, I think my last post and this one makes my point stand just fine.

What you CANNOT do is show evidence that this actual god or any god doesn't exist at all.

Right, but that's where I sort of agree with Phi and Ydoa. I can show scientific evidence that the biblical god doesn't exist, and I can show scientific evicence that the god of the empire of Japan did exist, but between those two lines it gets fuzzy. You really do have to define God at that point.

Deism is a safe place to go if you want to run there. But, "a god who doesn't affect anything" isn't any sort of god by my standard.

That's where I see the problem. No god(s) are observable (by scientific standards), so how are you going to verify it even if you get a consensus definition?

When Zeus meets Perseus, God is observed. Verified. Existing in the flesh. The concept "no god is observable" isn't making sense to me.

You know, they said the emperor of Japan was God for a long time. I can't tell you how observable that guy was.

A deistic god is a bit of a rarity... at least in the literature.

Wouldn't you have to search the whole universe to disprove that X does not exist as well?

No, no.

"Falsifiable" doesn't mean that you've proven something falsified. It means that something is capable (in principle) of being shown false. You don't (in principle) have to search the whole universe over to show "apple does not exist " is false. If you're eating one then you've already done a good job of that.

When we discuss the most popular religions, this is even more difficult because God X is outside of the reach of the universe and laws of the universe.

That's kind of a myth. And, maybe what I'm about to say will address Phi's question more precisely. The judeo-christian god is easily within the realm of testing as a google search for "elijah's altar" will show... which is to say, first kings 18 will tell you how to do it.

edit:

added "does not" to "exist"

Since god(s) remain outside what scientists could observe and test, how can we say "God does NOT exist" is a falsifiable statement? What set of circumstances can you envision that could refute the existence of something you're not supposed to be capable of observing and testing?

 

I think both stances are non-falsifiable.

I mean, in principle, "X exists" is not falsifiable (you'd have to search the whole universe over to show it wrong, as I think you previously pointed out to me). "X does not exist" is falsifiable. A verified observation shows it wrong.

So, how is God X... well... that's up to whoever is making the claim. Like iNow said, there are many definitions for god. But, in general, whatever the definition it should fit the profile I just laid out

I've made no claims about what would happen to people or what would happen to society itself if people replaced their belief in god(s) with a belief in corndog shitting dragons.

So... functionally equivalent doesn't mean functionally equivalent? To say that belief in one is the same as belief in the other means that switching the beliefs doesn't change anything. Nothing would be functionally different. I think maybe you need to define your words. I'm not following precisely what you mean.

My point, as made abundantly and repeatedly clear throughout multiple posts in this thread, is that nobody seems able to cite a single functional difference between the assertion that god(s) exist and the assertion that corndog shitting dragons exist.

No, iNow. That is most definitely wrong. You aren't asking anyone to cite anything when you say this:

More specifically, I said that the only difference between claims that god(s) exist and claims that corndog shitting dragons exist is that one is more popular...

and this...

I'm glad to show how they are equivalent. In fact, I've done so repeatedly...

You're clearly saying they're equivalent. You're saying that you can show they're equivalent.

Why should I need to cite something in order for you to do that? This isn't my problem.

Popularity has been cited, but popularity has also been debunked as a relevant response since it's not a valid input on the veracity or validity of the claim of existence.

Relevant to what?

Claim A is equal to claim B only if A is equal to B. Either you can show A equal to B or you can't. What someone finds relevant is completely beside the point. If A is more popular than B then A is not equal to B. It is just that simple.

Only if they first define god and in a way that finds consensus.

Consensus makes a definition, not the inverse.

If 99% of people disagree with a dictionary then it's the dictionary that's wrong.

Falsifiability doesn't need consensus.

That the same can be said of the dragon (or, indeed, the lack-of-God or lack-of-dragon) is the point here.

The two stories are equally poorly proven...

"God exists" is not falsifiable. "God does not exist" is falsifiable. You shouldn't compare them like that. The first is a reasonable observation (or could... in principle be), and the latter is a reasonable hypothesis (or could... in principle be). But, an observation is not a hypothesis. They're distinctly different things.

I will take this as your concession that assertions that god(s) exist are not functionally different than assertions that corndog pooping dragons exist, or at least that you (and others) are completely unable to cite a relevant functional difference between the two and for our purposes here they ought to be considered equivalent.

 

As was already debated many pages ago in this very thread, popularity is not demonstrative of the truth or validity of a claim.

 

 

 

This also feels like a good time to repeat this contribution from ydoaps, especially given the exchanges btw Phi and Pears:

What an amazing amount of faith you have. You actually believe, based on no evidence, that the world would be functionally equivalent if 85% of humanity had their core belief in god changed to a core belief in corn dog pooping dragons. This is a belief you can't even explain, but you have complete conviction -- complete blind faith. Not only that, now you've convinced yourself that I'm agreeing with you.

I think what happened is that a bunch of atheists got together and started saying "god is equivalent to pixie farts" and "god is equivalent to leprechaun erections". They had such a good laugh and felt so good about it that they actually started to believe it. Sort of like mass hypnosis. Someone should do a case study. This is fascinating to watch in real time. A myth is being born and people are willing to have faith in it. Beautiful.

It shouldn't, not when it comes to trusting explanations about the phenomena we experience every day. Opinion is fine for many things, but not for science. There needs to be a benchmark that's held to higher standards than how many people like it.

 

Just funny enough, imo.

 

I'm not as well grounded in math as many here are, but I can see the importance of not looking for "proof", or even worse, Truth! when it comes to various phenomena. I could never trust explanations that are considered absolutely "True" based on anything, much less mass appeal. Could you, really? Wouldn't that be like using the Nielsen rating system to determine quality when all it really does is measure popularity?

 

I think we would end up with explanations that made people happy instead of informed. That's good enough for TV but not for science.

No, I don't disagree. I was using the word proof offhandedly. I'm actually a true believer in the cogito. The only thing one can truly prove is "I exist". [ I don't mean that sarcastically ]

 

That's like saying popular myths are not myths because they are popular. Popularity IS NOT evidence of truth!

I don't follow. Evidence of what truth? What truth do you think I'm trying to evidence?

 

It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God

Besides popularity, in what...

 

Popularity works for me.

Were you getting around to addressing your equivocation fallacy?

Actually, iNow is right, science doesn't deal in proof. Proof is really only available in math, because we can't test for everything, everywhere.

Heh

That's why mathematicians say physics is too important to be left to the physicists.

Too funny.

I haven't been here the whole thread but I BELIEVE he is asking you to demonstrate how they are different.

I realize you haven't been, and I guess I should explain.

There was somebody here (named Pears) who said some things. She made no arguments based on region. She made no arguments based on religion. But, nevertheless, some people around here decided to ask her "how are your beliefs different from dragon poop".

It seems a bit odd to me. Dragon poop is a bit different from God, but that isn't just what they asked, it's what they claimed. They said "god is equivalent to dragon poop".

And, of course they can't prove anything like that.

So here we are.

We cannot deal in proof. Science, at best, deals in evidence and internally consistent positions, but proofs are for maths and that's not what we're doing here. This is not even science, so I can lay out my position and you can take from it what you will. If you disagree with my position and you have an alternative opinion, that's fine, but I'd like you to explain why and in what ways you see the claims as functionally different.

 

Ultimately, I just want an answer to my core question. In hopes of getting that answer, I'll repeat the comments I've made previously in response to your request above, but again... Proof is for math and your request is consequently unreasonable:

Nope. Prof isn't just for the math. It's for you as well, and I don't think asking for it is unreasonable as well.

You said that god is the equivalent to corn dog shitting dragons, You aid... "I'm glad to show how they are equivalent". You said that. Ether do it or admit you can't! There is no other option!

 

More definitions problems. Scientific evidence is different than legal evidence, so while eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory. If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own,..

 

I want to agree with you. I agree with you in principle, but I don't know where to draw the line.

I mean... you just contradicted yourself. You just said "eye-witness testimony is admissible in court (if the witness is credible), it's not enough on its own to support a theory" then you said "If Einstein had claimed to witness something in his lab that he couldn't reproduce for colleagues to verify on their own"... so...

First of all: Einstein didn't reproduce the 1919 eclipse for his colleagues.

But, that isn't important... more than that... Religious people are verifying on their own what others see. Someone like Francis Collins hears his whole life that Jesus is real and all that BS, and he doesn't believe. Then one day he sees something that makes him believe. He independently verifies it in his own mind.

How is that different from what science does every day? I honestly think there is an answer but I'm struggling to find it. If I hear my whole life that the earth is round then one day I take a trip on orbit then I'm going to believe too.

I can't find the demarcation.

i would have thought from the religious side there appear to be many Predictions that have been made over the 1000's of years . verified or falsified. surely this is what all the Prophets are about. And similarly from the geology and biology direction there must be ample evidence to verify or falsify .

Science is continually wrong. Newtonian mechanics was trusted for so long until it was falsified, and the paradigm shift introduced us to general relativity.

It isn't exactly that science is right and verified while religion is wrong... it's more that science accepts that it can be wrong. It is skeptical in a way that faith can't be. For that... I trust science far more.