₦airaland Forum

Dalamama:
What is this nonsense? I asked you to show me the scientific declaration that says unequivocal evidence isn't scientific and you are giving me someone's opinion from rationalwiki not even Wikipedia. You are not serious.

If you have no scientific declaration from scholars in serious scientific journals, then I have nothing to say to you but dismiss it as false.

No need to sound like one of those uneducated ranters.

Scientific journals do not make declarations about definitions of science. That belongs to the field of philosophy. Is that all you are asking for, a statement by a philosopher?

Dalamama:
Unequivocal evidence has nothing to do with with western science.

I am glad that you agree.

Dalamama:
Yes, leaving no doubt. Show me the scientific declaration that says full proof that leaves no doubt isn't scientific.

We can simply wiki it...

Scientific proof
It is often said that proof is for alcohol and mathematics, as these are really the only areas where proof has any real meaning. "Proof" is something that the opponents of science are always clamouring for, yet is NOT ACTUALLY SOMETHING SCIENCE SUGGESTS it will give — specifically in the common sense definition of "proof" that suggests that a claim has been proven 100%.

Surprisingly to some, SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL IN PROOF, in spite of the word being associated with science...

Dalamama:
Appeal to which science? You said science doesn't recognize it in one sentence and in another you say it's an appeal to science? Are you making things up or what?

It is an appeal to what is known as "Western science".

Your appeal is flawed, hence the discrepancy.

Dalamama:
Where is the scientific declaration that says unequivocal evidence isn't scientific? Show me it to me pls.

Let us first be clear, before I show you. You are using the term "unequivocal evidence" to mean valid evidence that can be interpreted in only one way, i.e 100% proof, right?

Dalamama:
So what if it is not recognized by scientist? There is no unequivocal evidence that any God exist. That is one of my reasons for not believing in any God.

Your use of the term "unequivocal evidence" seems to be an appeal to science. How do you measure the "unequivocal" nature of "evidence", otherwise? It is then odd that you would dismiss scientific recognition of anything.

Dalamama:
Why am an atheist


*There is not one iota of unequivocal evidence that any God exists. . .

I stopped right there. The notion of "unequivocal evidence" is not recognized even by scientists. Scientific evidence comes with a "confidence level", never 100%.

Dboy55:
Then if you guys says there exist no God,how then did the world come into be,and also other planets
We have in our solar system,and other galaxies that are light ways away from us ?

In philosophy, this comes under ontology.

In our human experience, and according to our human experience of time, things have a "beginning and an end", a "birth and a death". Even stars and galaxies are "UNDERSTOOD" to follow this pattern.

So, it is natural to ask the question, where did everything "COME" from. But the question need not be a valid one, as it is only an extrapolation of our human experience.

Of course, a trite answer to your question would be another question, "where did god come from?"

hopefulLandlord:
No I'm not stuck you are simply wishing I am, proof of existence is ALWAYS positive!. You're free to run around and gather irrelevant and incoherent things in an attempt to invalidate that but it stays true. evidence of existence remains positive not negative.

So, you can't explain yourself.

Philosophy, which is what this discussion amounts to, is a very difficult and challenging field. It's OK, you have lasted much longer than evo (whatever his name was).

You have got to a point where you are repeating the word, "positive" in dogmatic assertions, unable to explain what you mean by it.

I have challenged the word "positive" in clear-cut examples, which you now evade. I can only conclude that you are stuck at this point.

hopefulLandlord:
What are natural laws of science? tell me about them

Laws of thermodynamics, entropy.

Law of conservation of momentum, energy, non-destruction of matter.

etc.

hopefulLandlord:
It seems you're just running around in circles and trying to split hairs. Proof in the context of existence would be positive so "proof of no god" makes no sense.

I think you are stuck, because I have asked you a difficult question.

Scientists assert the non-existence of many things as part of proven theory. I have already given you a number of examples. Suddenly claiming that this is "not positive" for your current debate is scientifically inconsistent.

However, even though your position is exposed in the wider context, it is not an escape route. I can just as well rephrase the question:

HOW DO YOU PROVE THAT EVERYTHING OBEYS NATURAL LAWS OF SCIENCE?

(You are running out of excuses, like "irrelevant", "running round in circles", "not positive"....)

hopefulLandlord:
Proof is always used for positive assertions. The person who asserts something exists provides the proof not the other way around

That is not a description of your use of "positive".

Also, we are talking about asserting that something DOESN'T exist. I gave several examples in my last post.

You still seem to be confusing

NO PROOF SUPPLIED THAT GOD EXISTS

with PROOF THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST.

hopefulLandlord:
Proof is always positive so "proof of no god" makes no sense

Define positive.

Also, does it "make no sense" to prove that there are NO (non-trivial integer) SOLUTIONS to x^3 + y^3 = z^3 (or more generally, Fermat's Last Theorem).

Does it make sense to "prove" that there were NO MACROSCOPIC LEAPS in evolution of species?

Does it make sense to "prove" that NO ISOLATED SYSTEM decreases in entropy?

Does it make sense to "prove" that IDENTICAL FERMIONS CANNOT SIMULTANEOUS OCCUPY THE SAME QUANTUM STATE (Pauli Exclusion Principle)?

Explain what you mean by "positive". There is even an argument that says that you can rephrase any statement that looks "positive" to be "negative", and vice versa.

hopefulLandlord:
What does "proof of no god" even mean?

That is a very good question.

I could ask what the concept of "atheism" even means.

It seems to assert the "non-existence of god". Is this assertion with, or without proof?

If it is "with proof" then the atheist would have to explain what "proof of no god" means.

If it is "without proof", I ask why the atheist thinks the deist needs to prove his belief.

EmperorHarry:
Sadly I am,hence the use of the words "we all"...I've included myself and the thousands of scholars and researchers who over the years have proposed theories that are both irrelevant and relevant even today..For there was a time when the earth's greatest minds once concluded that the earth was flat and that the sun moved around the earth...There was a time when humans believed that air travel was impossible and that once a person heart's stops beating,he's automatically dead.And they would have argued vehemently and with as much conviction as we do now only to discover that what we think we know may not actually be true..Even the ones we experience

Your honesty is refreshing, my friend.

btw, there is nothing wrong with saying that the Sun moves round the Earth. In fact, this point is an excellent example of how the vast majority of us lack the depth of understanding of what the issue is on this point. We simply repeat what we are told.

hopefulLandlord:
Argument from ignorance aren't evidence, are they? that I don't know something doesn't mean I can just call it proof of something else I desperately want to exist. ignorance is proof of ignorance.

You don't need proof for something to be "correct". The Earth didn't turn round after it was proven to be round.

You position seems to be that you don't see any proof of "god", rather than you see proof of no god.

There is a difference.

hopefulLandlord:
How do you mean?

Well, your position so far, is this:

hopefulLandlord:
Because there is no good evidence that god exists past emotional appeal and argument from ignorance

An "emotional argument from ignorance" as you call it, can still turn out to be a "correct" one, can it not? It only means that the person got it right in a clumsy fashion, perhaps.

hopefulLandlord:
I'm an atheist.

Did I answer your question?

Yes, but you have not explained what makes you an atheist.

You have only explained what makes you agnostic.

hopefulLandlord:
Let's move on

So, are you only agnostic?

You have found available scientific explanations that satisfy you, for your experiences. That does not rule out the possibility of non-scientific "explanations" or connections.

kevoh:
No wahala, let's keep falling over ourselves and no, I don't have to agree with hopefulLandlord just because I'm atheist. That's the beauty of it. I can contradict and agree at my own will unlike majority of religious folks. The question of why one became an atheist can be summarized in that one post by hopefulLandlord another atheist can disagree, if it's giving you stomach ache that's your problem. I don't see why I should dwell on irrelevant subject.

You don't sound confident of your position to me.

All you had to say was something like:

"I have always been able to explain my experiences using science." (Instead, four or five posts have gone into defensive posturing.)

Then somebody else could ask you:

"Is your position only agnostic, as you are not ruling out non-science explanations."

etc.

Then we have dynamic, higher level, mature debate, instead of prevarication.

hopefulLandlord:
Supernatural does not prove god, there are atheists that actually thinks supernatural exists so that's what makes it irrelevant. its like a believer in spiderman asking someone who doesn't believe in spiderman if he believes New York exists.

It's OK, YOU DID answer the question, and you left the ball in Abjay's court. (kevoh didn't).

Your initial answer was the correct way to debate.

Not answering the question as a result of interposing your own logic into your interlocutor's logic would be arguing with yourself. It is similar to a Christian refusing to answer one of your questions because of some verse from the Bible that "obviously" makes your question "irrelevant".

EmperorHarry:
Theisms and atheism are both important parts of this puzzle called life...Both are collecting pieces to the jigsaw puzzle but refuse to cooperate with each other believing that they both have the correct pieces,not knowing that they haven't even gotten half the pieces required to fully complete it between them..The next step would be fixing the pieces together so they make sense but I'm afraid hundreds of generations would have to pass and human intelligence would have to transcend race,religion or ethnicity.It would have to be a generation full of intellectuals looking for answers in unity...Until then I'm afraid we all are deluded with some more deluded than others with a lot of pieces yet to be recovered

You are falling into your own trap of making arbitrary assumptions and assertions about things outside your experience.

hopefulLandlord:
If you are so inclined to believe in the supernatural there's no limit to what you can claim is supernatural

hopefulLandlord:
the question is irrelevant though, that's Kevoh's point

If you arbitrarily declare things irrelevant, there is also no limit to what you can claim.

hopefulLandlord:
the question is irrelevant though, that's Kevoh's point

kevoh:
Bebeto! ITK His question was what made me become an atheist(as defined by Nairaland)? That has been asked repeatedly on this board and I think the reply given by hopefulLandlord covers it.

Is hopefulLandlord, now your spokesperson on Nairaland?

You are spending more time falling over yourselves and contradicting each other than giving a simple answer to the question. Why?

kevoh:
Quick question for you, is paranormal an evidence for this god you are talking of?

Let's assume that paranormal activities are real and also assume again that science have demonstrated them to be real. Too many assumptions already! How do we then connect these activities as proof that your god exist?

Secondly, how do you define your god? Which of the gods is it that you are referring to in your answer to my second paragraph!

Caveat: There's no time I have agreed that paranormal is real!

Good points, but you evaded his question.

Have you had a paranormal exprience before?

Dboy55:
Good Morning Nairalanders,so i was having some deep thoughts these morning and one of them was why would make anyone to believe there is no God,thereby becoming an atheist.
So atheists on nairaland,what made you become an atheist ?

Questioning who told them, or what made them think, there is a god in the first place.

For most people, objectivity is only deference to the subjective opinions of people placed in positions of "authority".

In the case of science, the word "truth" is a jargon referring to notions of self-consistency, and utility. Science uses scientific models, with defined domains of applicability, to devise means that are subjectively deemed to be of utilitarian value to mankind.

The reason that this is confused with TRUTH is because it is socially and politically easy to ignore and discard concepts that seem to have no utilitarian value.

However, in the matters of transcendence, in particular transcendence of the human condition, precisely the opposite must happen. We do not pander to the human condition with utilitarianism. Instead we seek and value what is beyond and above it.

Gggg102:
let me use an example.

1+1=2

no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2.

In mathematics, "1 + 1 = 2" has no logical content. It only tells us how "2" is DEFINED.

In a similar way we can define "1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4". Again, the DEFINITION has no logical content, and the question of "opinion or feeling" are not even relevant.

However, now that we have defined "2" and "4", and we have defined the rules of algebra, the statement:

2 + 2 = 4

...is of a different nature. It is the result of ALGEBRAIC LOGIC. Unlike a definition, that logic can be TESTED for VALIDITY, and the philosophical questions of "opinion" or "feeling" can be discussed, and are relevant to the philosophical discourse.

The next point is that the abstract statement 1 + 1 = 2 is categorically different from the APPLIED OBSERVATION

1 apple + 1 apple = 2 apples.

Here, we have applied SEMANTICS to abstract symbols. This can be used to highlight where your conclusion -- "no amount of opinion or feeling can make 1+1=anything but 2" -- is inaccurate:

Take the well-known "double-slit experiment" in physics, where electrons are fired at a pair of slits and an interference pattern observed on a screen. Counting the electrons using our classical understanding of number ("1 electron", "2 electrons", etc.) famously gives a FALSE prediction of the result of the experiment.

This proves that APPLYING the statement "1 + 1 = 2" is only as accurate as our INTERPRETATION of the abstract symbols. Scientists come to a consensus of OPINION on how to apply the abstract algebra in a particular scenario. It can go wrong!

More commonplace (or even trite) examples may include the statements:

1 hole + 1 hole = 2 holes

1 drop of water + 1 drop of water = 2 drops of water

These can be matters of opinion or discussion.

Indeed, we have to distinguish between a statement being "true" in the abstract, or "empirically true".

I regularly hear Nigerians say that the country's problems are caused by having illiterates as leaders.

So, I have a simple question, and I would like a clear answer:

Why haven't all the SMART people outmanoeuvred all these "illiterate leaders" and taken over the leadership?

1. By "Spiritual Experience", I mean something that you have personally experienced that is unusual enough that it tells you that there is life beyond our physical senses. What is your latest such experience?

2. How often do you have such experiences?

People who are religious or "spiritual" often refer to scripture or authority to support their belief ("system" ). But many people say that personal experience is what validates their belief. So, I would like to know what those experiences are, through the questions above.

AgentOfAllah:
Logical positivism as well as experimental philosophy are both philosophical frameworks grounded in science.

Wrong. Find yourself a primer in philosophy, and stop this clueless rambling.

AgentOfAllah:
...

I am laughing.

You wrote a total mess up there, and completely lost track of the argument. It will be useless debating with you.

I'm not going to wade through the whole lot, correcting the mess, but if you pick any one of your objections, I can demonstrate how illogical you are. And I give you the pick, just to show you that I am not cherry-picking. No way will I go through the entire thing you wrote, containing so many inaccuracies.

As a small courtesy, I will take your first objection, regarding Occam's Razor. Science can be grounded by philosophy, not the other way round.

"However, if our philosophical framework is grounded in scientific method..."

Suppositions like this show that you are clueless about philosophy, and have a lot of reading to do. Sorry, but your above supposition is nonsense. The rest of your post is riddled with similar things. If you were to stand up and present such ideas in front of knowledgeable people, you would make a laughing stock of yourself. Sorry.

AgentOfAllah:
I did not claim that it confers justification. Justification was given in the line that followed. You're correct that Occam's razor is a protocol. Precisely, it is one whose point is to sanitise scientific propositions by eliminating as many assumptions as possible. Do you accept that Occam's razor is a fundamental tenet upon which scientific method is necessarily predicated?

No. I will say that it is ill-defined, in that the notion of assigning number to assumption is ill-defined. So Occam's razor is a rather qualitative protocol. One assumption can be argued to be two, three, four... assumptions, depending on your philosophical framework.

AgentOfAllah:
Then let me rephrase: "This extent of wastefulness alludes to a lack of purpose".

Sorry, but I don't see how this renders my argument groundless. It's almost as though you missed the next line where I remarked upon how ever changing environmental factors can change the fortunes of any species from extant to extinct. It seems you assume those extinct species were somehow not well-adapted before their environments evolved and killed them off.

No. I have explained, already.
You earlier cited extinct species as "just one reasons why evolution seems purposeless to an objective observer".

I said that just because they became extinct does not mean that they had no purpose. Then I gave you the specific fact that the extinct ancestors of man gave rise to man. That could have been the purpose of the extinct lineage.

AgentOfAllah:
I asked for two examples, one providing an instance where the idea of "undirectedness" (as defined by you) is used and another where it is not, but you've only provided one example in which it is used, so I don't quite know where the equivocation lies. Recall that your claim was that these two ways of definition create a problem of equivocation. Or did I misunderstand you?

I can concisely cite an inclusion of the fact, but not an omission in what is an extensive definition.

The wiki discourse omits the point. But obviously, I can't pinpoint where it is omitted, as there is no rule as to where it should go. Feel free to search through it. All I can say is that it is a sufficiently important premise that it would certainly have been included if intended.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

You can also read the wiki article on the teleological argument:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teleology_in_biology

AgentOfAllah:
I'm sorry you perceive it that way, but there was really no intent to shift my point. Yes indeed, something can be given a purpose which ends up being pointless in some sense. As it turns out, the sense of our conversation is evolution by natural selection, nothing else.

In evolution by natural selection, a species can serve the purpose of giving rise to another species, and then become obsolete! So it has "served its purpose", and you can then say that it "ends up having no purpose". This is quite different to what you later wrote, that it was pointless.

So, when I say "in some sense", I am still referring to the context of evolution by natural selection.

AgentOfAllah:
But let's leave abstraction for a moment, shall we? Would you say there is purpose in a gene mutating to form non-functional proteins (such as in point-nonsense mutations)? Also, as it has recently been shown that more than 75% of the human genome is nonfunctional (D. Graur, "An Upper Limit on the Functional Fraction of the Human Genome," Genome Biology and Evolution, vol. 9, pp. 1880-1885, Jul 2017.), then I ask, who or what is supposed to be discovering the inappropriateness of this wastefulness, and to what end?

Even if we are to accept this study, you are misinterpreting it. It says that the 75% is NECESSARY! So it has at least the function of buffering deleterious mutations. By "non-functional", they are referring to more specific coding functions.

Also, what they are calling a "non-functional gene" can later, through mutation become functional.

So, that is two reasons why your characterization of the DNA as waste does not follow logically.

AgentOfAllah:
No, I don't feel I have to explain the transition from pointlessness to undirectedness. The definition you provided adequately explains this connexion: You previously stated that "undirectedness" means the absence of "foresight or purpose". These were the words you used. So since, by definition, anything that is pointless lacks purpose, the transition from pointlessness to undirectedness is already established...by you, no less! Your example is irrelevant here, because a child dancing crazy in the courtyard is doing it to maximise pleasure, minimise pain or because he is really crazy. The former two aren't pointless, whereas there is no deliberation in truly crazy behaviour as far as I know (I may be wrong).

"foresight or purpose" in the logical OR sense. BOTH must be absent.

As for the example, YOU cannot assume why the child is acting the way he is. It is my example.

Ferisidowu:
Alright then answer my question what's your qualification

Tell me how your question is relevant to the veracity of anything I have said in this thread.

Ferisidowu:
Now let me give an analogy ....

Analogy to what?

You haven't even made any statement. You have only asked a question about qualification.