Psychopaths

[Purple Knight]

If there's a God that determines right and wrong, why the flaming shipwreck did he give some people their own Jiminy Cricket and not others?

Sometimes I just want a magic bug that gives me the right answer. When it seems like nobody else has to think about it, and they certainly don't have to explain it to me, sometimes I don't want to have to think about it either.

Is there a good reason some people missed out?

[Purple Knight]

I get that you're trying to draw a parallel between one unfalsifiable god and another. However, some religious people think different gods are simply different people's way of understanding the same creator.

[Tcg]

I get that you're trying to draw a parallel between one unfalsifiable god and another. However, some religious people think different gods are simply different people's way of understanding the same creator.

You are right. If I were addressing one, I'd certainly need to take a different tack.

What I am attempting to show is that simply because we have an assertion that X created Y, and we can observe Y, that doesn't prove the existence of X. It is very possible that Y preexisted the assertion that X created it and the concept of X was developed, in part at least, to explain the existence of Y.

If we change the assumption concerning the identity of X, perhaps it will help some see the weakness of proclaiming that Y is the evidence that X exists. Many Xs have been proposed and given credit for creating Y.

One might consider the story of Lot's wife and her transformation into a pillar of salt. I've read, but have not attempted to verify, that in the area where this story took place, there is a great deposit of salt. Some claim that this is evidence the story of Lot's wife is true.

For this example's sake, let's accept the claim of the salt deposit as true. Those claiming the salt verifies the story of Lot's wife overlook the fact that it could be that the salt deposit is the cause of the creation of the story. An explanation for the salt was sought and over the years the answer grew into a story of Lot's wife. Quite clearly, the existence of the salt isn't evidence that the story is true.

The same could be for our consideration of X and Y. An explanation for Y was sought and over the years the answer grew into a story of X. Of course in this case we don't have a single story of X, but many. In any case, no mater the identity given to X, Y isn't evidence for the existence of X.


Tcg

[1213]

.

….I have this book that says so. ….

Please tell, what is the name of the book?

The Big Book of Leprechaun

Ok, that book doesn’t seem to exist. I thought you require something more to believe.

[Zzyzx]

.

Ok, that book doesn’t seem to exist. I thought you require something more to believe.

That you can't find the book isn't my problem.

[Purple Knight]

If we change the assumption concerning the identity of X, perhaps it will help some see the weakness of proclaiming that Y is the evidence that X exists.

Only if they're biased in addition to being guilty of [strike]somewhat faulty[/strike] (or, actually, I'll say perhaps overly assumptive) reasoning.

I don't think a salt deposit is any real proof of the story of Lot's wife being true either, I'm just saying that you're trying to precipitate a realisation about the kind of reasoning people are engaging in that requires them to be heavily biased in order to see your point. It might work, but if it does it's for the wrong reason.

Ok, that book doesn’t seem to exist. I thought you require something more to believe.

They're trying to show you that being written down in a book doesn't prove anything, but they're doing it in a way I don't really agree with.

And if they believe their own logic, they would probably doubt Abraham Lincoln ever existed, because what do we have? Written records.

I do happen to doubt Abraham Lincoln existed. I just have no reason to say I do most of the time. History could have actually been something else and written over and replaced at any time before the advent of recording devices. I have no reason to believe it was, but I have no reason to believe it wasn't, either. I see no reason for anyone to have done such a thing, but again, I don't know. I can't know.

[Tcg]

And if they believe their own logic, they would probably doubt Abraham Lincoln ever existed, because what do we have? Written records.

If it were claimed that the cosmos is evidence that Abe exists, as is made in written records about numerous gods, you might have a point. I've not seen such an argument, have you?

The fact that it is written isn't the issue, it is what the written records claim. This is not complicated logic.



Tcg

[Purple Knight]

If it were claimed that the cosmos is evidence that Abe exists, as is made in written records about numerous gods, you might have a point. I've not seen such an argument, have you?

No, but if I say two things, the bad apple does not spoil the bunch.

Watch:

One plus one equals two, and the moon is evidence of this.

The fact that it is written isn't the issue, it is what the written records claim.

And I reject magic as well. It's just that I also reject the Big Book of Leprechauns as a good way to explain this.

[Tcg]

And I reject magic as well. It's just that I also reject the Big Book of Leprechauns as a good way to explain this.

It is a challenge to get those who accept the Big Book of Yahweh as evidence of Yahweh to see the weakness of that conclusion. If the tale of the Big Book of Leprechauns helps some readers understand the fallacious nature of the argument that the claims in Yahweh's book are evidence of his existence, it has served its purpose.

The fact that you reject it doesn't mean it is an apple no one will enjoy the flavor of. Perhaps you are more of a Bartlett guy.


Tcg

[Purple Knight]

It is a challenge to get those who accept the Big Book of Yahweh as evidence of Yahweh to see the weakness of that conclusion. If the tale of the Big Book of Leprechauns helps some readers understand the fallacious nature of the argument that the claims in Yahweh's book are evidence of his existence, it has served its purpose.

Except that there actually is a Big Book of Yahweh and it has been preserved for a very long time, with most of its preservers considering it to be actual history. I just don't think it's a fair comparison.

[1213]

...

Ok, that book doesn’t seem to exist. I thought you require something more to believe.

They're trying to show you that being written down in a book doesn't prove anything, but they're doing it in a way I don't really agree with....

If the goal was to show that a book doesn't prove anything, I think it failed, because Zzyzx failed to show a real book. And I think he could not do that, because then I could have told the difference between the books. Luckily, the difference comes even more clear by not showing the book at all. Existing book and non-existent book are very different.