Scientific thinking and common sense

[Eloi]

I have noticed that sometimes people with a scientific mind, people who have studied a lot and know a lot of information about different sciences, do not notice simple things that do not escape the attention of ordinary people, even if they have studied less or almost nothing.

For example, the fact that the animals that evolutionists call "lower" in the evolutionary scale still live alongside humans, and that others supposedly fitter, because they are located in a higher position in the evolutionary line of man, no longer exist.

Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes? https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101985017

To what extent do you think the "wisdom" of this system of things can cloud a person's mind?

[brunumb]

The question I posed was "If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?" and you replied "By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't".

I disagree with your answer, by definition a provable proposition differs from an unprovable proposition, the former can be defended and justified by some process of reasoning, the latter cannot - it can be true but no amount of reasoning can support or justify it, it just "is".

If something is not provable, how does one establish that it is actually true? How does one determine that something is self-evident, given that there are also things that are not self-evident. Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim. Where is the support? Saying that it is self-evident is also an unsupported claim. You never even attempted to elaborate on how this revelation occurred. Why should any of it be accepted without offering some challenges?

[Tcg]

A good example of Christian mindset is the Quakers.

You mean these Quakers?

WELCOME TO THE NFN

Welcome to the Nontheist Friends Network (NFN) UK. We are a group of nontheist, (nontheist leaning or sympathetic), or humanist Quakers and the Network exists to provide a forum and supportive framework for Friends (Quakers) and other ‘nontheists’ who regard religion as a human creation. We want to ensure that our Religious Society of Friends is an inclusive rather than an exclusive Society and welcoming to all ‘of any religion or none’.

https://nontheist-quakers.org.uk/

Yes, I agree.


Tcg

I was referring to the earlier Quaker movement, yes I am aware of non-theist quakers and I welcome them.

You mean back when they were slave owners or some other time period?

In what manner do you "welcome" non-Theist Friends?


Tcg

[Tcg]

If something is not provable, how does one establish that it is actually true? How does one determine that something is self-evident, given that there are also things that are not self-evident. Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim. Where is the support? Saying that it is self-evident is also an unsupported claim. You never even attempted to elaborate on how this revelation occurred. Why should any of it be accepted without offering some challenges?

I've never understood or agreed with the concept that something is self-evident, at least not on a debate forum. Sure, if someone is sitting in my living room and they state, "It is self-evident that you have your moccasins on", and if I did, I guess I'd agree. But the claim that it is self-evident that Jesus is God or what-not, not so much. It seems like nothing but a copout to me.

'Oh, I don't have to support it, it is self-evident.'

"Well, okay it is self-evident then that you are wrong."

'Can you prove that?'

"I don't have to, it is self-evident."

Valueless argumentation.


Tcg

[Inquirer]

If something is not provable, how does one establish that it is actually true? How does one determine that something is self-evident, given that there are also things that are not self-evident. Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim. Where is the support? Saying that it is self-evident is also an unsupported claim. You never even attempted to elaborate on how this revelation occurred. Why should any of it be accepted without offering some challenges?

I've never understood or agreed with the concept that something is self-evident, at least not on a debate forum. Sure, if someone is sitting in my living room and they state, "It is self-evident that you have your moccasins on", and if I did, I guess I'd agree. But the claim that it is self-evident that Jesus is God or what-not, not so much. It seems like nothing but a copout to me.

'Oh, I don't have to support it, it is self-evident.'

"Well, okay it is self-evident then that you are wrong."

'Can you prove that?'

"I don't have to, it is self-evident."

Valueless argumentation.


Tcg

Prove something to me, go on, anything, anything you like, state it and then prove it.

[JoeyKnothead]

Prove something to me, go on, anything, anything you like, state it and then prove it.

You've heretofore refused to answer the following question when I put it to you...

Do you believe biblical claims regarding the resurrection of Jesus to be truth?

I'll submit your anticipated nonanswer / excuse making here as my first bit of evidence, with your prior refusals available should you seek further supporting documentation.

[Inquirer]

The question I posed was "If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?" and you replied "By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't".

I disagree with your answer, by definition a provable proposition differs from an unprovable proposition, the former can be defended and justified by some process of reasoning, the latter cannot - it can be true but no amount of reasoning can support or justify it, it just "is".

If something is not provable, how does one establish that it is actually true?

This is a philosophical question, best asked in the philosophy area of the forum.

The mathematician Gödel had much to say about this, he proved that there are true propositions that cannot be proven to be true.

How does one determine that something is self-evident, given that there are also things that are not self-evident. Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim.

The statement you just made "Received revelation from God is not a self-evident truth just because you make that claim", can you prove that?

Where is the support? Saying that it is self-evident is also an unsupported claim.

What good is "support" if that support itself needs support...?

You never even attempted to elaborate on how this revelation occurred.

I did indeed explain that, you asked me about this in a different thread a few days ago and I answered here.

Here's a copy of that answer:

My belief in God, a creator, the divinity of scripture is a rational position based upon a huge amount of investigation and fact finding, as a scientist myself I'm well able to undertake such an investigation.

On balance a God, creator with a profound purpose who has revealed information about himself over the centuries and preserved it - unaltered - for fifty centuries, explaining human nature and why our world today is as it is, makes more overall rational sense than the vacuous self referential futile "explanation" claimed by scientism.

This is my position, that all things considered, God makes more sense than inexplicable, vacuous, baseless claims made by atheism.

In other words the confidence I had in my atheism and scientific understanding of the world was in fact over-confidence. Upon investigation it was clear that atheism was not philosophically any stronger or more rational than theism. The problem then was to compare and contrast these two systems of thought and when I did that theism explained more, made more sense, had greater explanatory scope.

Why should any of it be accepted without offering some challenges?

I don't expect you to accept it but nor do I expect you to reject it - as I've said before, retaining an open mind is what matters, as soon as we stop being open minded we cease to learn.

[Inquirer]

A good example of Christian mindset is the Quakers.

You mean these Quakers?

WELCOME TO THE NFN

Welcome to the Nontheist Friends Network (NFN) UK. We are a group of nontheist, (nontheist leaning or sympathetic), or humanist Quakers and the Network exists to provide a forum and supportive framework for Friends (Quakers) and other ‘nontheists’ who regard religion as a human creation. We want to ensure that our Religious Society of Friends is an inclusive rather than an exclusive Society and welcoming to all ‘of any religion or none’.

https://nontheist-quakers.org.uk/

Yes, I agree.

I was referring to the earlier Quaker movement, yes I am aware of non-theist quakers and I welcome them.

You mean back when they were slave owners or some other time period?

Perhaps you're thinking of Puritans.

The Society of Friends (known as the Quakers) became involved in political and social movements during the eighteenth century. In particular, they were the first religious movement to condemn slavery and would not allow their members to own slaves.

and

Amongst the Retreat papers are a number of printed tracts and advertisements, including an 'Address to the Inhabitants of Europe on the Iniquity of the Slave Trade' issued by the Quakers in 1822, a prospectus for the first volume of a work on the "history of the Rise, Progress and Accomplishment of that great Event, The Abolition of the Slave-Trade with proper Engravings" by Thomas Clarkson from the early nineteenth century and an account of the African Institution whose Vice-Presidents included William Wilberforce (MP for Hull and then for Yorkshire and famous campaigner against slavery) and whose council included Granville Sharp, grandson of a former archbishop of York and author of anti-slavery pamphlets and books. This institution, says the leaflet, was founded by 'a number of individuals deeply impressed with a sense of the enormous wrongs which the natives of Africa have suffered in their intercourse with Europe'.

and

Concern in The Retreat about the slave trade also reached beyond the executive committee. In 1827, the servants of the Retreat sent a petition to the committee, requesting that sugar should be bought from East India rather than West India in the future, because of the "great oppression of the slave trade" in the West Indies.

and

Quaker colonists began questioning slavery in Barbados in the 1670s, but first openly denounced it in 1688.

From here.

In what manner do you "welcome" non-Theist Friends?

I don't judge them for not seeing things as I see them.

[Inquirer]

Yes that can happen, I may have used them interchangeably, but I don't think it materially effects my argument though.

It most certainly affects your argument (although I hesitate to call what you're doing an "argument").

If by "self-evident truth" you mean "assumption", then there is no debate to be had. It's just something you assume to be true.

If by "self-evident truth" you mean "so obvious that no support is required", then that is most certainly debatable. The first thing that comes to mind is how you justify declaring your conclusions about revelations and gods to be "obvious".

You see neither can be "shown" to be true and the essence of my disagreement with you is just that.

Oh yes they can. That many fish swim in water is a self-evident truth in the "obvious" sense. It's so self-evident that it's not even a topic that's up for debate.

"The Christian God came to me and revealed X" is not like that at all.

The question I posed was "If in a debate the answer to a question is an unprovable truth, how should one respond to the question?" and you replied "By defending and justifying it, or conceding that you can't".

I disagree with your answer, by definition a provable proposition differs from an unprovable proposition, the former can be defended and justified by some process of reasoning, the latter cannot - it can be true but no amount of reasoning can support or justify it, it just "is".

Again, I urge you to avoid black/white, binary thinking and appreciate that there is a great deal of space between "proven" and "merely assumed".

In fact "God reveals knowledge" is provable but only by God, I can't do what God can. Asking for support is pointless, all I can say is "God has revealed that he is real, to me" and that is that, it won't satisfy you but that's tough, it is still true.

That's a self-evident truth in the former, "assumption" sense. It most certainly is not one in the "it's so obvious no debate is necessary" sense.

No, asserting a self evident truth is not preaching

It is if you're asserting an assumed self-evident truth that is specifically about revelations from gods. In fact, that's what a lot of preaching is!

What is this talk of "you have zero interest in debating it or defending it"? how could that mean anything? can you debate or defend that you are a human being and not some remote AI software?

Easy. Have the person posing the question clearly define terms and give criteria for each category, then demonstrate how I meet the criteria for "human being".

You cannot so why even bother trying?

Just because you can't, that doesn't mean no one else can.

its not through disinterest or avoidance that I don't debate "God reveals himself to us" it is because it is as futile as you debating or defending "I am a person not an AI package". In principle anything a person can say a machine could say, so there is no way to distinguish by discourse, this is called the Turing Test.

So your "self-evident truths" about revelations from gods is in the "assumed" category. Okay.

The confirmation you seek can only come from God and that is his prerogative and he acts as he wants when he wants so suit his purpose - in fact that very statement is revealed knowledge, I'm giving you nuggets here, they were given to me and I'm sharing them freely with you.

You're sharing what you assume to be revelations from a god.

I don't expect or condemn you for not accepting what I say, I would and did do the same once, but don't make the logical error of dismissing it as false, as a delusion, religious devotion, unprovable claptrap, just keep an open mind, that's all, what possible harm can that do?

I'll ask you for the third or fourth time now....what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received?

How about some facts Jose? here is a fact you have never asked me "what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received" yet you truly believe that you did, yet there's no evidence is there? go figure

[Jose Fly]

I'll ask you for the third or fourth time now....what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received?

How about some facts Jose? here is a fact you have never asked me "what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received" yet you truly believe that you did, yet there's no evidence.

So we're going to do this again?

Post #123:

"Is the Muslim lying when they say Allah revealed a truth to them? The Hindu when they say one of their gods revealed a truth? A Mormon?

When these "revealed truths" are mutually exclusive, by what means can we tell which "truth" is actually true?"

Post #127:

"again....do you believe the Muslim, Hindu, and Mormon are lying about the truths their gods revealed to them?"

So again I have to ask....do you have memory issues? I'm quite serious, because this repeated behavior is indicative of someone with memory issues (or of a troll).

[Inquirer]

I'll ask you for the third or fourth time now....what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received?

How about some facts Jose? here is a fact you have never asked me "what do you do with claims of revelations from gods that are mutually exclusive with the revelations you believe you've received" yet you truly believe that you did, yet there's no evidence.

So we're going to do this again?

Post #123:

"Is the Muslim lying when they say Allah revealed a truth to them? The Hindu when they say one of their gods revealed a truth? A Mormon?

When these "revealed truths" are mutually exclusive, by what means can we tell which "truth" is actually true?"

Post #127:

"again....do you believe the Muslim, Hindu, and Mormon are lying about the truths their gods revealed to them?"

So again I have to ask....do you have memory issues? I'm quite serious, because this repeated behavior is indicative of someone with memory issues (or of a troll).

I beg to differ, these are different questions, these examples are asking me if I think Muslims or Hindus or Mormons are lying, please do not stoop to attempting to deny this either, I really have no time for such antics.