This is actually a good time to summarize the new Atheist position.
Claim 1. There is no Atheist position: it is a void.
Claim 2. Actually, the Atheist position is the claim that Theist arguments are (a) false; (b) can’t be falsified or proven false.
Claim 3. Claim 2 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.
Claim 4. Claim 3 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.
Claim 5. Claim 4 is not actually a claim or position, and need not be defended.
…Ad infinitum…
10 comments:
LOL! Perfect summary.
How can supernatural claims ever be falsified?
**PRS**
Supernatural claims, along with logic and math and philosophy, are rationally acceptable or rationally deniable. They are not physical entities which can be analyzed using empirical techniques, and this renders them non-falsifiable under Karl Popper's demarcation principle.
That's why demanding physical, empirical evidence is a Category Error.
But supernaturalists believe that the supernatural CAN affect the natural so it can't be a category mistake.
I said that wrong.
correction:
>They are not falsifiable, and thus cannot be analyzed using empirical techniques, under Karl Popper's demarcation principle.<
That's why demanding physical, empirical evidence is a Category Error.
Then how do you explain the constant refrain of "Lourdes"?
You can't believe physical evidence of the supernatural is a category mistake and that there is physical evidence of the supernatural at the same time.
Evidence can not be a category mistake if the supernatural can effect, alter or change the physical world.
Lourdes is a lesson for Atheists. They claim that there is no evidence. They demand material evidence. Lourdes is material evidence for them to refute. But they do not.
What is a Category Error is to demand fresh, material, experimental, replicable and replicated, falsifiable and not falsified, peer reviewed, scientific evidence to be provided to them on their demand. (Presumably a piece of the deity or the deity in chains or maybe an interview with a cloud....?) They do not clarify their demand (PZ did, but that's not pertinent).
The posit made is that the existence of such a being is not physical, and is not available on demand in physical form for scientific analysis. Such a being does not perform on the demand of Atheists.
That in no way invalidates the ability of such a being to meddle in his own mass/energy, and to leave tracks behind, such as is claimed at Lourdes.
The one-off occurrence of such events as are claimed to have occurred at Lourdes are not falsifiable, and even though the remnant is physical, the event itself is gone and cannot be analyzed as a physical thing. So one is left with a physical remnant and the documentation of the "thousands" of observers of the occurrence.
This is the point of giving Atheists the opportunity to evaluate their demanded evidence: to demonstrate that their demand is an error. They cannot prove anything regarding the claim, because of the nature of the claim, which is outside the ability of empiricism to analyze.
Ironically Atheists claim - complain, actually - that the idea of them dealing with the Lourdes evidence is absurd, even though it is what they continue to ask for, which of course is logically absurd.
Few if any ever get the connection, even though I spell it out for them. They claim that their demand is rational, even though dealing with its fulfillment (the consequence of their demand) is absurd.
Maybe I should summarize tersely:
(a)The positied being is not physical;
(b) the being is posited to have the ability to meddle in the mass/energy it created;
(c) expecting direct physical evidence of a non-physical entity itself is a Category Error;
(d) However, indirect evidence including both physical remnants and eyewitness testimony are available, both of which can be attacked skeptically, but cannot be disproved empirically;
(d) Skepticism is used to destroy inconvenient knowledge without contrary evidence; empiricism provides contingent evidence regarding only physical "stuff" until it is falsified, and it is never with probability p = 1.
Atheism is denial of reality because of there hatred of God.
In_His_Name, be careful of making all atheist hate God. First of all, it is a negative judgement that is uncalled for because it helps nobody and is not a response to a claim. Unless you can actually help an atheist by saying that, there is no point in saying it. By the concept of love, we should not berate people with such judgements whether or not is is true for some or all cases of atheism.
I've really enjoyed reading the past 4 articles
Cheers STan
Post a Comment