Nine Questions Some Creationists Feel Are Real Stumpers

[TagliatelliMonster]

So how do we test if a human is wrong?

You test the person's claim against commonly observable reality.
Off course, you need a falsifiable / testable claim in order to do so.

Unfalsifiable claims about reality are useless and potentially infinite in number.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I don't think that is it illogical and that was also not, what you did. You made a reduction ad absurdum in the broad sense and a good one at that.
Now I am willing to learn so what did it have to do with logic?

Regards
Mikkel

All the evidence shows the earth and the universe are billions of years old, with clear history.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the universe and everything in it was created as such.

I'ld say that following the evidence instead of unfalsifiable imagination, is both logical and reasonable. While going by the unfalsifiable imagination would be unreasonable and illogical.


Consider a murder case with all evidence pointing to guilt of a person.
Then the person is set free based on the "argument" that extra-dimensional undetectable unicorns committed the murder and just made it look as if the suspect did it.

Would you consider such a verdict based on such an "argument" to be "logical"?

I submit you wouldn't and would instead call it unreasonable and illogical. Not to mention utterly and completely absurd and crazy, to the point that the people involved in that verdict should all be fired.

Right?

So why would you complain about me calling exactly such an argument to be illogical?

All the evidence points to an old universe with history.
No evidence points to the universe being created mature "last thursday".


I'll go a step further. Even if we would have no evidence at all then still last thursdayism would be illogical, as it is an unfalsifiable claim based on zero evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Could you answer how you would know that another human is wrong?
That is what I asked about.

Regards
Mikkel

He already answered you.
You test the claim that is being believed.
If the test shows the claim is wrong, then the person believing the claim is true, is wrong.


It's not rocket science.

But I guess you are once again gearing up to go and play some flipping semantics game that is neither here nore there.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

You test the person's claim against commonly observable reality.
Off course, you need a falsifiable / testable claim in order to do so.

Unfalsifiable claims about reality are useless and potentially infinite in number.

You haven't explained how that makes a person wrong?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He already answered you.
You test the claim that is being believed.
If the test shows the claim is wrong, then the person believing the claim is true, is wrong.

...

So here it is as a deduction:
Premise 1: A test can determine if a claim is wrong.
Premise 2: There are claims that are wrong.
Premise 3: Claims are made by humans.
Therefore: A wrong claim makes the person wrong.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

All the evidence shows the earth and the universe are billions of years old, with clear history.
There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest the universe and everything in it was created as such.

I'ld say that following the evidence instead of unfalsifiable imagination, is both logical and reasonable. While going by the unfalsifiable imagination would be unreasonable and illogical.


Consider a murder case with all evidence pointing to guilt of a person.
Then the person is set free based on the "argument" that extra-dimensional undetectable unicorns committed the murder and just made it look as if the suspect did it.

Would you consider such a verdict based on such an "argument" to be "logical"?

I submit you wouldn't and would instead call it unreasonable and illogical. Not to mention utterly and completely absurd and crazy, to the point that the people involved in that verdict should all be fired.

Right?

So why would you complain about me calling exactly such an argument to be illogical?

All the evidence points to an old universe with history.
No evidence points to the universe being created mature "last thursday".


I'll go a step further. Even if we would have no evidence at all then still last thursdayism would be illogical, as it is an unfalsifiable claim based on zero evidence.

I am bored. You ramble on about evidence without explaining how evidence is connected to the world. You haven't shown that evidence is connected to the world. You take it for granted.
We have been here before. There is a difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. You haven't addressed that with reason. You use emotions.

It ends here: How I understand the world, is, how it is, because it can't be any different, because that is crazy to me.
That is your argument. It is utterly first person subjective and rests on rationalism, i.e. that the world must make sense to you, because otherwise reasons... .

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You haven't explained how that makes a person wrong?

The outcome of the test of the claim will determine that.

You couldn't figure that out by yourself?
You do know what a "test" is, right?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So here it is as a deduction:
Premise 1: A test can determine if a claim is wrong.
Premise 2: There are claims that are wrong.
Premise 3: Claims are made by humans.
Therefore: A wrong claim makes the person wrong.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises.

Regards
Mikkel

Your ridiculous deduction doesn't reflect what I actually said.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The outcome of the test of the claim will determine that.

You couldn't figure that out by yourself?
You do know what a "test" is, right?

How do a test of a fact make a person wrong? Please explain the cause and effect?
E.g. I claim that humans can fly by use solely of their body. Test: Wrong. How does that cause me to be wrong?

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Your ridiculous deduction doesn't reflect what I actually said.

Okay.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I am bored. You ramble on about evidence without explaining how evidence is connected to the world.

So you don't even know what evidence is?
In that case, I'ld say this conversation is a bit out of your league.

Perhaps read up on what evidence is and then try again.

You haven't shown that evidence is connected to the world. You take it for granted.

It's connected to the world, by definition of what evidence is.
Off course, if you don't know what evidence is, then you won't be aware of that.

We have been here before

Idd. Your tendency of flipping out on words that you insist on using in a way that literally nobody else uses them and going on a subsequent tangent, is getting quite annoying.

There is a difference between methodological and philosophical naturalism. You haven't addressed that with reason. You use emotions.

There is no emotion in the post you are replying to, nore is it about methodological or philosophical naturalism.

The only point made there is that it is logical to accept a claim that is supported by all evidence, while illogical to accept a claim that is contradicted by all evidence.

But like always, you are again focussing on the irrelevant out-of-context pixel and missing the big picture.

It ends here: How I understand the world, is, how it is, because it can't be any different, because that is crazy to me.

And you're wrong about that.

Your understanding of the world can be incorrect. So the world isn't how you understand it to be, simply because that's how you understand it to be.

Reality isn't determined by what you believe about it.

That is your argument

Au contraire.

It is utterly first person subjective and rests on rationalism, i.e. that the world must make sense to you, because otherwise reasons... .

It is exactly to avoid that, that evidence is important.


Spare me the semantic out-of-context tangents

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How do a test of a fact make a person wrong? Please explain the cause and effect?
E.g. I claim that humans can fly by use solely of their body. Test: Wrong. How does that cause me to be wrong?

That's an unfalsifiable claim on the count of it being to vague and not actually detailing a mechanism by which it would work. So there is nothing specific there to test.

All we can say is that nobody so far has been able to demonstrate that this is possible. Which in turn means that there is no rational reason to believe the claim.


Now, if you would complete your claim with "and THIS is how that works", then THAT specific method can be put to the test.

And if it fails, then the method doesn't work and therefor the claim is false. By extension, the person believing that the claim is accurate, is shown to be incorrect.



I'm having a REALLY hard time taking you seriously here.
It's as if this is the first time in your life that you are introduced to the concept of testing. I find that kind of hard to believe.

So my troll-o-meter going off once again...............

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
It's connected to the world, by definition of what evidence is.
Off course, if you don't know what evidence is, then you won't be aware of that.
...

Love it. Words make reality. I define TagliatelliMonster to mean non-existent. See, it works.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That's an unfalsifiable claim on the count of it being to vague and not actually detailing a mechanism by which it would work. So there is nothing specific there to test.

All we can say is that nobody so far has been able to demonstrate that this is possible. Which in turn means that there is no rational reason to believe the claim.


Now, if you would complete your claim with "and THIS is how that works", then THAT specific method can be put to the test.

And if it fails, then the method doesn't work and therefor the claim is false. By extension, the person believing that the claim is accurate, is shown to be incorrect.



I'm having a REALLY hard time taking you seriously here.
It's as if this is the first time in your life that you are introduced to the concept of testing. I find that kind of hard to believe.

So my troll-o-meter going off once again...............

You haven't answer how a human becomes wrong. You have only stated that it is so, because you say so. You haven't shown that it is so.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Love it. Words make reality. I define TagliatelliMonster to mean non-existent. See, it works.

Yes, that is the problem. You have a tendency to make up your own definitions.


Instead of such sillyness, perhaps try a dictionary.
Or this more technical explanation of what scientific evidence is

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia


So when you go to court being accused of something and the judge asks you to address the evidence of the accuser, do you also go on a tangent and start ranting about the word "evidence"?

Do you think such an approach would be seen as a succesfull defense?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You haven't answer how a human becomes wrong.

That phrasing is just weird.

If a claim is wrong, then a person believing the claims is accurate, would be wrong about that.
To see if a claim is wrong, you test it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Yes, that is the problem. You have a tendency to make up your own definitions.


Instead of such sillyness, perhaps try a dictionary.
Or this more technical explanation of what scientific evidence is

Scientific evidence - Wikipedia


So when you go to court being accused of something and the judge asks you to address the evidence of the accuser, do you also go on a tangent and start ranting about the word "evidence"?

Do you think such an approach would be seen as a succesfull defense?

So words make reality. I get you.
Now I followed your link to this:
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
Empiricism - Wikipedia

And back we are. We ended up with a theory. Not a fact, but a philosophical theory.
We are playing philosophy back to methodological versus philosophical naturalism.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

That phrasing is just weird.

If a claim is wrong, then a person believing the claims is accurate, would be wrong about that.
To see if a claim is wrong, you test it.

What part of this do you have trouble comprehending?

How does that work? Cause and effect and backed up by observation please.

Regards
Mikkel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So words make reality. I get you.
Now I followed your link to this:
In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.
Empiricism - Wikipedia

And back we are. We ended up with a theory. Not a fact, but a philosophical theory.
We are playing philosophy back to methodological versus philosophical naturalism.

Regards
Mikkel

And the sillyness continues.

To you, "evidence" seems to be a word devoid of any meaning.


So tell us, o wise one, how do YOU distinguish accurate claims from false claims, if not through evidence and testing?

Or perhaps you simply don't and accept those claims that you like while rejecting claims you don't like or something?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

How does that work? Cause and effect and backed up by observation please.

Regards
Mikkel

how does what work?