Now, if he’s following the hydroplate ‘theory’, I think the force that broke the crust was a meteor.

I did notice Owchywawa mirrored it. I look at people’s videos when I go to thank them for subscribing. I’ve found some gems in the last couple days that I didn’t know about by doing that.

I haven’t looked at UNFFWildcard’s channel. I’ll do that now.

The case of Neph and uniformitarianism is a curious one. He goes through quite a bit of trouble explaining part of his ‘lunar bukkake’ through Bernouilli’s principle, opening himself up for critique when he gets it wrong. But at the same time, he sees no need to explain why the earth opened up – that God did it is explanation enough. Why didn’t God subsequently, ahem, ‘eject’ the water himself with such force that it reached the moon? You could read the bible like that, since it was God who made the water come forth so he could have supplied the force. Why suddenly introduce science (and uniformitarian principles) at that point? It’s not a retorical question, I really can’t figure it out from a behaviorist view.

Ah well, that’s little to do with your vid. Did you notice Owchywawa mirrored it? Even on youtube, the dichotomies are more subtle to say the least. Have you ever looked at UNFFWildcard’s channel?

Look at NephilimFree for instance. He reads a whole bunch of websites about how nozzles work, but he doesn’t understand what they are saying, or why they are true, so he misrepresents them. I wanted a way to remove some of the ability to misunderstand from it the whole thing. If you need to test things physically, there is less of an ability to make claims based on common sense, which we all know is unreliable.

As for rejection of uniformitarianism, I can’t help that. When I saw you mention that, I initially objected. Then I read on and you admitted that they do accept it when they believe it supports their beliefs.

Now, why have I made it an athiest vs. creationist type of thing? Come on, it’s YouTube. That is where the controversy is that my channel is geared to. Obviously there will not be any groundbreaking things happen in response. It’s just a way to try and get creationists to think a little more skeptically, and by that, I mean properly skeptical, not skeptical because it clashes with preconceptions.

Anyway, I’m in danger of posting a reply longer than the original post. I appreciate the criticism, and if I do happen to do this again in the future, I will likely think about it a bit more, but it is what it is at the moment, and I don’t see how it could be a whole lot more without introducing some real silliness.

Thanks

As a second point, I asked you about ‘vindication of a hypothesis’. How would you do that? This is an important question, because it is the testing of propositions that, according to you, make science rise above mere superstition. Testing plays a vital role. But if a test cannot prove an explanation, what are we to make of that? This makes demarcation far less obvious. Not impossible, I am convinced, but hardly as simplistic as you make it out to be.

This is why scientists tend to rely on falsification rather than verification. But as I showed, falsification doesn’t work. But aside from that, it also shows that your definition of knowledge is so stringent that it excludes all scientific reasoning.

Is there no such thing as theological knowledge? One could settle this by cutting the gordian knot and stating that in theology, beliefs are treated as a kind of knowledge. But I would defend the notion that theological knowledge is rational; it follows from certain premises and allows for the weighing of arguments. In that sense, it is possible in theology to come to a conclusion and learn something. In that regard, I think the term ‘knowledge’ is better than ‘belief’.

If we regard truth as the final arbitrator of knowledge, we have to concede that many scientists of the past hardly knew anything, because their theories were incorrect. Ofcourse, this is especially damning for people like Aristotle and Ptolemy, who apparently knew nothing, but Newton wasn’t very knowledgable either. “But,” you might say, “they could defend their claims with hard facts.” Well, so can theologians, it’s just that people have thought radically differently about what constitutes an acceptable fact. While the philosophical observations of Parmenides may have been convincing to Aristotle, they aren’t worth a lot now (note that these are not religious in any way!). Knowledge is contextual except in the fact that it’s always considered to be true. What I’m interested in is in the criteria that we set for it.

Given the fact that you’ve tried your hand at a little demarcation yourself, you apparently agree that theological knowledge uses different criteria than scientific knowledge. This comes a lot closer to your position than you might think. Rather than writing a diatribe describing your position, you could ask me what I think is the relation between ontology and scientific knowledge as opposed to other sources of knowledge. You might find the answer surprising.

Looking back, I see that my definition of atheism was wrong; there are indeed several non-personal gods that, according to atheism, do not exist. Specifically, I was thinking about pantheism. I will maintain, however, that the immanent God is like oil to atheist water; it cannot be denied simply because there is no inherent metaphysical claim in belief in an immanent God. Likewise, definitions of God that only refer to naturalistic phenomena (like ‘he is the sum of all energy’) might be regarded pointless, but are not in conflict with the ontology of atheism.

The case of pantheism is a curious one. Historically, pantheism has actually brought forth the first modern atheists – i.e. the atheists that rely on science to make complete their worldview. That is one reason why modern atheists like Ayaan Hirsi Ali are so influenced by Spinoza. The rise of modernism in the 19th century coincided with an increased interest in pantheism. Haeckel was a pantheist, and a reductionist: he believed atoms had a soul, and that all phenomena could be reduced to the interactions of atoms.

So rather than complete opposition, pantheism can bridge the gap between theism and atheism, just like deism can. A deist can believe in a world that runs like clockwork, until that distant God isn’t necessary at all any longer. Therefore, deism has strongly influenced the mechanistic worldview.

Atheism is not the default position when confronted with any claim. If you are really interested in such a ‘default position’ (even though nobody, absolutely nobody…er, except some French guy, argues from it) you can only arrive at solipsism. Solipsism is probably agnostic, although it has been argued that from solipsism automatically follows some kind of ‘God of the philosophers’. Any ramblings about the ‘burden of proof’ – an argument I deeply detest, even more than arguing from the bible or any of the worst drivel I have ever heard from a believer – are pointless when you start from the position that only the ego exists. So FranksVoice could have gone the Cartesian road, but he didn’t. Lucky for DonExodus.

It’s impossible that FranksVoice is like my position, since I strongly think atheism is the correct position and I’m willing to argue for it. I just think you’re not doing a good job in ‘Proof and evidence, accurate and correct’, mostly due to a lack of understanding about epistemology.

To your summarizing points:

(1) Greek philosophers like Plato and Aristotle made a division between the reality that we see and the eternal, divine reality. This division has been extremely important for science, because it has allowed the invention of the theory, and it has greatly contributed to out understanding of truth.
The large monotheist religions all recognize a reality outside the individual: they are for the large part exoteric rather than esoteric, like Buddhism. This has also contributed greatly to science – the study of the outside world became a study of God’s creation, rather than a study of ‘crude matter’. While Greek philosophy still emphasized the spiritual world, Christians tended to pay more attention to nature. Again and again you can see in history how a belief in metaphysical realities has urged people to both hold back from exploration and engage in it. Would Newton have theorized about force acting at a distance if he hadn’t been such a strong believer? I don’t think so, because the science of the time valued reduction to motions of corpuscules.

The subject of the influence of faith on science deserves many books. Rather than giving a blunt ‘show me the proof!’ why not research the subject with an open mind to what historians have uncovered? Perhaps you’ve read Gould’s Time’s Arrow, Time’s Cycle, which certainly alludes to beliefs held by Steno, Newton, Burnet, Hutton and Lyell. Beliefs that were integral part of their worldview but that they could not, in any way, prove through verification or test. That would put them at the wrong side of your demarcation criterion, mind you.
And I will recommend Hooykaas’ boek again.

(2) The reason that facts cannot prove theories is not semantical, but logical. If you want to, I can formulate the proof. Consequently, it’s impossible to positively ‘vindicate’ a hypothesis – how would you go about doing that? There is always an alternative hypothesis that fits the facts equally well. I see introduction of the term ‘vindicate’ as a sleight-of-hand trick to cover up the very real problem that theories cannot be positivistically proven. Not by induction, not by verification, not by instrumentalism, not by falsification. If you are sure that hypotheses can be proven, then please explain me how.

If a Christian asks me why I am an atheist, I simply say because it is I know God does not exist. So I consider that knowledge. It is difficult to support; I can make it credible, but I cannot prove it conclusively. But I do know it’s true.

If religions are dishonest because it asserts facts that are not shown to be factual, then science has a big problem, because it is dishonest as well. Newton was dishonest, because he claimed to have proven a theory that was wrong. So he could never have had the proof – it shouldn’t exist, after all. He must have been one hell of a dishonest liar! You see, your strict rule of honesty, applied to religion, also sends science sprawling. That is the problem, and name-calling to religious doctrines isn’t helping that one bit.

Your definition of atheism is wrong too. It isn’t a denial of a ‘personal’ god. It pertains to ANY sort of deity. It doesn’t have to be a denial either. It is simply a lack of belief. So regardless whether you’re open to the idea that one or more gods could or might exist, if you are not convinced that one or more deities surely DO exist, then you’re not just agnostic, you’re atheist.

In a brilliant discussion of the ‘Magic Sandwich’, DonExodus2 got TruthfulChristian to admit that dis-belief is always the default position when confronted with outrageous, unsubstantiated, and indefensible claims.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHa79ODbfcg

Atheism is the default position when confronted with the outrageous, unsubstantiated, and indefensible claims that a god exists –and whatever other details one might add to that claim. I certainly don’t need to prove the non-existence of something that was never indicated in the first place –especially when that thing is naught but a composite of erroneous assertions of baseless assumptions and illogical contradictions that are collectively defined as being physically impossible according to everything we know about anything at all. All I need to do is to show that disbelief is the more accurate position given the profound and consistent failure of all of the additional claims made in an attempt to support the premise of a god.

Like you, FranksVoice also tried to argue that atheism couldn’t be the correct position unless we juxtapose the burden of proof, and accomplish the impossible by disproving a negative claim. But ShockofGod himself had already disproved Frank’s comments even before he made them. I’ve tried to point this out to Frank at least a half a dozen times, but of course his position is fundamentally disingenuous, so he refuses to examine what ShockofGod’s challenge actually was.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzl7sbpFX6c

At 8:35 in the video above, ShockofGod explains what he promised to do should the League of Reason or the Atheist Experience win his challenge. He said that AFTER either show proves that atheism is both accurate and correct, and proves it so conclusively that even ShockofGod himself admits that they have, then he would appear on the Atheist Experience TV show. Now here is the important part. Why would he appear on the show? Did he say he would be there to concede that God cannot exist now that atheism has been proven to be the correct position? No. Of course not. Instead, ShockofGod said that AFTER he concedes that atheism has already been proven to be accurate and correct, he would appear on the show –to deliver a message to Matt Dillahunty directly from God. So even according to Shock’s own challenge, proving atheism to be accurate does NOT mean proving the non-existence of God, and atheism can still be the accurate and correct position regardless whether or not hidden deities actually exist.

As for your other argument that supernatural assumptions have been vital for the scientific process, you’re not only completely wrong in that, but you’re also ignoring the challenges I’ve already posted to prove that to you:

(1) Name a single instance in the history of science when supernatural explanations have actually improved our understanding of anything –instead of impeding or retarding all progress, which I contend has always been the case –and couldn’t be otherwise.

(2) I contend that all claims of religious “truth” lie within one of two categories only: (a) Impossible assertions, unsupported by anything, but which are untestable and cannot be disproved, and (b) testable claims which have already been disproved. There certainly is not a third category wherein religious claims have been vindicated by science or shown to be true. You can’t prove a theory –for reasons of semantics- but contrary to another of your earlier errors, one CAN positively vindicate an hypothesis. This is the same thing as proving a ‘belief’, and science does that regularly as a matter of course. So I challenge you to name one tenet of your religious beliefs that you can honestly claim to ‘know’ rather than simply ‘believe’; meaning one aspect of your religious beliefs that you can actually show to be factual. Otherwise, it is as I said; all religious beliefs are dishonest in that they assert as fact things which are not evidently true. It is equally dishonest to claim ‘knowledge’ one does not actually have nor even could have. Worst of all, it is even more dishonest to promise –in advance- that you will automatically reject –without consideration- any and all evidence which might ever be presented against your apriori predetermined and exclusively biased conclusion. Yet that is exactly what all religious organizations do when they supplement their creed with a ‘statement of faith’. So these religious positions couldn’t be any more dishonest or less scientific than they already are.

Your video I was reacting to, ‘Proof and evidence, accurate and correct’ is not about creationism. In it, you say that the tested claims of religion have been proven wrong (at 8:36, at 1:20 you use the term ‘falsified’ to make the same point). So the non-validity of creationism was not what I was reacting to in the first place.

I’d say the existence of God is extremely relevant: if you’re making a video proving or at least defending atheism, the existence of God is the core issue. One can believe in metaphysical causes, be inspired by the bible, denounce in the most dishonest way all science, and still be an atheist. I think Ernst Bloch even argued that you can (should?) be Christian and atheist at the same time. My definition of atheism is the denial of the existence of a personal god. This does not automatically imply anything about ontology or science, but if you talk about atheism, you cannot declare the question of the existence of God irrelevant.

Against your argument about supernatural beliefs and progress, I argue that the belief in the supernatural has been vital for scientific progress, and with it technological progress. This is a difficult point, that deserves a much longer comment. One source I could refer you to is R. Hooykaas’ ‘Religion and the Rise of Modern Science’.

Actually, anyone can claim many facts as evidence for beliefs. However, just as it is impossible to positivistically prove a scientific hypothesis, it is also impossible to prove belief. This does not make it inherently dishonest. Knowledge, however, rests on different criteria or values in order for it to be accepted as true. These are different when it comes to religion than the values applied for scientific knowledge. This is also not inherently dishonest. A christian, for example, might ‘know’ that God is good, but that statement is scientifically meaningless.

As a final remark, western monotheism has a long tradition of coming up with new ideas and discarding old ones. While many practitioners have been dogmatic in the extreme, the general tradition has been an open one. In fact, the constant work of scholars may have been the source for our conviction that there is such a thing as ‘intellectual progress’.

My ‘central message’ is that creationism is anti-science and wholly dishonest . All the arguments for it lie in one of two categories; impossible assertions unsupported by anything, but which are untestable and cannot be disproved, and testable claims which have already been disproved. If you want to extend that to religion in general, then I should add that it is dishonest to state as fact that which is not evidently true, which is what all religions do. The existence or non-existence of God is irrelevent. Either way, there is not one instance in history where supernatural explanations have improved our understanding of anything. Instead such excuses have only ever impeded or retarded progress. Neither is there even one fact anyone can claim as evidence for their particular religious beliefs. So it is dishonest to say they ‘know’ what they clearly do not (and cannot) and it is very dishonest to promise in advance to defend their beliefs against any and all evidence that come to light, but that is another thing western monotheism is particularly guilty of.

and

http://contusio-cordis.blogspot.com/2009/11/crank-magnetism.html