Evidence can be wrong. No matter how much people at the time believed it and had "Scientific" evidence, that didn't stop the world from not actually being flat.
It doesn't matter much how predictive power you have, it's a prediction. That doesn't mean it's guaranteed to be right.
No matter how much people at the time believed it and had "Scientific" evidence, that didn't stop the world from not actually being Flat.
You're not fooling anyone. When I provided reasons that the BBT is much more reasonable than "zombie god is making us move" you responded with a slew of things trying to undermine all the evidence and investigative principles to try and make them equal again. I responded to that by asking you to prove the earth isn't flat, since you claimed it wasn't, and you haven't been able to respond to your own counters - either paraphrased or quoted.
So... Why is "the earth is round" a more likely explanation than "zombie god is making us believe the earth is round"?
You've never provided anything.
Quote from Stairc »
EDIT - FearDReaper, you should know that Slarg is completely off on the evidence we have for the Big Bang. If Slarg is actually making you think we don't have better evidence to know the big bang happened than "zombie god exists" - I'll engage. But I don't want to waste the time restating all the evidence for one of the most scientifically debated and supported elements of cosmology. It would take way, way too much time - and you can find more qualified people explaining the evidence for it in many free resources online.
Quote from "Slarg232" »
May I ask for a link?
Quote from Stairc »
Try typing "Evidence for the Big Bang" into google.
Quote from "Slarg232" »
So you don't have evidence to disprove it, but you want to claim that the evidence is predicted and will come to pass?
Quote from Stairc »
@Slarg - Your first response is a strawman. You completely ignored the predictive power point earlier in the same comment just so you could complain that falsifiability isn't predictive. Did you think I wouldn't notice? You also completely miss the point, that a falsifiable theory is a more reasonable one than an unfalsifiable one - which the zombie god is. Comparing the two theories is the point of this discussion. You're avoiding that. Did you think I wouldn't notice?
1) I said that after you claimed I was making an ad hominem.
2) That's still not an ad hominem. You really should look this stuff up.
3) You are clearly unable to justify why the round earth argument theory is a better explanation than "zombie god is making us believe it's this way", or creating/sustaining the phenomena that causes this belief. Whether or not I am providing any evidence for the round earth or not is irrelevant. It's on you to do the justifying, since you're the one that claimed there's reason to believe the earth is round - as I quoted above. Justify why that belief is more founded than "zombie god did it".
4) Nice move, cleverly claiming I never provided any justifications by quoting a bunch of random posts EXCEPT the ones where I justified it. This might work to someone skimming the thread, but you kind of messed it up by including a quote which references a justification that I did make.
1) I said that after you claimed I was making an ad hominem.
2) That's still not an ad hominem. You really should look this stuff up.
3) You are clearly unable to justify why the round earth argument theory is a better explanation than "zombie god is making us believe it's this way", or creating/sustaining the phenomena that causes this belief. Whether or not I am providing any evidence for the round earth or not is irrelevant. It's on you to do the justifying, since you're the one that claimed there's reason to believe the earth is round - as I quoted above. Justify why that belief is more founded than "zombie god did it".
4) Nice move, cleverly claiming I never provided any justifications by quoting a bunch of random posts EXCEPT the ones where I justified it. This might work to someone skimming the thread, but you kind of messed it up by including a quote which references a justification that I did make.
Then would you please quote where you made these justifications?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
Try typing "Evidence for the Big Bang" into google. Then try typing in "evidence for a zombie god" compare and contrast the evidence for both hypotheses. Neither hypothesis will have 100% beyond-all-possible-doubt evidence. But one has vastly more evidence supporting it than the other, and is a much less extraordinary claim based on what we observe.
It's worth noting that just because two hypotheses both explain the evidence, that doesn't mean they're equally valid. If I hear horn in the distance, there are infinite possible theoretical explanations for this sound. One is that some guy is blowing into a horn, or perhaps playing a radio. Another is than a zombie angel is blowing into a horn. Both explanations fit the evidence. One is a much more fantastical claim than the other. If both had equal weight, I should expect to find the horn blower is a zombie-angel about as often as it is a normal person whenever I go and check for myself. Obviously this is silly.
The big bang theory is a description of the rapid expansion of the early universe. It not only fit the data when it was first theorized, it also had predictive power. This means that we were able to say, "Well, if this is true then we should also find X,Y and Z evidence when we have the ability to test for it". When we did run those tests, we found that the results confirmed the theory. Zombie-God-Done-Did-It doesn't have any predictive power. It can't tell you what to look for. It's also a much more extraordinary claim for obvious reasons.
Additionally, the BBT is falsifiable. You CAN disprove it with the right evidence. That evidence just hasn't shown up yet. Zombie God this doesn't work for.
These two claims don't have anywhere close to equal validity or weight.
After this you went on a spiral of trying to undermine every underpinning of the scientific method I brought up, trying to cut the legs out of the essential concepts of predictive power, falsifiability and so on. I no longer think it will be productive to engage in this way with you, because the clearest way I can show the flaws in these arguments of yours at this point is to apply the same concepts to something you DO accept: Round earth theory.
So quit dodging the question. You've claimed that BBT is equally plausible as "zombie god making us move". Demonstrate why round earth theory isn't equally plausible to "zombie god making it seem like the earth is round".
You are arguing that because Zombie Angel has a .01% chance of being what happened, it obviously has to be a man blowing a horn or listening to his radio.
I am arguing that because a man blowing a horn or listening to a radio has a 65% chance of being what happened, that doesn't mean that that is indeed what happened, and that just because we *think* it's a man blowing a horn or listening to his radio doesn't mean it actually was.
Now please, go buy some salsa, take the chip off of your shoulder, and eat it
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
You are arguing that because Zombie Angel has a .01% chance of being what happened, it obviously has to be a man blowing a horn or listening to his radio.
I am arguing that because a man blowing a horn or listening to a radio has a 65% chance of being what happened, that doesn't mean that that is indeed what happened, and that just because we *think* it's a man blowing a horn or listening to his radio doesn't mean it actually was.
Now please, go buy some salsa, take the chip off of your shoulder, and eat it
Yet again you fail to answer the question. And I am not arguing that because a zombie angel is unlikely that it HAS to be a man blowing a horn. That's absurd. It doesn't come close to my point in that example. That example was demonstrating that just because two explanations fit the evidence, that doesn't mean both explanations are equally likely to be true. You can tell that was my point because I directly said it was in that post. By admitting that one is less likely than the other, you've proved my point. You haven't contradicted it.
But let's jump back to your Continual Failure to Answer the Question. It should be clear to anyone that if they can't, under their own criteria, justify why it's less plausible to believe that the earth is round than "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round" - then their criteria is messed up... Or they should be agnostic when it comes to the round earth too.
So answer the challenge. Why is it more plausible to believe that the earth is round than, "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round"? Demonstrate this.
I haven't said anything like that. I said that YOU said the Angel Zombie is .01% chance. I also said that "Even if a Man Blowing His Horn is 65%, that doesn't mean it automatically is", not that "It's a 65% chance to be a man blowing his horn". Using that logic, just because all signs point to the BBT, that doesn't mean that the Big Bang actually happened.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
1) For someone who has claimed (falsely, and dealt with above) that I'm putting words in his mouth. You sure seem to enjoy doing it yourself. Where did I say that the zombie angel has a .01% chance? Quote please.
2) None of this particular strawman is relevant to my argument. I explicitly stated what the point of that example was both in the original post and again just now. You aren't engaging with it.
But let's jump back to your Continual Failure to Answer the Question. It should be clear to anyone that if they can't, under their own criteria, justify why it's less plausible to believe that the earth is round than "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round" - then their criteria is messed up... Or they should be agnostic when it comes to the round earth too.
So answer the challenge. Why is it more plausible to believe that the earth is round than, "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round"? Demonstrate this.
None of your strawmanning is relevant to my initial point. So it looks like we're even on that front.
Your doggedness is truly outstanding, don't you think? No matter how I answer the "Zombie God makes the Earth Appear Round" argument, it won't be good enough I imagine. So tell me, how is it that my logic allows you to think that there is or is not a Zombie God making the earth appear Round when it's actually flat?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Oath of the Gatewatch; the set that caused the competitive community to freak out over Basic Lands.
@FearDReaper
There is enough evidence for the scientific explanation. Matter came from energy (demonstrated by relativity) which probably came from nothing via quantum physics. In the case of God, what is there? Ultimately God is just a regression of explanation, he/she/it/whatever still requires an explanation of some sort. In order to create a credible God theory, we would need not only a single reasonable origin, probably with evidence, but also evidence supported mechanisms for how this God creates things. And even then, the evidence would need to be at least as good as it is for current scientific explanations for this God theory to be supported.
Instead, the limit of reason for God ideas is at vague, unimportant possibility.
Hmm interesting, tbh this is where my ignorence of quantum mechanics becomes a problem for me and I reach my limit to be able to debate with athiesm. I dont know enough about quantum mechanics and how the universe could actually just come from nothing. Without understanding quantum mechanics it seems kinda crazy that something can just exist out of nowhere and didn't have to be created by some kind of force. I guess I have some studying to do before I can make any further arguments.
@Stairc - Does the book you were mentioning before "A Universe From Nothing" cover this topic? I'm assuming so. Ill have to check it out before I can proceed on this thread.
I appreciate the experience and knowledge this thread has given me so far. I'm amazed at how well read some of you guys are and its fun to discuss these types of topics with you. It has changed my outlook on a lot of topics and pushed me to think about topics I have never even thought of before. Sorry to be such a pain. I hope I haven't upset anyone with my questions and comments
Once I am better read on certain topics maybe i'll return with more questions and comments.
@ Slarg - Last time you tried to accuse me of straw manning you walked into what was a direct quote of your argument. Not a clever move. Now, I've been a good boy and have engaged your wildly varied responses. You have continually failed to engage on my key point here. I'm not going to continue to engage with your own challenges until you show me the same courtesy.
And yes, my doggedness is indeed outstanding. I won't let you dodge the question. It's funny that you can't even attempt to prove that the earth being round is a more reasonable belief than "zombie god did it", but you are happy to rail against the acceptance of the big bang theory. Your standards are absurd. And we can see this by how applying them to a question with a much more obvious answer turns out.
So here we go again.
But let's jump back to your Continual Failure to Answer the Question. It should be clear to anyone that if they can't, under their own criteria, justify why it's less plausible to believe that the earth is round than "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round" - then their criteria is messed up... Or they should be agnostic when it comes to the round earth too.
So answer the challenge. Why is it more plausible to believe that the earth is round than, "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round"? Demonstrate this.
@FearDReaper - It's a scientific talk on Youtube. Just watch it, no need to even read. And yep, it'll dig into this.
@FearDReaper
Look for things about 'Quantum fluctuation'. I don't know much, and I may be wrong about particular points, but the basics is that from the very beginning, there is never truly nothing at all whatsoever. Instead, there is a vacuum, where the only something is quantum forces. From that vacuum, antimatter and matter will spontaneously appear. This happens because matter and antimatter annihilate each other when collided leaving empty space, so a vacuum can do the reverse and 'split' into matter and antimatter. This reverse process can be observed under experimental conditions by the light emitted when the newly created particles collide and destroy each other. In an infinite vacuum, with no developed universe, this would happen endlessly and somehow formed a singularity from that produced matter (the specifics are all under debate, but the general idea is well supported). From the singularity, expansion forces are induced somehow (also under debate) and enter the big bang theory. Energy condenses into subatomic particles, subatomic particles form atoms, atoms form compounds. The stars that appear from the cosmic dust perform nuclear fusion to create more elements and now planets form. Organic chemicals gradually form into life and then evolution occurs. Fast forward another 2 billion years and here we are.
DJK did a good job of summing up some of the major points, but there's even more to it than that. Strongly recommend the "A Universe from Nothing" talk on youtube. It's entertaining and informative.
I thought you guys might enjoy knowing that I'm a full fleged self proclaimed athiest now as opposed to an agnostic. Talking with you all really helped me shed the few remaining theistic threads I had left woven by the brainwashing I received growing up.
I'm fairly certain "You're not fooling anyone" is assuming something on my behalf, making it an Ad Hominem.....
You've never provided anything.
2) That's still not an ad hominem. You really should look this stuff up.
3) You are clearly unable to justify why the round earth argument theory is a better explanation than "zombie god is making us believe it's this way", or creating/sustaining the phenomena that causes this belief. Whether or not I am providing any evidence for the round earth or not is irrelevant. It's on you to do the justifying, since you're the one that claimed there's reason to believe the earth is round - as I quoted above. Justify why that belief is more founded than "zombie god did it".
4) Nice move, cleverly claiming I never provided any justifications by quoting a bunch of random posts EXCEPT the ones where I justified it. This might work to someone skimming the thread, but you kind of messed it up by including a quote which references a justification that I did make.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Then would you please quote where you made these justifications?
After this you went on a spiral of trying to undermine every underpinning of the scientific method I brought up, trying to cut the legs out of the essential concepts of predictive power, falsifiability and so on. I no longer think it will be productive to engage in this way with you, because the clearest way I can show the flaws in these arguments of yours at this point is to apply the same concepts to something you DO accept: Round earth theory.
So quit dodging the question. You've claimed that BBT is equally plausible as "zombie god making us move". Demonstrate why round earth theory isn't equally plausible to "zombie god making it seem like the earth is round".
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
You are arguing that because Zombie Angel has a .01% chance of being what happened, it obviously has to be a man blowing a horn or listening to his radio.
I am arguing that because a man blowing a horn or listening to a radio has a 65% chance of being what happened, that doesn't mean that that is indeed what happened, and that just because we *think* it's a man blowing a horn or listening to his radio doesn't mean it actually was.
Now please, go buy some salsa, take the chip off of your shoulder, and eat it
Yet again you fail to answer the question. And I am not arguing that because a zombie angel is unlikely that it HAS to be a man blowing a horn. That's absurd. It doesn't come close to my point in that example. That example was demonstrating that just because two explanations fit the evidence, that doesn't mean both explanations are equally likely to be true. You can tell that was my point because I directly said it was in that post. By admitting that one is less likely than the other, you've proved my point. You haven't contradicted it.
But let's jump back to your Continual Failure to Answer the Question. It should be clear to anyone that if they can't, under their own criteria, justify why it's less plausible to believe that the earth is round than "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round" - then their criteria is messed up... Or they should be agnostic when it comes to the round earth too.
So answer the challenge. Why is it more plausible to believe that the earth is round than, "zombie god does stuff that makes it look like the earth is round"? Demonstrate this.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
2) None of this particular strawman is relevant to my argument. I explicitly stated what the point of that example was both in the original post and again just now. You aren't engaging with it.
3) Yet again you fail to answer...
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Your doggedness is truly outstanding, don't you think? No matter how I answer the "Zombie God makes the Earth Appear Round" argument, it won't be good enough I imagine. So tell me, how is it that my logic allows you to think that there is or is not a Zombie God making the earth appear Round when it's actually flat?
Hmm interesting, tbh this is where my ignorence of quantum mechanics becomes a problem for me and I reach my limit to be able to debate with athiesm. I dont know enough about quantum mechanics and how the universe could actually just come from nothing. Without understanding quantum mechanics it seems kinda crazy that something can just exist out of nowhere and didn't have to be created by some kind of force. I guess I have some studying to do before I can make any further arguments.
@Stairc - Does the book you were mentioning before "A Universe From Nothing" cover this topic? I'm assuming so. Ill have to check it out before I can proceed on this thread.
I appreciate the experience and knowledge this thread has given me so far. I'm amazed at how well read some of you guys are and its fun to discuss these types of topics with you. It has changed my outlook on a lot of topics and pushed me to think about topics I have never even thought of before. Sorry to be such a pain. I hope I haven't upset anyone with my questions and comments
Once I am better read on certain topics maybe i'll return with more questions and comments.
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
And yes, my doggedness is indeed outstanding. I won't let you dodge the question. It's funny that you can't even attempt to prove that the earth being round is a more reasonable belief than "zombie god did it", but you are happy to rail against the acceptance of the big bang theory. Your standards are absurd. And we can see this by how applying them to a question with a much more obvious answer turns out.
So here we go again.
@FearDReaper - It's a scientific talk on Youtube. Just watch it, no need to even read. And yep, it'll dig into this.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Look for things about 'Quantum fluctuation'. I don't know much, and I may be wrong about particular points, but the basics is that from the very beginning, there is never truly nothing at all whatsoever. Instead, there is a vacuum, where the only something is quantum forces. From that vacuum, antimatter and matter will spontaneously appear. This happens because matter and antimatter annihilate each other when collided leaving empty space, so a vacuum can do the reverse and 'split' into matter and antimatter. This reverse process can be observed under experimental conditions by the light emitted when the newly created particles collide and destroy each other. In an infinite vacuum, with no developed universe, this would happen endlessly and somehow formed a singularity from that produced matter (the specifics are all under debate, but the general idea is well supported). From the singularity, expansion forces are induced somehow (also under debate) and enter the big bang theory. Energy condenses into subatomic particles, subatomic particles form atoms, atoms form compounds. The stars that appear from the cosmic dust perform nuclear fusion to create more elements and now planets form. Organic chemicals gradually form into life and then evolution occurs. Fast forward another 2 billion years and here we are.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.” - Psalm 14:1a
Is that supposed to be some kind of argument?
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
BChainer, Dementia Master(Big Mana/Reanimator)
BRRakdos, The Showstopper (Mass Life Loss/Ramp)
BUThe Scarab God (Zombie Tribal/Control)
BWKarlov of the Ghost Council (Life Gain)
BGJarad, Golgari Lich Lord (Stompy/Dredge)
BRGProssh, Skyraider of Kher (Tokens/Non-infinite Combo)
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane