Total Posts:56|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Dragon in my Garage

vardas0antras
Posts: 983
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:59:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 3:56:37 AM, tvellalott wrote:


I like the video
"When he awoke in a tomb three days later he would actually have believed that he rose from the dead" FREEDO about the resurrection of Jesus Christ
devinni01841
Posts: 1,405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 12:47:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
interesting....
There is nothing more bad-@ss than being yourself.

I solemnly swear I am up to no good.

Member of the Texas Army National Guard since 20111212

An Armed society is a polite society.
Freeman
Posts: 1,239
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 1:01:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 3:56:37 AM, tvellalott wrote:

First, there was the celestial teapot. Then, there was the Dragon in the garage. Then, there was the flying spaghetti monster.
Chancellor of Propaganda and Foreign Relations in the Franklin administration.

"I intend to live forever. So far, so good." -- Steven Wright
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 3:36:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...
The point being...?
Regarding scientific research and analysis, everything is guilty until proven innocent. In this regard, de-facto atheism is the best option, not agnosticism.
But your point is still valid, as no one should think god is impossible simply because of this.
I miss the old members.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 4:00:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 3:36:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...
The point being...?

The point being that people (mostly atheists) like to compare the teapot/flying spaghetti monster/dragon in the garage/invisible pink unicorn/angry unicorn from the dark side of the moon/fairies to God when it's quite clear these aren't, and never were, good analogies in the first place.

Regarding scientific research and analysis, everything is guilty until proven innocent. In this regard, de-facto atheism is the best option, not agnosticism.

How? There is no presumption of atheism.

But your point is still valid, as no one should think god is impossible simply because of this.

That wasn't my point.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
unitedandy
Posts: 1,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 5:14:08 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
As a defender of the presumption of atheism argument, I wouldn't compare God to the celestial teapot or invisible dragon, & would also recognise that such a stance would have to be justified with its own argument, not just asserted. But such an argument should only ever be used as tipping of the balance of the burden of proof, and as such will provide (at best) support for so called weak atheism. Dealing with claims from agnostics regarding the argument, one could draw an analogy between other supernatural entities (ghosts or spirits perhaps), or extraterrestrial life. The way that Flew uses it in his article (using the courtcase as a template for applicability) is maybe the best way to think of it, and would be justified EVEN if God does exist.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 5:39:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...

I read it. I may have missed the point (half the pages seemed to have been skipped or something) but I don't see how it disregards the obvious comparisan I can make between any God and the Dragon.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:05:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 5:39:28 PM, tvellalott wrote:
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...

I read it. I may have missed the point (half the pages seemed to have been skipped or something) but I don't see how it disregards the obvious comparisan I can make between any God and the Dragon.

One is posited as having little to no causal influence and another one is posited (typically in the West) as having the most causal influence imaginable.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:06:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 4:00:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/30/2011 3:36:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...
The point being...?

The point being that people (mostly atheists) like to compare the teapot/flying spaghetti monster/dragon in the garage/invisible pink unicorn/angry unicorn from the dark side of the moon/fairies to God when it's quite clear these aren't, and never were, good analogies in the first place.
Why? It simply compares empirical claims of god to invisible beings. It doesn't try to combat logical claims for god, just empirical ones that have no evidence.
Regarding scientific research and analysis, everything is guilty until proven innocent. In this regard, de-facto atheism is the best option, not agnosticism.

How? There is no presumption of atheism.
Since empirical claims of anything are guilty until proven innocent in the scientific community, it wouldn't make sense to be agnostic. It's either guilty, or innocent, which would, metaphorically, be translated to atheist, or theist. There is no middle ground.
I miss the old members.
GodSands
Posts: 2,843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:08:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
"Show me this dragon" - Idiot.

I wouldn't believe to begin with if I were a true atheist.

I bet there is an atheist out there who says there is a dragon in his garage. It mean nothing, the whole approach to God.

The fact is, the dragon hasn't claimed to have done anything, God has been claimed to have created the universe.

But how about this; I have a room in my house that no one alive has every entered. No known information exists about the people who build my house, they have all died of age. But in that room which is locked, you cannot get in, there are no inner walls, just outer walls. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard, how can there be no inner walling if there is outer walling? Huh? Are you saying how can there be a universe without a creator?

Ha, kind of reversed the argument here, if you get it that is, some of you won't. Open minded of you will.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:23:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Hmmm . . . interesting . . .
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:26:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 6:06:58 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/30/2011 4:00:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/30/2011 3:36:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...
The point being...?

The point being that people (mostly atheists) like to compare the teapot/flying spaghetti monster/dragon in the garage/invisible pink unicorn/angry unicorn from the dark side of the moon/fairies to God when it's quite clear these aren't, and never were, good analogies in the first place.
Why? It simply compares empirical claims of god to invisible beings. It doesn't try to combat logical claims for god, just empirical ones that have no evidence.

Debate me on it.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Atheism
Posts: 2,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:39:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 6:26:27 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/30/2011 6:06:58 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/30/2011 4:00:04 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/30/2011 3:36:56 PM, Atheism wrote:
At 1/30/2011 1:45:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
I'll just leave this here just in case if anyone tries to draw some hasty conclusions from this analogy:

http://books.google.com...
The point being...?

The point being that people (mostly atheists) like to compare the teapot/flying spaghetti monster/dragon in the garage/invisible pink unicorn/angry unicorn from the dark side of the moon/fairies to God when it's quite clear these aren't, and never were, good analogies in the first place.
Why? It simply compares empirical claims of god to invisible beings. It doesn't try to combat logical claims for god, just empirical ones that have no evidence.

Debate me on it.
Nah, I'm pretty sure I would lose, one way or another. And, as I like every bit of the win ratio that I currently possess, why not just talk on the forums?

Yes. I am that shallow.
I miss the old members.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 6:59:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 6:08:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
"Show me this dragon" - Idiot.

I wouldn't believe to begin with if I were a true atheist.

I bet there is an atheist out there who says there is a dragon in his garage. It mean nothing, the whole approach to God.

The fact is, the dragon hasn't claimed to have done anything, God has been claimed to have created the universe.

But how about this; I have a room in my house that no one alive has every entered. No known information exists about the people who build my house, they have all died of age. But in that room which is locked, you cannot get in, there are no inner walls, just outer walls. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard, how can there be no inner walling if there is outer walling? Huh? Are you saying how can there be a universe without a creator?

Ha, kind of reversed the argument here, if you get it that is, some of you won't. Open minded of you will.

": The fact is, the dragon hasn't claimed to have done anything, God has been claimed to have created the universe."

Are you saying God has made a claim ? or that people have claimed that God has made a claim ?

The invisible dragon is flying around in my garage right now, there is a claim for ya, and you can't prove me wrong.

"But in that room which is locked, you cannot get in, there are no inner walls, just outer walls. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard, how can there be no inner walling if there is outer walling? Huh? Are you saying how can there be a universe without a creator?"

Please tell me I am not the only one who when reading this thought........WTF ? make sense damm it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 7:14:49 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
One is posited as having little to no causal influence and another one is posited (typically in the West) as having the most causal influence imaginable.

Then do the following:

I have a group of incredible autistic children in my garage who pound away on their self-built supercomputers, and they have been the primary influence behind major world events from 9/11 to the current riots in Egypt. Oh, did I mention they are undetectable to every scientific experiment a priori? And the link between their causal influence and the events I've listed?

I'm not entirely familiar with Sagan, and atheists do tend to be scientifically presumptious (in the philosophical sense), but there is some credibility in this particular analogy.
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 8:22:42 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 7:14:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
One is posited as having little to no causal influence and another one is posited (typically in the West) as having the most causal influence imaginable.

Then do the following:

I have a group of incredible autistic children in my garage who pound away on their self-built supercomputers, and they have been the primary influence behind major world events from 9/11 to the current riots in Egypt. Oh, did I mention they are undetectable to every scientific experiment a priori? And the link between their causal influence and the events I've listed?

This.
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 9:04:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 7:14:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
One is posited as having little to no causal influence and another one is posited (typically in the West) as having the most causal influence imaginable.

Then do the following:

I have a group of incredible autistic children in my garage who pound away on their self-built supercomputers, and they have been the primary influence behind major world events from 9/11 to the current riots in Egypt. Oh, did I mention they are undetectable to every scientific experiment a priori? And the link between their causal influence and the events I've listed?


Well, for one, your parody/analogy like all the other relevant ones just posits a group superflous entities that no arguments have been given for their existence or influence. This very clearly not the case with God. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with them - the mere fact that they are there points to a disanalogy.

Also, causal influence isn't the only thing that distinguishes God and these parodies - there are a ton more. God is supposed to be the metaphysically necessary ground of being for all contingent things - in other words he's not just another contingent being amongst other contingent beings he's posited as the very explanation of them unlike the relevant parodies.

When you can produce an argument from general facts and/or observations like "the universe seems contingent" or "there are moral obligations" or "there seems to be teleology immanent in the universe" or "there is consciousness" to "a group of incredible autistic kids in the garage who..." then the analogy might have some force.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 10:07:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 9:04:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/30/2011 7:14:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
One is posited as having little to no causal influence and another one is posited (typically in the West) as having the most causal influence imaginable.

Then do the following:

I have a group of incredible autistic children in my garage who pound away on their self-built supercomputers, and they have been the primary influence behind major world events from 9/11 to the current riots in Egypt. Oh, did I mention they are undetectable to every scientific experiment a priori? And the link between their causal influence and the events I've listed?


Well, for one, your parody/analogy like all the other relevant ones just posits a group superflous entities that no arguments have been given for their existence or influence. This very clearly not the case with God. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with them - the mere fact that they are there points to a disanalogy.

Also, causal influence isn't the only thing that distinguishes God and these parodies - there are a ton more. God is supposed to be the metaphysically necessary ground of being for all contingent things - in other words he's not just another contingent being amongst other contingent beings he's posited as the very explanation of them unlike the relevant parodies.

When you can produce an argument from general facts and/or observations like "the universe seems contingent" or "there are moral obligations" or "there seems to be teleology immanent in the universe" or "there is consciousness" to "a group of incredible autistic kids in the garage who..." then the analogy might have some force.

meh. one can make those arguments in relation to god, but that deoesn't mean they succeed. and until they do, the analogy holds. discussing whether or not they succeed is another topic though...
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 10:17:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 10:07:21 PM, belle wrote:
At 1/30/2011 9:04:37 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 1/30/2011 7:14:49 PM, TheSkeptic wrote:
One is posited as having little to no causal influence and another one is posited (typically in the West) as having the most causal influence imaginable.

Then do the following:

I have a group of incredible autistic children in my garage who pound away on their self-built supercomputers, and they have been the primary influence behind major world events from 9/11 to the current riots in Egypt. Oh, did I mention they are undetectable to every scientific experiment a priori? And the link between their causal influence and the events I've listed?


Well, for one, your parody/analogy like all the other relevant ones just posits a group superflous entities that no arguments have been given for their existence or influence. This very clearly not the case with God. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with them - the mere fact that they are there points to a disanalogy.

Also, causal influence isn't the only thing that distinguishes God and these parodies - there are a ton more. God is supposed to be the metaphysically necessary ground of being for all contingent things - in other words he's not just another contingent being amongst other contingent beings he's posited as the very explanation of them unlike the relevant parodies.

When you can produce an argument from general facts and/or observations like "the universe seems contingent" or "there are moral obligations" or "there seems to be teleology immanent in the universe" or "there is consciousness" to "a group of incredible autistic kids in the garage who..." then the analogy might have some force.

meh. one can make those arguments in relation to god, but that deoesn't mean they succeed. and until they do, the analogy holds. discussing whether or not they succeed is another topic though...

You not being convinced by the arguments for God doesn't make the analogy a good one nor does it make it hold. The point is that a reasoned case can be made for God.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tigg13
Posts: 302
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 10:26:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 6:08:17 PM, GodSands wrote:
"Show me this dragon" - Idiot.

I wouldn't believe to begin with if I were a true atheist.

I bet there is an atheist out there who says there is a dragon in his garage. It mean nothing, the whole approach to God.

The fact is, the dragon hasn't claimed to have done anything, God has been claimed to have created the universe.

But how about this; I have a room in my house that no one alive has every entered. No known information exists about the people who build my house, they have all died of age. But in that room which is locked, you cannot get in, there are no inner walls, just outer walls. That's the most stupid thing I've ever heard, how can there be no inner walling if there is outer walling? Huh? Are you saying how can there be a universe without a creator?

Ha, kind of reversed the argument here, if you get it that is, some of you won't. Open minded of you will.:

How about a mushroom?

No one alive has ever entered it, it's makers are dead and it has outer walls but no inner walls.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 10:29:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 10:17:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You not being convinced by the arguments for God doesn't make the analogy a good one nor does it make it hold. The point is that a reasoned case can be made for God.

sure, but that only creates a disanalogy if you accept that the argument is successful. otherwise its still perfectly parallel to any fail argument made in defense of the dragon. a reasoned case no doubt can be made for it, after all. you claim its a different case because the arguments for god are good... but in the context of this thread that has yet to be shown, and is essentially a different argument.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/30/2011 10:49:33 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 1/30/2011 10:29:53 PM, belle wrote:
At 1/30/2011 10:17:26 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
You not being convinced by the arguments for God doesn't make the analogy a good one nor does it make it hold. The point is that a reasoned case can be made for God.

sure, but that only creates a disanalogy if you accept that the argument is successful.

Nope. You don't have to accept an argument or arguments as "successful" in order to recognize that a reasoned, well-principled case made for something. I see and acknowledge that reasoned cases can be made for a whole host of things I don't think are true. Just like I can recognize that reasonable people can disagree with me. It'd be absurd to say that anyone who disagrees me just can't make a reasoned argument about why they disagree with me even if I don't think their arguments are successful. Ditto with them being reasonable.

otherwise its still perfectly parallel to any fail argument made in defense of the dragon. a reasoned case no doubt can be made for it, after all. you claim its a different case because the arguments for god are good... but in the context of this thread that has yet to be shown, and is essentially a different argument.

No, I claim it's different because no reasoned cases for a dragon in garage have been made (and I doubt whether they can be made) whereas there have been some for God. Perhaps I should have said "can and has been made..." One can even recognize there are "good" (as in challenging, thoughtful, insightful, etc) arguments for positions one doesn't think are true. The whole point is that they are not on epistemic par with each other precisely because of that issue and others.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
tvellalott
Posts: 10,864
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 12:53:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
pooka, what are the good arguments for God?
"Caitlyn Jenner is an incredibly brave and stunningly beautiful woman."

Muh threads
Using mafia tactics in real-life: http://www.debate.org...
6 years of DDO: http://www.debate.org...
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 12:54:11 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Well, for one, your parody/analogy like all the other relevant ones just posits a group superflous entities that no arguments have been given for their existence or influence. This very clearly not the case with God. It doesn't matter that you don't agree with them - the mere fact that they are there points to a disanalogy.

Also, causal influence isn't the only thing that distinguishes God and these parodies - there are a ton more. God is supposed to be the metaphysically necessary ground of being for all contingent things - in other words he's not just another contingent being amongst other contingent beings he's posited as the very explanation of them unlike the relevant parodies.

When you can produce an argument from general facts and/or observations like "the universe seems contingent" or "there are moral obligations" or "there seems to be teleology immanent in the universe" or "there is consciousness" to "a group of incredible autistic kids in the garage who..." then the analogy might have some force.

Carl Sagan was clearly targeting his analogy towards the stance theists have about the empirical nature of the belief in "God exists" - the burden of proof seems to be suspiciously lower for such a statement unlike other ones (i.e. statements about the natural world, in our common day life). This is irrespective of the arguments for and against him; it parodies the epistemic requirements for belief in God.
TheSkeptic
Posts: 1,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
1/31/2011 12:55:52 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
As a sidenote:

Do I hold Sagan's analogy to be pin-point accurate about theism's epistemologically fragile structure? No, but I do think this analogy has hit something on the head, if not all of it.