• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

ID/Creationism challenge

I will use the creationist argument to prove how everything came to be:

I, Shalamar, created the universe an all life.

Evidence: the universe and life exist.

Prediction: life and the universe exist.

Therefore it is shown that I, Shalamar, am the creator of all things. I don't need your worship though. I might be able to have someone whip out a bible if people need that sort of thing, though.
 
sphenisc said:
Trying to pare it down a bit:

P1 If A implies B, then (if B then B is evidence for A).

P2 Creationism implies life exists.

C1 (P1,P2) If life exists then the existence of life is evidence for Creationism.

P3 Life exists

C2 (P3,C1) The existence of life is evidence for Creationism.
Click to expand...

Your first premise is nothing more than an end-run around the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You accomplish this by saying "oh, I'm not claiming that B implies A, I'm just saying that B is evidence for A...".

Granted, "evidence" is a tricky word to define, and leaves a lot of room for subjective opinion. From what I gather, your opinion is that the consequent of a conditional is evidence of the antecedent (even though it cannot imply the antecedent).

Let's try this with a few other scenarios:

P1: If someone poisoned my Coke, then my Coke must exist.
P2: My Coke exists

Therefore, the fact that my Coke exists is evidence that someone poisoned it.

P1: If sphenisc is a kangaroo, then kangaroos must exist.
P2: Kangaroos exist.

Therefore, the fact that kangaroos exist is evidence that sphenisc is a kangaroo.

P1: if Godzilla destroyed the World Trade Center, then the WTC would be destroyed.
P2: The WTC has been destroyed.

Therefore, the fact that the WTC has been destroyed is evidence that Godzilla destroyed it.

Also, none of the arguments above passes the "straight-face test", which, though not logical, scientific, or rigorous, does get at the heart of what it means for something to be convincing. I, for one, would remain utterly unconvinced if someone were to try and present an argument using your idiosyncratic version of evidence.

sphenisc said:
Making stuff up and evading questions doesn't help your case. Resorting to a tu toque kind of damages your credibility even more.
Click to expand...

If we want to talk about damaged credibility, your definition of evidence pretty much blows your credibility out of the water.
 
Shalamar said:
I will use the creationist argument to prove how everything came to be:

I, Shalamar, created the universe an all life.

Evidence: the universe and life exist.

Prediction: life and the universe exist.

Therefore it is shown that I, Shalamar, am the creator of all things. I don't need your worship though. I might be able to have someone whip out a bible if people need that sort of thing, though.
Click to expand...

To be precise, sphenisc isn't claiming that the existence of the universe implies that you created it, just that it is evidence that you created it.
 
Last edited:
@philosaur. Nice. This is an excellent explanation of misunderstanding implication (if vs iff etc).
 
sphenisc said:
Sure it does, it tells us A has not been falsified by B.
Click to expand...

Sorry, this just reminded me of Dumb and Dumber:

Lloyd: What do you think the chances are of a guy like you and a girl like me... ending up together?

Mary: Well, Lloyd, that's difficult to say. I mean, we don't really...

Lloyd: Hit me with it! Just give it to me straight! I came a long way just to see you, Mary. The least you can do is level with me. What are my chances?

Mary: Not good.

Lloyd: You mean, not good like one out of a hundred?

Mary: I'd say more like one out of a million.

[pause]

Lloyd: So you're telling me there's a chance... *YEAH!
Click to expand...

Not a great movie, but I thought this quote was appropriate.

It favours those explanations which are compatible with the observation.
Click to expand...

It doesn't even do that. It merely shows that a true proposition doesn't exclude any argument which entails that proposition.

P1: Hitler invented shoes.
P2: Shoes exist.

The fact that shoes exist cannot be used to rule out the proposition that Hitler invented them. Does this mean that the existence of shoes is evidence for Hitler as the inventor of shoes? I (and I suspect most thinking people) would say no. I also suspect that in any normal, real-world context, sphenisc would agree. But, because it is apparently anathema to some people to admit a mistake (or even change her mind!) in an online forum, sphenisc will doggedly maintain her position.
 
Philosaur said:
Your first premise is nothing more than an end-run around the fallacy of affirming the consequent. You accomplish this by saying "oh, I'm not claiming that B implies A, I'm just saying that B is evidence for A...".

Granted, "evidence" is a tricky word to define, and leaves a lot of room for subjective opinion. From what I gather, your opinion is that the consequent of a conditional is evidence of the antecedent (even though it cannot imply the antecedent).

Let's try this with a few other scenarios:

P1: If someone poisoned my Coke, then my Coke must exist.
P2: My Coke exists

Therefore, the fact that my Coke exists is evidence that someone poisoned it.

P1: If sphenisc is a kangaroo, then kangaroos must exist.
P2: Kangaroos exist.

Therefore, the fact that kangaroos exist is evidence that sphenisc is a kangaroo.

P1: if Godzilla destroyed the World Trade Center, then the WTC would be destroyed.
P2: The WTC has been destroyed.

Therefore, the fact that the WTC has been destroyed is evidence that Godzilla destroyed it.

Also, none of the arguments above passes the "straight-face test", which, though not logical, scientific, or rigorous, does get at the heart of what it means for something to be convincing. I, for one, would remain utterly unconvinced if someone were to try and present an argument using your idiosyncratic version of evidence.
Click to expand...
Your problem seems to be with my P1 rather than the rest of my argument. You haven't really specified why, other than presenting conclusions based on it you appear to feel uncomfortable with, a relatively common behaviour in this thread. Do you have an alternative method for identifying evidence which you'd prefer?

If we want to talk about damaged credibility, your definition of evidence pretty much blows your credibility out of the water.
Click to expand...
Nah, I think the difference is thaiboxerken had some. [It wasn't intended as a definition.]
 
Last edited:
Trying to trick people into thinking that the universe is evidence that the universe was created is idiotic.
 
Philosaur said:
The fact that shoes exist cannot be used to rule out the proposition that Hitler invented them. Does this mean that the existence of shoes is evidence for Hitler as the inventor of shoes?
Click to expand...
Not for "Hitler as the inventor of shoes", for "Hitler invented shoes."
The former presupposes the existence of an inventor of shoes, which means that the existence of shoes provides no further evidence, the latter doesn't.

I (and I suspect most thinking people) would say no. I also suspect that in any normal, real-world context, sphenisc would agree.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but that's because you've altered the form of the argument.

But, because it is apparently anathema to some people to admit a mistake (or even change her mind!) in an online forum, sphenisc will doggedly maintain her position.
Click to expand...

Ugggh!! Invalid syllogism, and wrong pronoun, and well poisoning. :rolleyes:

My maintaining my position would be dogged if you'd presented an argument which contradicts mine.
The only point I can see which does is "It doesn't even do that. It merely shows that a true proposition doesn't exclude any argument which entails that proposition." I would describe something not excluded, as being favoured over something which is excluded.
Other than that, where do you think you've presented a case which should change my mind?
 
sphenisc said:
Not for "Hitler as the inventor of shoes", for "Hitler invented shoes."
The former presupposes the existence of an inventor of shoes, which means that the existence of shoes provides no further evidence, the latter doesn't.
Click to expand...

Is the fact that you exist evidence that everything you say is wrong?
 
sphenisc said:
Not for "Hitler as the inventor of shoes", for "Hitler invented shoes."
The former presupposes the existence of an inventor of shoes, which means that the existence of shoes provides no further evidence, the latter doesn't.
Click to expand...

How does "Hitler invented shoes" not presuppose the existence of an inventor of shoes?
 
Sceptic Tank said:
How does "Hitler invented shoes" not presuppose the existence of an inventor of shoes?
Click to expand...

The statement "Hitler invented shoes." has three parts which can supported by six types of evidence. Evidence which supports 1) the existence of Hitler, 2) the existence of shoes, 3) the existence of a relation called "invents", 4) Hitler invented ,5) shoes were invented, 6) this relation applies between Hitler and shoes.

The statement "Hitler as the inventor of shoes." has an additional level of abstraction, it presupposes that points 2), 3) and 5) have been accepted and only 1), 4) and 6) need evidenced.

In that sense it presupposes a certainty about some facts which the former doesn't.
 
Last edited:
As a reaction to the OP; how can one have "scientific evidence" for a non-scientific theory/hypothesis? Before you can start talking about evidence (scientific or whatever) for something you should have an idea as to what would count as evidence against.

If there is no formulation as what would count as evidence against than all evidence claimed for is meaningless.
 
Considering the Monty Hall problem.

"The car's behind door 1" implies "there's a goat behind door 2." However demonstrating there's a goat behind door 2 is not evidence that there's car behind door 1 (it's probability of being true is unchanged). Hmmm....
 
Sphenisc, are you arguing these points for the sake of clarity, or do you support the idea of intelligent design?
 
Halfcentaur said:
Sphenisc, are you arguing these points for the sake of clarity, or do you support the idea of intelligent design?
Click to expand...

I am arguing the points for sake of clarity. As to Intelligent Design, I accept what I regard as the central claim of ID, however that appears to be entirely unrelated to what people argue about on this forum and elsewhere. I don't think I've seen anyone clearly define what they mean by ID in the many discussions here. If you'd like to present one then I'd be happy to clarify my position regarding it. I assume that would still be regarded as on topic.
 
sphenisc said:
I am arguing the points for sake of clarity. As to Intelligent Design, I accept what I regard as the central claim of ID, however that appears to be entirely unrelated to what people argue about on this forum and elsewhere. I don't think I've seen anyone clearly define what they mean by ID in the many discussions here. If you'd like to present one then I'd be happy to clarify my position regarding it. I assume that would still be regarded as on topic.
Click to expand...

What do you regard as the central claim of ID?

Generally speaking the central claim of ID that I've seen espoused by IDers is that life was designed, and that while evolution does occur on some level, there are certain things that could not have come about by anything other than deliberate design.

Of course, this is where the problem is, because they get very vague on what these concepts are. Indeed, when they pick something and it is then shown that we do know exactly how such a feature evolved, they either deny it or fall back on something else. Usually this results in undefined terminology on their part (see: Specified complexity or the ever nebulous "information") which means that we can't actually argue with them because they haven't decided what the hell it is they are arguing for yet.

I used to frequent (and do dip into still) a specifically evolution V creationism/intelligent design forum where one member and administrator mentioned "flinkywisty" as a way to highlight how useless most ID arguments are. He stated that in the same way that IDers and Creationists like to throw around the term information, he would instead state that it's obvious something didn't evolve because it didn't demonstrate flinkywisty. He never actually explained what it was, which made the entire discussion utterly worthless (which was of course, the point) because you can't debate with someone who doesn't define their terms. If we allow IDers and Creationists to constantly redefine terms as they see fit ("kind" is another favourite of the creationist crowd) then discussion becomes impossible because they can always fall back on "that isn't what I mean at all".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom