Debunking Calilasseia, part I

Let's do it, shall we?

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else below.

Moderators: Calilasseia, DarthHelmet86, Onyx8

Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#1  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 1:53 pm

First we are going to study one of his slogan, which will turn out to be nothing more than empty air.

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present.

There are several issues with this claim.

First of all, I see no reason at all to accept this. For example, I do not have a shred of credible evidence for E.T. life, however why should the default position be to regard E.T. as not existing? Especially considering how vast the universe is. I don't think it is rational at all. The rational position would simply be to claim that we need more substantive supporting evidence before we make a claim one way or another.

Secondly, we would need to accept evidentialism to accept his claim. But why should we accept evidentialism? Shouldn't Calilasseia first demonstrate that evidentialism is the only game in town? Ie, demonstratating that the only way to get knowledge of entities is via "substantive, supporting" evidence? It seems like a big burden to me. What if, for example, an entity communicates with some of us using telepathy%? Why should the default position, for those who were able to communicate with the entity X in question, be to regard entity X as not existing, since those people cannot produce any "substantive, supporting evidence"?

There are other issues, of course. What exactly is "substantive evidence", as opposed to simply "evidence"? What is "intense critical scrutiny", as opposed to simply "scrutiny"? Why is Calilasseia imposing this specific standard, and not another level of standard?

I go could on, but enough have been said. There is no reason to accept his claim, and nothing about his claim can be supported, or is clear. It's just an emtpy slogan to fill space, and impress village atheists.
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#2  Postby trubble76 » Nov 03, 2011 2:04 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:First we are going to study one of his slogan, which will turn out to be nothing more than empty air.

If an entity X is postulated to exist, and no substantive evidence capable of withstanding intense critical scrutiny is present to support the postulated existence of entity X, then the default position is to regard entity X as not existing until said substantive supporting evidence becomes present.

There are several issues with this claim.

First of all, I see no reason at all to accept this. For example, I do not have a shred of credible evidence for E.T. life, however why should the default position be to regard E.T. as not existing? Especially considering how vast the universe is. I don't think it is rational at all. The rational position would simply be to claim that we need more substantive supporting evidence before we make a claim one way or another.

Secondly, we would need to accept evidentialism to accept his claim. But why should we accept evidentialism? Shouldn't Calilasseia first demonstrate that evidentialism is the only game in town? Ie, demonstratating that the only way to get knowledge of entities is via "substantive, supporting" evidence? It seems like a big burden to me. What if, for example, an entity communicates with some of us using telepathy%? Why should the default position, for those who were able to communicate with the entity X in question, be to regard entity X as not existing, since those people cannot produce any "substantive, supporting evidence"?

There are other issues, of course. What exactly is "substantive evidence", as opposed to simply "evidence"? What is "intense critical scrutiny", as opposed to simply "scrutiny"? Why is Calilasseia imposing this specific standard, and not another level of standard?

I go could on, but enough have been said. There is no reason to accept his claim, and nothing about his claim can be supported, or is clear. It's just an emtpy slogan to fill space, and impress village atheists.


You probably should have spent a little more time thinking about this before posting.

Firstly, the number of stars evident to us is a strong piece of evidence to support the idea of life existing elsewhere, however as there is nothing definite either way, the default opinion (as far as I'm aware) is that there is probably life elsewhere but there might not be. It's hardly Earth-shattering, is it?

Secondly, the appraisal of evidence is the only reliable method of assertaining liklihood. Can you just imagine what the world would be like if evidence were not required? If you still think evidence is unecessary, you owe me £30,000. I'd like cash please.

Your arguments are childish, useless and moronic. You should be feeling very embarrased.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#3  Postby Regina » Nov 03, 2011 2:10 pm

Did you speak to an angel again?
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#4  Postby laklak » Nov 03, 2011 2:11 pm

:popcorn:

This could be interesting.
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something he can learn in no other way. - Mark Twain
The sky is falling! The sky is falling! - Chicken Little
I never go without my dinner. No one ever does, except vegetarians and people like that - Oscar Wilde
User avatar
laklak
RS Donator
 
Name: Florida Man
Posts: 20878
Age: 67
Male

Country: The Great Satan
Swaziland (sz)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#5  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:12 pm

trubble76 wrote:
You probably should have spent a little more time thinking about this before posting.

Firstly, the number of stars evident to us is a strong piece of evidence to support the idea of life existing elsewhere, however as there is nothing definite either way, the default opinion (as far as I'm aware) is that there is probably life elsewhere but there might not be. It's hardly Earth-shattering, is it?


Stars by themselves are not evidence at all for an entity X, any more than "flowers are pretty therefore God exists" is a convincing argument. Are you for real?

Secondly, the appraisal of evidence is the only reliable method of assertaining liklihood.


In every situation? Why, because you sez so?

Can you just imagine what the world would be like if evidence were not required?


But when did I support the idea that evidence are not required, for any claim X of any kind? I'm saying that there is no reason to assume an entity X does not exist if there are no "substantive supporting evidence". I just gave an example with entity X communicating with some us using telepathy.

Your arguments are childish, useless and moronic. You should be feeling very embarrased.


Oh dear, if you say so. More empty assertions.
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#6  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:19 pm

Please answer this very simple question: is there, yes or no, "substantive, supporting evidence" for the existence of an E.T. life? If so, what is this substantive evidence?
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#7  Postby Regina » Nov 03, 2011 2:22 pm

I think Ispoketoanangel is right to a certain extent.
But telepathy is so last season. Nowadays, the entities in the know use instant messengers. Makes Gabriel's work much easier.
You might rightly ask how I know about this. Well, let me tell you, ole Gabe drops by every now and then when I'm online and he isn't too busy. We then chat for a while. He's a very personable guy with a wicked sense of humour. :thumbup:
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#8  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:23 pm

Regina wrote:I think Ispoketoanangel is right (...) He's a very personable guy with a wicked sense of humour. :thumbup:


Thanks!
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#9  Postby Paul » Nov 03, 2011 2:24 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:Please answer this very simple question: is there, yes or no, "substantive, supporting evidence" for the existence of an E.T. life? If so, what is this substantive evidence?


Planet Earth, and the diversity of life that exists on it. If it can happen here, then it might have happened elsewhere.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 63
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#10  Postby Regina » Nov 03, 2011 2:26 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:
Regina wrote:I think Ispoketoanangel is right (...) He's a very personable guy with a wicked sense of humour. :thumbup:


Thanks!

My pleasure. You sure know how it's done!
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#11  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:28 pm

Paul wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:Please answer this very simple question: is there, yes or no, "substantive, supporting evidence" for the existence of an E.T. life? If so, what is this substantive evidence?


Planet Earth, and the diversity of life that exists on it. If it can happen here, then it might have happened elsewhere.


That is what counts as "substantive evidence"? You sure set the bar low.
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#12  Postby Paul » Nov 03, 2011 2:31 pm

Well as someone who believes in a god, I didn't think you'd need the bar any higher.
"Peter, I can see your house from here!"
User avatar
Paul
 
Posts: 4550
Age: 63
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#13  Postby Animavore » Nov 03, 2011 2:33 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:
Paul wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:Please answer this very simple question: is there, yes or no, "substantive, supporting evidence" for the existence of an E.T. life? If so, what is this substantive evidence?


Planet Earth, and the diversity of life that exists on it. If it can happen here, then it might have happened elsewhere.


That is what counts as "substantive evidence"? You sure set the bar low.

Well yes, actually. If life can form and evolve once then potentially it can many times.
Oh but you don't believe that.
Ok, put it this way. If God created life once then potentially He could do it as often as He pleases.
Who are you to say otherwise?
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#14  Postby trubble76 » Nov 03, 2011 2:35 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
You probably should have spent a little more time thinking about this before posting.

Firstly, the number of stars evident to us is a strong piece of evidence to support the idea of life existing elsewhere, however as there is nothing definite either way, the default opinion (as far as I'm aware) is that there is probably life elsewhere but there might not be. It's hardly Earth-shattering, is it?


Stars by themselves are not evidence at all for an entity X, any more than "flowers are pretty therefore God exists" is a convincing argument. Are you for real?

Oh I'm for real, but you seem to be struggling.
I'll try to break it down to very simple concepts so that you can follow.
Stars have a decent liklihood of having planets going around them, there are approximately 100bn stars in the average galaxy, and there are approximately the same number of galaxies. If only a small percentage of those stars have planets, and if only a small percentage of those planets are similar to Earth, and if only a small percentage of those are right for life, that still suggests an awful lot of planets with the necessary conditions for life out there. This constitutes evidence for extraterrestrial life, but it is only weak evidence therefore no conclusion either way is reached.
Which part of this do you find confusing?

Secondly, the appraisal of evidence is the only reliable method of assertaining liklihood.


In every situation? Why, because you sez so?


Yes i sez. Can you offer any examples where evidence is the least best way of assertaining liklihood?

Can you just imagine what the world would be like if evidence were not required?


But when did I support the idea that evidence are not required, for any claim X of any kind? I'm saying that there is no reason to assume an entity X does not exist if there are no "substantive supporting evidence". I just gave an example with entity X communicating with some us using telepathy.


What dribble. You want us to accept the proposition of your god, but you don't think any evidence is required? Well, how come you don't accept the existance and supremecy of Thor? Why aren't you a Muslim?

Your arguments are childish, useless and moronic. You should be feeling very embarrased.


Oh dear, if you say so. More empty assertions.


Nope, nothing empty in my assertions, your idiotic post is there for all to see.
Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose,
And nothin' ain't worth nothin' but it's free.

"Suck me off and I'll turn the voltage down"
User avatar
trubble76
RS Donator
 
Posts: 11205
Age: 44
Male

United Kingdom (uk)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#15  Postby babel » Nov 03, 2011 2:37 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:
First of all, I see no reason at all to accept this. For example, I do not have a shred of credible evidence for E.T. life, however why should the default position be to regard E.T. as not existing? Especially considering how vast the universe is. I don't think it is rational at all. The rational position would simply be to claim that we need more substantive supporting evidence before we make a claim one way or another.

I hope you're not a theist then. In that case, you just lost a foot.
Milton Jones: "Just bought a broken second hand time machine - plan to fix it, have lots of adventures then go back and not buy it, he he idiots.."
User avatar
babel
 
Posts: 4675
Age: 40
Male

Country: Belgium
Belgium (be)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#16  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:40 pm

Animavore wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:
Paul wrote:

Planet Earth, and the diversity of life that exists on it. If it can happen here, then it might have happened elsewhere.


That is what counts as "substantive evidence"? You sure set the bar low.

Well yes, actually. If life can form and evolve once then potentially it can many times.
Oh but you don't believe that.
Ok, put it this way. If God created life once then potentially He could do it as often as He pleases.
Who are you to say otherwise?


But isn't the key word here "potentially"? How does a potential situation translates into "substantive evidence"?

You know what's very interesting here? Is that you're admitting an intellectual reasoning counts as a "substantive evidence", since you actually don't have any "hard" evidence for E.T. life, you just observe what's around you and make a logical reasoning.

Well, interestingly, that is exactly what theists do with arguments for the existence of God! Like the fine tuning arguments. Of course, the fine tuning argument might turn out to be unconvincing, but by your own admission, it could turn out to be "substantive evidence"!
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#17  Postby Regina » Nov 03, 2011 2:43 pm

babel wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:
First of all, I see no reason at all to accept this. For example, I do not have a shred of credible evidence for E.T. life, however why should the default position be to regard E.T. as not existing? Especially considering how vast the universe is. I don't think it is rational at all. The rational position would simply be to claim that we need more substantive supporting evidence before we make a claim one way or another.

I hope you're not a theist then. In that case, you just lost a foot.

Not really.If telepathy is considered as a means to get knowledge and what is conveyed through it is regarded as proper evidence, then he can maintain his theist worldview.
No, they ain't makin' Jews like Jesus anymore,
They don't turn the other cheek the way they done before.

Kinky Friedman
Regina
 
Posts: 15627
Male

Djibouti (dj)
Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#18  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:46 pm

trubble76 wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:
trubble76 wrote:
You probably should have spent a little more time thinking about this before posting.

Firstly, the number of stars evident to us is a strong piece of evidence to support the idea of life existing elsewhere, however as there is nothing definite either way, the default opinion (as far as I'm aware) is that there is probably life elsewhere but there might not be. It's hardly Earth-shattering, is it?


Stars by themselves are not evidence at all for an entity X, any more than "flowers are pretty therefore God exists" is a convincing argument. Are you for real?

Oh I'm for real, but you seem to be struggling.
I'll try to break it down to very simple concepts so that you can follow.
Stars have a decent liklihood of having planets going around them, there are approximately 100bn stars in the average galaxy, and there are approximately the same number of galaxies. If only a small percentage of those stars have planets, and if only a small percentage of those planets are similar to Earth, and if only a small percentage of those are right for life, that still suggests an awful lot of planets with the necessary conditions for life out there. This constitutes evidence for extraterrestrial life, but it is only weak evidence therefore no conclusion either way is reached.
Which part of this do you find confusing?

Secondly, the appraisal of evidence is the only reliable method of assertaining liklihood.


In every situation? Why, because you sez so?


Yes i sez. Can you offer any examples where evidence is the least best way of assertaining liklihood?

Can you just imagine what the world would be like if evidence were not required?


But when did I support the idea that evidence are not required, for any claim X of any kind? I'm saying that there is no reason to assume an entity X does not exist if there are no "substantive supporting evidence". I just gave an example with entity X communicating with some us using telepathy.


What dribble. You want us to accept the proposition of your god, but you don't think any evidence is required? Well, how come you don't accept the existance and supremecy of Thor? Why aren't you a Muslim?

Your arguments are childish, useless and moronic. You should be feeling very embarrased.


Oh dear, if you say so. More empty assertions.


Nope, nothing empty in my assertions, your idiotic post is there for all to see.


So you claim it's "weak evidence". So, yeah, It is not substantive, supporting evidence. So using "Cali" logic, since you can't provide substantive, supporting evidence, we should assume E.T. life does not exist. Do you follow the discussion at all?

You want us to accept the proposition of your god, but you don't think any evidence is required?

No, that is not at all what I said. Please follow the discussion properly and address points being made.

Given your poor comprehension skills, I'm afraid there is no point to discuss with you. Your further replies will be ignored.
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#19  Postby ispoketoanangel » Nov 03, 2011 2:51 pm

babel wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:
First of all, I see no reason at all to accept this. For example, I do not have a shred of credible evidence for E.T. life, however why should the default position be to regard E.T. as not existing? Especially considering how vast the universe is. I don't think it is rational at all. The rational position would simply be to claim that we need more substantive supporting evidence before we make a claim one way or another.

I hope you're not a theist then. In that case, you just lost a foot.


I believe we have substantive supporting evidence for the existence of God. How did I lose a foot?
User avatar
ispoketoanangel
Banned Sockpuppet
THREAD STARTER
 
Posts: 416

Print view this post

Re: Debunking Calilasseia, part I

#20  Postby Animavore » Nov 03, 2011 2:51 pm

ispoketoanangel wrote:
Animavore wrote:
ispoketoanangel wrote:

That is what counts as "substantive evidence"? You sure set the bar low.

Well yes, actually. If life can form and evolve once then potentially it can many times.
Oh but you don't believe that.
Ok, put it this way. If God created life once then potentially He could do it as often as He pleases.
Who are you to say otherwise?


But isn't the key word here "potentially"? How does a potential situation translates into "substantive evidence"?

You know what's very interesting here? Is that you're admitting an intellectual reasoning counts as a "substantive evidence", since you actually don't have any "hard" evidence for E.T. life, you just observe what's around you and make a logical reasoning.

Well, interestingly, that is exactly what theists do with arguments for the existence of God! Like the fine tuning arguments. Of course, the fine tuning argument might turn out to be unconvincing, but by your own admission, it could turn out to be "substantive evidence"!

No. What theists do is try to infer purpose in the universe where there may be none. No one has demonstrated purpose.
I merely inferred there may be more life out there but but not whether there is a purpose to it or not. Life, though, has been demonstrated which puts ET on a stronger footing.
A most evolved electron.
User avatar
Animavore
 
Name: The Scribbler
Posts: 44752
Age: 42
Male

Ireland (ie)
Print view this post

Next

Return to General Debunking

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest