For those of you who don’t travel the science blogs highway and so don’t already know about this, there is an interesting, and even funny display of incompetence surrounding the folks who are screening the movie Expelled around the country. It’s relevant to us here in Florida because the movie was screened for our state legislators in an attempt to influence them concerning the two so-called “academic freedom” bills that are now before them. And that screening was closed to Florida citizens and the media.
I won’t spoil the punch line for you, so just head over to this post, and then follow it up with this post.
Why should we here in Florida care about this? Because it illustrates the hypocrisy of the folks behind Expelled, and reveals their intentions in a way that even the clown show they put on here in the Sunshine State didn’t. To read about what happened here in Florida, just check out our “Expelled movie” blog category.
edited to add: two newspapers picked this up so far. The Twin Cities Pioneer Press and even the New York Times.
“What surprised me is it is a really lousy film, even if you happen to agree with it,” said [Richard] Dawkins, who took advantage of a question-and-answer session after the screening to ask why Myers wasn’t allowed in. “P.Z. is in the film extensively. If anyone had a right to see the film, it was him. The incompetence, on a public relations level, is beyond belief.”
…
In the meantime, [P.Z.] Myers is entertained by this irony: “Expelled’s” closing credits include a thank-you to him. So he knows the filmmakers are grateful for the couple of hours he gave them last year. Just not grateful enough to let him see their movie.
Hypocrisy? The atheists are the Twin Cities during easter weekend for an Atheist conference in Minneapolis, and PZ said he and Dawkins registered under their own names, both are in the film, but only PZ was asked to leave.
I am still trying to track this down, but supposedly the screening, and the registration was by invitation, and PZ and Dawkins might have gamed the system.
Specifically, the Expelled registration page was available to anybody who knew where to look, as you would if you received an invitation.
However, once you knew where the screening registrations were for one city, you could manually figure out the URLs for other screenings in other cities, it is trivial to find registrations for other cities.
It is also possible, since PZ is a paid subject of the film, and Dawkins is at least a subject, that PZ and Expelled are just creating a little extra buzz.
Setting up a strawman for the next NCSE propaganda piece, perhaps.
Wow William. That was dumb. Are you kidding me? Your tripe cry that science doesn’t all ow for dissenting ideas. So, what deos Expelled do? The obvious of course, they keep out the people who will be critical of the “movie”. There was nothing disinegnuious about what Myers did. It’s not like he used a fake name. He was up front. I know honesty is hard for IDiots to grasp, but thats what it was. Up front honesty.
For your eddification
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/a_late_night_quick_one.php
My question is: How did they know where to register?
This was a private screening, wasn’t it?
No, it wasn’t private. If it was, then only select people , think clergy etc. , would have been allowed to attend. Did you read the link I posted? I believe that in there is says something about him registering. Besides, he used his name. It wasn’t like it was subterfuge.
from pharyngula
We followed the procedures they set up, every step of the way, and were completely above board in all our dealings.
I found their rsvp site and I stuck it on this site, at Talkorigins, on AtBC, at Pharyngula, and at PT. It may have been discovered by others who they weren’t targeting, as well. All I know for sure is what I found and what I did with it.
If they’re putting their site out on the web, they can’t legitimately complain if someone finds it and spreads it around. And they can’t legitimately complain if someone uses their site to sign up, and bring a guest like Dawkins (especially if they’re too dimwitted to recognize the well-known Dawkins).
Glen D
http://tinyurl.com/2kxyc7
Another follow up by PZ. Hit the “eyewitness account” link. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/busy_busy_busy_1.php
Glen,
Thanks for the honesty. I disagree. As far as Dawkins v. PZ, this might shed some light on their thinking (speculation on my part):
This might explain better why PZ was not allowed to see the private screening:
Cheering loudly at the screen is certainly disruptive. I don’t know that this was their concern, but Dawkins is a more staid individual, which is probably why he was allowed to attend.
Cheering loudly at the screen is certainly disruptive.
Then all the Fundies at the viewing I went to were disruptive. People cheer at movies, it isn’t disruptive, it is expected.
You can still find the link by jumping around on the expelled movie website, the screening wasn’t by invitation only, nor did PZ or Dawkins sneak in or otherwise “game the system”. They followed the rules, they registered by name, and the Expelled folks screwed up by letting Dawkins and his crew in.
The irony is delicious. The movie is supposed to be about scientists being expelled for their beliefs (the specific scientists that the movie follows were followed for gross insubordination, not for having a belief), yet the producers saw it fit to expel PZ for his beliefs.
Whoops. That should have read “…were fired for gross insubordination…”
Cheering loudly at the screen is certainly disruptive. I don’t know that this was their concern, but Dawkins is a more staid individual, which is probably why he was allowed to attend.
My dear William. You’ve got it all wrong. If you had read the post that Myers did after the event, you’d see that he didn’t cause a scene. Why would you think that he’d do so when he pays for it?
No, I think that Mathis has the proverbial hard on for PZ and as such, inadvertantly overlooked Dawkins.
PZ made no scene nor did he protest or demand answers.
Face it, the makers of Expelled are hypocrites who don’t want to allow for any chance of critique of their movie.
I think it’s quite interesting that the producers of Expelled have to sink to dishonesty and scams in order to get their movie made. These guys make Michael Moore look like the perfect fact checking journalist.
Honestly, I want my two hours back that I wasted on that movie. I’m just glad that I didn’t have to pay for it, or else I’d write to get my $10 back. 😉
There seems to be a missing italics tag…
Getting a thank you note from Ayaan Hirsi Ali and now this; I’m a very happy man today!!
Thanks to PZ and his family and to Richard Dawkins and his staff.
FYI … Dawkins will be on “Real Time with Bill Mahr” tonight.
HBO 11:00 pm. – Can’t wait 🙂
PC…
It’s not a missing italics closing tag, it’s italics tags run amok in your comment and fireman’s above – probably a temporary system bug.
What do I need, a license or something, to use “smileys” here!? I’ve tried several methods, including copying and pasting the HTML code from your’s, and so far, nothing works.
While we are on Dawkins here – I’m ready to re-read the second to last sub-chapter (memes) of chapter 5 in The God Delusion. I absorbed about none of it the first time. I understand better now, what a meme is, but I’m not connecting with what is the point he’s making!?
It’s not a missing italics closing tag, it’s italics tags run amok in your comment and fireman’s above – probably a temporary system bug.
The parity of the italics tags was wrong, there was one extra open tag above. I corrected it by adding two </i>’s above, one at the beginning of my first comment, and one at the beginning of my second.
To make a smiley, just type the following three letters together without spaces : – )
That is something else weird about this blog. I can make a smiley after I type something, but I cannot have a smiley as the beginning of my comment, or as the only text in my comment. Weird.
I was pretty sure that I closed my italics. It’s a conspiracy by those evilutionists!
Looks like I got some bad info. Doesn’t look like Dawkins will be on tonight.:-(
Mr. Wallace – When I signed up to view the movie, all they asked for was my name and email. I was allowed to bring 3 friends. I could have invited PZ, Mr. Dawkins and The Queen of England. They didn’t ask who my guests were.
ID is nothing but Creationism in a cheap tuxedo, and it is not science, it is an attempt to sneak creationism into US public schools in defiance of the U.S. Constitution. This is descibed in the Discovery Institute’s own words in the infamous Wedge Document.
Why do you hate America Mr. Wallace?
Something weird is going on. PC, this comment of your’s, at 6:54 pm, was entirely in italics originally, and now it has morphed.
🙂
I fixed an unclosed italics tag. I’m mighty and benevolent like that 😉
Here’s the video from Dawkins webpage
http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,2389,Discussion-on-PZ-Myers-being-expelled-from-Expelled,Richard-Dawkins-PZ-Myers
[Comment erased by administrator. I’ve warned before about these personal attacks. Knock it off.]
Let’s keep it PG shall we?
Thanks for posting the link FC. Soooo, it looks like they took some liberties with the Harvard video again huh?
What a joke.
S.S.,
I’m going to wait for confirmation about the Harvard video, but if they used copyrighted material from Harvard without permission…let’s just say I almost feel sorry for them.
If they did use the video without permission, or under false pretenses, I do feel sorry for them. The last thing they want is Harvard lawyers up their ass.
Then again, with the winnings, it could be possible that all of the materials and interviews they used to make the movie may end up becoming payment… In that case, someone may end up with enough material to produce an exploitation film like Reefer Madness from what they have filmed. With the right tweaking, the materials could become a great film to make fun of the ID / DI movement. I’d pay to see that.
Update from pharyngula http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/about_that_cell_video_in_expel.php
But the point remains the same
Look what Mathis admits to
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/03/an_admission_from_mark_mathis.php
You should know that I invited Michael shermer to a screening at NRB in Nashville. He came and is writing a review for scientific American. I banned pz because I want him to pay to see it. Nothing more.
I found Dawkin’s review of Expelled to be illuminating. As expected, he explains how his own interviewed was creatively edited by the producer to make it appear that he’s saying something that he didn’t.
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
Ack. “…explains how his own interview in the movie was creatively edited…”, I meant.
Now “Sycophants” in Seattle Applaud Ben Stein
A crowd of 350 invited guests attended a pre-screening of Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed tonight in Seattle’s Pacific Place. I can see now why the eminent Richard Dawkins, who crashed a screening in Minneapolis last week, remains so upset about Ben Stein’s movie. He must not have realized until he sat in the theater last week and heard people laughing at him on the screen that he had made himself look foolish. On his website he calls the audience “sycophantic.”
Among other things, he writes that before he was interviewed he didn’t know who actor/economist/columnist Ben Stein was or that his droll monotone had comedic appeal to those strange Americans. He’s so “boring,” Dawkins writes. (Ferris Bueller thought the very same, Richard.)
Of Stein’s laconic inquiry as to whether he saw any way intelligent design could occur in the universe, Dawkins complains that “I was charitable enough to think he (Stein) was an honestly stupid man seeking enlightenment from a scientist.”
How typically “charitable” of Dawkins that he had such a generous thought. And then to have his charity betrayed when the cheeky Yankee actually used Dawkins’ extensive reply in the film!
In Seattle, the sycophantic audience chuckled, then guffawed as Stein slowly winkled out of Dawkins the answer that intelligent space aliens might have “seeded” the Earth with its first life molecule. (Actually, does anyone wonder why those “highly evolved” aliens would stop with creating a mere molecule? After coming so far, why not linger and go all the way, create, oh, I don’t know, fishes and amphibians and human beings while they were at it?)
So now he deplores the film’s “cheap laughs at expense of scientists who are making honest attempts to explain difficult points.” He means himself. He’s a victim, see. So is his buddy, P. Z. Myers, who started attacking the film weeks ago on his blog, and was not let into the Minneapolis shindig.
Yet in his blog Dawkins complains that Expelled’s tale of persecuted scientists seems “whiny” to him.
I suspect that Dawkins may have been upset, furthermore, to see captured on film the hard swipe he takes at Eugenie Scott and the accommodationist strategy of the National Center for Science Education. It is a telling moment, and give credit to Dawkins for his candor about the atheism baked into Darwinism and the deceitful nature of the NCSE’s claims of compatibility between Darwinism and religion. He does a commendable job of pulling the veil aside.
Less candor is apparent as Dawkins returns to his charge (made in The New York Times) that the film unfairly shows Darwinism’s influence on Nazi race policies. “The alleged association of Darwinism with Nazism is harped on for what seemed like hours, and it is quite simply an outrage,” he scolds. Having seen that statement before last night’s screening, I tried as best I could in the dark to clock the time in the film devoted to the Nazis. It was roughly 10 minutes. That included Ben Stein’s chilling interview with the head of the museum at the former sanatorium at Hadamar, near Dachau, where the director readily acknowledged–even insisted on–the Darwinian provenance of the Nazi treatment of the handicapped “patients” there. And it included clips from Nazi propaganda films that eerily advocate the line of “natural selection” in human beings. How can you argue with that? The film is careful to qualify the case of Darwinism’s influence on Nazi policies. But evidence of influence is abundant. (Much more could have been used if the film really had spent “hours” on the subject.)
As I have noted before, the Expelled producers are nervous about what they see as potential efforts by screening interlopers to record the film and expose it in ways that would damage its commercial value. In Seattle, even some of the “sycophants” were chuckling as a boilerplate copyright protection warning was read aloud. But I don’t think any in the audience would have characterized the person who read it the way Dawkins characterizes the one who read it in Minneapolis–as a “Gauleiter.”
A “Gauleiter”? A Nazi district leader?
Funny word choice for a man who is unhappy that Expelled raises the question of Darwinian theory’s influence on the Nazis.
Dawkins on his website is at pains to protest that he himself does not promote a Darwinian society. Good for him. But he might be more persuasive if he were willing to concede that a Darwinian society not only would have the potential to become a fascist state–which he does–but also that once in history Darwinist views contributed to creating just such a state.
After last night’s screening, a good part of the crowd in Seattle stayed around as long as the theater management would allow to talk with three of the Darwin critics and ID scientists who were interviewed in the movie. I wish Richard Dawkins had snuck into that event so they could have invited him to join them.
Posted by Bruce Chapman on March 24, 2008 11:19 PM | Permalink
And then to have his charity betrayed when the cheeky Yankee actually used Dawkins’ extensive reply in the film!
Well, used half of the explanation anyway, specifically edited to make it look like Dawkins supported panspermia. They specifically left out the second half of the interview, in which Dawkins explains the “crane effect”, namely that something would need to explain where the aliens came from. Dawkins’ point is the same point he made in the book that he was promoting through the interview: panspermia does not explain the origin of life, it shifts the origin of life to somewhere else. Panspermia isn’t even valid ID.
The rest of your comment here is as ridiculous as the movie itself, which I had the dubious opportunity to screen. I’m glad that I didn’t pay for it, but I am half-tempted to bill the producers for a wasted hour and a half of my life that I will never get back.
Expelled attempts to invoke a slippery-slope argument, which implies that accepting evolution means that we will have to accept a society that is based on natural selection, which is inane. Does that mean that since we have accepted quantum physics that we should embrace a chaotic society loosely governed by statistical analysis? No. Just because a scientific theory explains something doesn’t mean that we should base our society around that. No one is arguing for this, it is another strawman of the IDiots.
Equating a scientific theory that explains how life has evolved over time to a fascist society is asinine, and something that could only come out someone ignorant of science and of history. This movie is meant to cater to such ignorant fundamentalists. Hitler’s rise to power, and his policies had little to do with evolution. He used evolution, as well as Christianity and quotes from Martin Luther to justify the things he did, but he was neither a Christian or an evolutionist. Hitler said a lot of things to justify his actions, it doesn’t mean that the things he said has anything to do with what he did. If you cannot see through this, then you are certainly a fool.
“He used evolution, as well as Christianity and quotes from Martin Luther to justify the things he did, but he was neither a Christian or an evolutionist. Hitler said a lot of things to justify his actions, it doesn’t mean that the things he said has anything to do with what he did. If you cannot see through this, then you are certainly a fool.”
Finally an admission that Hitler was not a Christian. Hurrah for you ! A good step. But you have to admit that Hitler’s underlying actions were based on the principles used to justify the theory of evolution. The proof is in the pudding.
Science – Knowledge (Fr). To limit knowledge to an exclusivity of scientism and not look at the overall and inclusive knowledge of other input, is a biased approach to gathering knowledge. To exclude the supernatural from the equation is to exclude an author’s thoughts from a famous written work when determining the underlying pinnings of that work and thus actually defining the term agnostic. (without knowldge)
Finally an admission that Hitler was not a Christian. Hurrah for you ! A good step. But you have to admit that Hitler’s underlying actions were based on the principles used to justify the theory of evolution. The proof is in the pudding.
No, I don’t have to admit that. Hitler may have used both Christian principles and evolution as an excuse of his action, but his actions were not based on these principles. He used quotes from Martin Luther to excuse his actions against the Jews. Do you believe that Lutherans are therefore anti-Semites? For your logic to be valid, you would have to say “yes”. In other words, you have found yourself in a logical fallacy.
To limit knowledge to an exclusivity of scientism and not look at the overall and inclusive knowledge of other input…
You can stop right there. Science cannot consider the supernatural, or it would not be science. Science does not take things on faith.
You have a narrow definition of science then.
“Do you believe that Lutherans are therefore anti-Semites? For your logic to be valid, you would have to say “yesâ€. In other words, you have found yourself in a logical fallacy.”
How you draw that conclusion is a leap. You have not read carefully my statement. The proof is in the pudding. Hitler demonstarted his beliefs by his actions, not his rantings. His view of natural selection was the underlying principle of his culling out what he thought was inferior in racial beings. No underlying Christian principles were used in any of his actions.
If you want to come to a logical conclusion of your promotion of the evolutionary theory, then you would have to conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist. You would have to conclude that God didn’t create the earth and man in a relatively short period of time. So then it must be a fallacy or just a myth. So the conclusion you would have to come to, in your own limited access to knowledge, is that you are smarter than God is. By your limited knowldge to all the mysteries of the universe, yet you make a determined conclusion that the God of the Bible doesnt exist. Very interesting or do you think you have all knowledge ? Remember science comes from the french word for knowledge. Do you think that you have all knowledge ? Or can there be something you do not know ?
So nothing can exist unless you see the proof physically ? Unless you acknowldge it in your thinking it can’t exist outside your thinking ? So you limit yourself to the knowldge you only have and not from others who know of God’s existance. Couldn’t God reveal himself to one without your limited theory of science. If God spoke to one you would have to say it’s not possible because it doesnt fit your limited access to evaluating knowldge ?
A narrow gathering of evidence which may lead to a false conclusion. When you limit knowledge to your narrow view then you have to believe that you could be wrong. You close out other variables in your equation of knowldege. You have to admit that you may not know all things and that there may be some things you may not be able to explain does that mean they don’t exist ?
You have a narrow definition of science then.
I have a valid definition of science.
His view of natural selection was the underlying principle of his culling out what he thought was inferior in racial beings. No underlying Christian principles were used in any of his actions.
Umm… no. His culling was a mechanism to eliminate political prisoners, homosexuals, Jews, and other “undesirables”. This had little, if anything, to do with evolution. Evolution and quotes from Martin Luther was what he used as an excuse for the atrocities he did. Your point is meaningless, you attempt to claim that evolution led to Hitler’s behavior, which is intellectually dishonest.
If you want to come to a logical conclusion of your promotion of the evolutionary theory, then you would have to conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist.
No, I wouldn’t. The majority of Christians support evolution, and they believe in their god.
You would have to conclude that God didn’t create the earth and man in a relatively short period of time.
Most Christians view the creation myth as allegory, not literal fact.
So then it must be a fallacy or just a myth.
…or allegory.
So the conclusion you would have to come to, in your own limited access to knowledge, is that you are smarter than God is. By your limited knowldge to all the mysteries of the universe, yet you make a determined conclusion that the God of the Bible doesnt exist.
The existence of your god can neither be proved or disproved by science. Science does not have anything to say about gods, fairies, or leprechauns. Belief in these is a question of faith, which is outside of the bounds of science. Science does not say that your god exists, nor can it deny that your god exists.
Very interesting or do you think you have all knowledge ? Remember science comes from the french word for knowledge. Do you think that you have all knowledge ? Or can there be something you do not know ?
and
So nothing can exist unless you see the proof physically ? Unless you acknowldge it in your thinking it can’t exist outside your thinking ? So you limit yourself to the knowldge you only have and not from others who know of God’s existance.
Actually, science comes from the Latin word scientia, which made it to English through Old French, if you want to be specific.
An important part of any method of finding knowledge is to understand basic Epistemology. Science is limited in the knowledge that it can discover, this knowledge must be observed and proved through experimentation or study. Hypotheses must be stated in a way that can be falsified or verified. Theories must be verified to be called theories. ID does not fit within the bounds of science, it requires faith.
As far as science is concerned, the existence of your god is unanswerable. No one knows whether your god exists. There is no proof. You don’t know that he exists. You have faith that he does, and that faith allows you to interpret the words in your holy book as evidence. Unfortunately, this does not translate into science, no matter how evangelicals and fundamentalists try to wedge it in.
A narrow gathering of evidence which may lead to a false conclusion. When you limit knowledge to your narrow view then you have to believe that you could be wrong. You close out other variables in your equation of knowldege. You have to admit that you may not know all things and that there may be some things you may not be able to explain does that mean they don’t exist ?
…if only evolution was proved with a narrow gathering of evidence. Unfortunately, there is a vast mountain of evidence in support of both evolution, and of an old earth.
But you must admit you do not have all knowledge right ?
Or can you admit that ?
But you must admit you do not have all knowledge right ?
If you had a grasp of epistemology, then you would realize that having full knowledge through science is impossible. However, that is not a large enough gap to wedge your god into the science classroom, which does not have anything to say about your god one way or another. This also doesn’t mean that evolution is somehow invalid. Of anything, it shows how obvious evolution is, that it could be proved through science.
” No one knows whether your god exists. There is no proof. You don’t know that he exists. You have faith that he does, and that faith allows you to interpret the words in your holy book as evidence.”
You conclude that no one knows that God exists. Interesting that you know what all others know. Are you all knowing ? You make a statement that you can’t prove. Where are your facts that makes you come to that conclusion ? Is that your scientific method ?
So you can’t conclude that no one knows if God exists or not. Only that you may not want to believe it. That would be a more accurate conclusion.
You conclude that no one knows that God exists.
and
So you can’t conclude that no one knows if God exists or not. Only that you may not want to believe it. That would be a more accurate conclusion.
To convince me, for me to know that your god exists, I would need to see evidence. Faith does not equate knowing.
You didn’t answer the posit. You conclude that “no one knows that God exists”. What scientific fact did you use to make that conclusion ?
You say you need to see evidence. What evidence do you have that God does not exist ?
You didn’t answer the posit. You conclude that “no one knows that God existsâ€. What scientific fact did you use to make that conclusion ?
Knowing implies that there is objective evidence. There is no such evidence. People may have thought that they have seen their god, or may attribute fortuitous or disastrous events to their god, but this is not the same as knowing. These are all taken as faith. I have never seen any objective evidence that your god exists. From a scientific point of view, the question of whether your god exists is unanswerable. From an epistemological point of view, the existence of your god is unknowable.
You say you need to see evidence. What evidence do you have that God does not exist ?
Lack of evidence that something doesn’t exist does not imply that it does exist. Your god is supposedly invisible, divorced from the natural world, and completely unobservable. Your god supposedly changes events in ways that cannot be linked to it, and has not yet broken any natural laws, at least in any way that leaves any sort of evidence. You have faith that your god exists. You do not know that your god exists. If you believe that you know that your god exists, please explain how you know he exists.
Interesting, you want to see evidence but you make the conclusion that no one knows that God exists. A statement based not in fact but by faith. You cannot with intellectual integrity make that statement. You may say that you rather not believe that God exists, that would be a more accurate statement on your part.
Interesting, you want to see evidence but you make the conclusion that no one knows that God exists. A statement based not in fact but by faith. You cannot with intellectual integrity make that statement. You may say that you rather not believe that God exists, that would be a more accurate statement on your part.
Knowing implies evidence. There are plenty of people who believe that their gods talk to them. Typically, in this society, they are taken as being mentally insane. With no evidence, it is possible to know. You can have faith, but you do not know. Likewise, the only way that anyone can know is through evidence. Without evidence, no one knows.
I like this analogy from Wikipedia’s entry on epistemology, I think it can help to clarify my point here:
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology#Truth
That should read, “With no evidence, it is impossible to know.”
I think the last sentence in that Wikipedia quote is key:
“For something to count as knowledge, it must actually be true.”
For something to be true, it must be verified. For something to be verified, there must be evidence and a verification process. You cannot know that your god exists without evidence, and without verifying that evidence. I can make this statement directly from epistemology.
Therefore, you do not know that your god exists, you have faith that your god exists.
Faith does not belong in the science classroom, and neither does ID.
You havent answered the question yet. How do you know that no one knows that God exists. Where is your evidence ? Lets see some evidence you limit yourself to evidence here. You set the rules – so lets see the evidence. Let’s be honest here you have no evidence. So you can’t come to that conclusion.
Is this a true statement then – “no one knows that God exists” ?
How do you know that no one knows that God exists. Where is your evidence ?
Based on my definition of knowledge above, for someone to know that a god exists, he would have to have evidence. If there was evidence that your god existed, I guarantee that it would make the front page news. No one would look at the evidence, use this to form knowledge, and cast this aside without bothering to tell anyone else. There is no evidence that your god exists, therefore, no one can know that your god exists.
Show me evidence that your god exists, and I will concede that it is possible for someone to know that your god exists.
Is this a true statement then – “no one knows that God exists†?
Yes. There is no evidence that your god exists, therefore, no one can know that your god exists. Evidence must exist before knowledge can.
If you answer “it is true”, then where is your evidence ?
You said it “For something to be true, it must be verified. For something to be verified, there must be evidence and a verification process.”
Then where is your evidence to conclude your statement that know one knows that God exisits ?
If you answer “it is trueâ€, then where is your evidence ?
My evidence is thus: there is a dependency between knowing that your god exists, and evidence that your god exists. In order to know that your god exists, you must have evidence. You do not have evidence that your god exists, therefore, you cannot know that your god exists. There has been no evidence ever presented that your god exists, therefore, no one knows that your god exists. If you think I’m wrong, then provide for me evidence that your god exists.
Is that a true statement ” I guarantee that it would make the front page news.” What evidence do you have for that statement ? Your assuming by faith that this would happen. You have no evidence that this is true.
The only way that you can weasel out of this would be to claim that someone might have evidence that your god exists, but decided for whatever reason not to share this evidence with anyone else. In this unlikely event, it could be possible that my statement is incorrect.
Because I’m sure that you will want to weasel your way out of this claim, I will revise my statement thus: there has been no evidence presented to the public that proves the existence of your god. To that extent, the vast majority of people cannot know that your god exists. The likelihood of anyone actually knowing that your god exists is as negligible as the likelihood of someone discovering evidence of your god’s existence, and then deciding not to tell anyone else: slim to none.
Is that a true statement †I guarantee that it would make the front page news.†What evidence do you have for that statement ? Your assuming by faith that this would happen. You have no evidence that this is true.
Now you’re just being annoying. Are you honestly going to claim that if there was evidence for the existence of your god that there wouldn’t be a massive movement to publish this information to the largest number of people possible? Do you think that people would actually try to suppress this information? Such a discovery would change life on this planet forever. No one would sit on this. No news agency would suppress this.
Your belief in your god is based on faith alone. That belief is outside of the bounds of science.
What is your evidence for your statement then, just reason alone ?
(that no one knows that God exists)
You have repeatedly avoided the question, because you can’t answer it.
You have no evidence.
To be honest you can say that, through your skewed methodology and with your limited evidence, you cannot prove God’s existance. You would then be correct. But to make the leap that no one else can know if God exists would not be a statement you cannot make in all honesty.
I don’t think you would want to find any evidence that God existed. Would you ?
Honestly, I don’t know how we got on this topic. You don’t know that your god exists. If you did know, then you could provide evidence. You cannot. You have faith that he exists, which is not the same as having evidence or knowing. Faith does not mean the same thing as knowing.
Faith does not belong in the science classroom. You attempt to claim that evolutionary theory leads to the logical conclusion that your god doesn’t exist. This simply is not possible, because your god is outside of the bounds of science.
You can be sure that if my son is taught the theory of evolution in school, he will be told that it is only a theory and that even the Florida Constitution acknowledges God’s existance. He will be taught that true science is the pursuit of all knowledge and the use of all faculties is needed in determining the truth.
he will be told that it is only a theory
What you tell your son in your own home is your own business. Of course, a scientific theory is much different than “theory”. It is as close to truth as science can provide.
I don’t think you would want to find any evidence that God existed. Would you ?
I’m not actively seeking it, no. If I was given evidence that proved without a doubt that your god existed, I would consider it. The whole world would.
It is shown that you have made statements ‘that no one can know God exists’. Something you have not proved as true according to your proof test. You say the statement is true but offer no evidence. Thereby since you can’t prove your statement it is obviously not true (according to your line of reasoning). So we must conclude that you dont really know if one can know wheteher God exists or not. (Using your own standard of proof)
If you were to see the the proof of the existance of Mt Sinai and what took place there, would you be interested ?
As before… Without evidence, one cannot know if your god exists. Until I see evidence to the contrary, it is a logical conclusion to say that the existence of your god is unknown.
Do you believe you know that your god exists?
If you were presented with evidence that a man was raised from the dead would you like to see it ?
If you were to see the the proof of the existance of Mt Sinai and what took place there, would you be interested ?
First, you don’t even know if the mountain named Mount Sinai is the same mountain as was in the old testament. So, my first question would be, where is this Mount Sinai, and how do you know that it is the same mountain as what was in the old testament?
What proof do you have that the events claimed to take place on Mount Sinai are true? (this ought to be good. :roll:)
If you were presented with evidence that a man was raised from the dead would you like to see it ?
If you can provide actual evidence, and not a fairy tale… sure. However, I think I see where this is going. Quoting from scripture does not count as evidence. Furthermore, someone rising from the dead (or a catatonic state) does not directly translate into evidence for your god. 🙄
I have no doubt that God exists. I may not have full knowledge of all his attributes but I know he exists.
But you can’t say I dont know he exists.
But you can’t say I dont know he exists.
Where’s your evidence that he exists? As I said before, you cannot know anything without evidence.
…or are you not going to share your evidence with all of us here?
Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia – Also its name is Jabel Musa (mt of Moses) its also referred to as other names also. There is confirmed eyewitness accounts (on video) shows the rocks on top of the Mt seared with fire. Show the alter of sacrifice at the base of the mountain, the rock that the water gushed out in the middle if the desert ( you can see the water erosion, the rock that split in half and the upward thrust of the water flaking off the 4 story rock and much more. There is evidence of a man who was dead or 3 days coming back to life in Africa ( on video) shows the medical record the body in the casket with nostrils stuffed with cotten no breathe or vital signs etc. So there is plenty of evidence if you look.
Oh and not quoting from scripture.
Mt Sinai is in Saudi Arabia – Also its name is Jabel Musa (mt of Moses) its also referred to as other names also. There is confirmed eyewitness accounts (on video) shows the rocks on top of the Mt seared with fire.
When you have will to believe something, you are willing to overlook facts for this belief.
First, from the wikipedia article on Jabal Musa:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Sinai#Religious_Significance
In other words, there has been no agreement that this is even the same mountain as in the old testament.
I can’t seem to find any links to these “eyewitness accounts” of yours.
There is evidence of a man who was dead or 3 days coming back to life in Africa ( on video) shows the medical record the body in the casket with nostrils stuffed with cotten no breathe or vital signs etc.
Could you provide a reference to this?
You rightly say you cannot know anything without evidence. But you must look for the evidence which you say you are not looking for it. So if your not looking for it you won’t find it. Then you must seek out all evidence in the right places. Most people are not motivated to look because they are afraid what they may find out, so they don’t look. There is plenty of evidence if you truly want to look.
You rightly say you cannot know anything without evidence. But you must look for the evidence which you say you are not looking for it. So if your not looking for it you won’t find it. Then you must seek out all evidence in the right places. Most people are not motivated to look because they are afraid what they may find out, so they don’t look. There is plenty of evidence if you truly want to look.
I am giving you an opportunity here to provide for me evidence. You say that you know that your god exists… where’s the evidence?
So far, you have provided me with an urban legend, and a mountain that most biblical scholars claim is not the Mount Sinai of the old testament.
Jabel Musa is located in Saudi Arabia. Not in Egypt and St Catherine is not the site of Mount Sinai its a traditional site. I will be glad to send you video of these two if you like. The true Mount Sinai is out of Egypt and all those reference you gave are all in Egypt. It is located in Midian, which is in Saudi Arabia.
This is good news for you I have the evidence. I will send you free of charge the evidence.
If your truly honest in what you are looking for then I am glad for you.
Likewise, there are problems with the claim that Mount Sinai is in Saudi Arabia as well. Biblical scholars disagree with this as well. This is the first result from google:
http://ldolphin.org/sinai.html
As before, you have no evidence that this is the Mount Sinai of your bible, so the rest of your claims are worthless until you can tie this Mount Sinai to the biblical Mount Sinai. Good luck.
Specifically, your bible claims that Mount Sinai is somewhere between Egypt and Arabia, which would put it outside of Saudi Arabia.
This is good news for you I have the evidence. I will send you free of charge the evidence.
Post references here, or it doesn’t exist.
I thought you didn’t want to quote the Bible. The Bible clearly shows where the Mount should be. It is out of Egypt. It is in Arabia now known as Saudi Arabia. You can see video if you like. It is eay to tie it to the Bible, no luck needed thanks. Also Mount Horeb and Mount Sinai are one in the same.
I thought you didn’t want to quote the Bible.
You are the one trying to provide evidence for a biblical story, not me.
The Bible clearly shows where the Mount should be.
Does it, now? That’s news to me.
You can see video if you like.
Actually, I’d prefer if you posted a link to a reference here, so I can show you the difference between evidence following faith, and knowledge following evidence.
You make another conclusion without fact. You say post it here or it doesnt exist. I have it in my hands. I will send it to you free of charge or in care of whom ever you want me to send it. Its video and shows all the background of the evidence. Would you like to see it ?
What you fail to understand here is that a mountain that cannot be tied to a biblical story (your bible sadly does not provide latitude or longitude coordinates to the mountain in question) is a far leap from evidence that your god exists.
Actually it has been shown in school here in Florida and there has been a great response to it.
The Bible is actually used to find the Mount.
You make another conclusion without fact. You say post it here or it doesnt exist.
I was being sarcastic.
I have it in my hands. I will send it to you free of charge or in care of whom ever you want me to send it.
If there is actual evidence, then you should be able to find an article on the ‘net to back it up, should you not? I don’t want to watch a video that you have to send to me. I want you to provide me a link to an article, preferably one that cites its references. I’ve already provided you to a link to an article that refutes your claim, and there’s a thousand more on google behind that.
Its video and shows all the background of the evidence. Would you like to see it ?
Why don’t you stick it on YouTube?
“What you fail to understand here is that a mountain that cannot be tied to a biblical story (your bible sadly does not provide latitude or longitude coordinates to the mountain in question) is a far leap from evidence that your god exists.”
The Bible ties it to a Biblical story. Moses went up in the Mount and God came down in fire. You can actally see the top of the mountain how it was burnt. No other mountain peak in that area has anything like it.
The Bible is actually used to find the Mount.
Really? I find that highly unlikely. I’ve read the old testament. There was nothing in there that specifically stated with mountain it was. You may be able to find a subset of mountains (a very very large subset) that might match possible locations, but your bible does not say which mountain, precisely, that it is.
The Bible ties it to a Biblical story. Moses went up in the Mount and God came down in fire. You can actally see the top of the mountain how it was burnt.
Umm… there are millions of other plausible explanations as to why this mountain is burned, if it actually is burned. You are making a leap of faith. I ask for evidence that your god exists, and you provide for me a mountain which may not even be the right mountain, and the fact that it is burned is supposed to be evidence that your god did it? You are going to have to do much better than that.
So you don’t want to see the evidence ? Its free you can view in the comfort of your own home with no one preaching to you. Not familiar with YouTube sorry.
Hopefully, this exercise is showing you the amount of scrutiny that something has to go through before science considers it knowledge. Keep in mind that evolution passed this scrutiny with flying colors.
So you don’t want to see the evidence ? Its free you can view in the comfort of your own home with no one preaching to you.
I want you to provide it here so everyone can see it. Sending me a video is not an appropriate form of peer review.
If it’s copyrighted, then provide for me the references used to make the video. Links to articles are preferred.
Interesting I thought you were being honest with me. Sorry for that assumption. There is much evidence to be seen on the video. Then you can examine it and then make your conclusions. Why make your conclusions ahead of time ?
So you want a public viewing ? Is that the way you look at evidence ? You don’t determine on your own ? You detemine by consensus ?
Interesting I thought you were being honest with me. Sorry for that assumption. There is much evidence to be seen on the video. Then you can examine it and then make your conclusions. Why make your conclusions ahead of time ?
I thought you had evidence that you were willing to share with others. Apparently, you don’t want to post the evidence here.
You should do a search on http://youtube.com for Mount Sinai. There are a bunch of videos on there, maybe one of these videos are the one that you are talking about. Present a link here, and I’m more than certain that it will be scrutinized.
Well my offer still stands. Let me know I will be happy to send it to you then you can share with whomever you want.
So you want a public viewing ? Is that the way you look at evidence ? You don’t determine on your own ? You detemine by consensus ?
If you have evidence, then don’t you want to shout it from the roof tops? Why are you being evasive? I found a video that is probably the same one that you are speaking of. Is this it?
Have a good evening ! Have to go home now later.
Sorry not being evasive. It is not the same video. Actually I may not be rich like others I have only dial-up. So its hard for me to do this uploading to such a site. But my offer is open. Don’t you be evasive friend.
Have a good night PC.
Well, if you want to offer evidence, you need to do more research than watching a single video. I’ll wait for you to do the research and post links that refer to your evidence.
You must be willing to see the information. That is the key.
You must be willing to see the information. That is the key.
No, I must have faith that it is true before I look at it in order to believe it as strongly as you do.
I’m still waiting on evidence…
So you need to have faith before you see evidence ?
So you need to have faith before you see evidence ?
No, I was being sarcastic. You want me to have faith in this video of yours.