'Splain this one Atheists...

[JimC]

Seth, you have hugely missed the point in terms of limb regeneration. To assert that it could actually happen in nature in the face of a total absence of limb re-growth in any mammal whatsoever is ludicrous. I can confidently assert that there are no mammalian hexapods, because none have ever been observed, despite an intense scrutiny of the world's animals for thousands of years, both by hunters, and scientists of all stripes. With the same degree of confidence, I assert that human limb re-growth is not a phenomenon that occurs in nature; thus making it an excellent candidate for a totally non-ambiguous miracle, whether via prayer or the whim of a putative god. To suggest that perhaps god doesn't like re-growing limbs is absurd special pleading at best.

It is well known that spontaneous recovery from coma or serious neurological conditions occurs, although at a low rate. Some of the recoveries may have been by patients who were prayed over, many would not. The only way to test your hypothesis is not via a single anecdote, but by a double blind experiment. Take 2000 people in comas, divide them randomly into 2 groups, and have one group prayed for, and the other not, with both groups receiving the same medical care. After a year, see if there is a statistically different number of recoveries between the 2 groups.

PS - It would be a bit of a worry if the prayed-for group had significantly fewer recoveries; it would suggest a cranky god who is pissed of at being disturbed by annoying prayers!

[pErvinalia]

To suggest that perhaps god doesn't like re-growing limbs is absurd special pleading at best.

It is, isn't it? As if it's not ridiculous enough that some people like to claim invisible being exist, it becomes even more absurd when they start trying to impute specific traits on these beings, despite not being able to see them or communicate with them.

[JimC]

I, given enough gin, may assert that god is a giant green tree frog living in an alternative dimension of unending swamps. Our refusal to eat insects angers him greatly...

[Hermit]

Seth, you have hugely missed the point in terms of limb regeneration. To assert that it could actually happen in nature in the face of a total absence of limb re-growth in any mammal whatsoever is ludicrous. I can confidently assert that there are no mammalian hexapods, because none have ever been observed, despite an intense scrutiny of the world's animals for thousands of years, both by hunters, and scientists of all stripes.

All swans are white.

That said, I find the invocation of a god thingie for things that cannot be explained nonsensical (in the literal meaning of the word) and pointless. To me the use of a god of the gaps is a non-explanation - just another way of saying "We don't know".

As for the question "Does a god exist?" itself, we'd need to define what such a god might be able to do and then devise an experiment that is testable and reproducible. If we can't we likewise can only say "We don't know".

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

All swans are white.

That, of course, was the assumption of a sub-set of human observers, in Europe, before the discovery of black swans by European explorers in Oz. (Those highly competent observers of nature, the Aborigines, probably assumed all swans were black). The entire Earth (or at least the part likely to hold novel mammals) is now well enough surveyed for my assertion of zero mammalian hexapods to be a simple truth.

Also, a trivial difference of pigmentation is very small beer in comparison to a totally different body plan.

[pErvinalia]

Seth, you have hugely missed the point in terms of limb regeneration. To assert that it could actually happen in nature in the face of a total absence of limb re-growth in any mammal whatsoever is ludicrous. I can confidently assert that there are no mammalian hexapods, because none have ever been observed, despite an intense scrutiny of the world's animals for thousands of years, both by hunters, and scientists of all stripes.

All swans are white.

That said, I find the invocation of a god thingie for things that cannot be explained nonsensical (in the literal meaning of the word) and pointless. To me the use of a god of the gaps is a non-explanation - just another way of saying "We don't know".

As for the question "Does a god exist?" itself, we'd need to define what such a god might be able to do and then devise an experiment that is testable and reproducible. If we can't we likewise can only say "We don't know".

You're such an Atheist!!

[pErvinalia]

Hermit wrote:

All swans are white.

That, of course, was the assumption of a sub-set of human observers, in Europe, before the discovery of black swans by European explorers in Oz. (Those highly competent observers of nature, the Aborigines, probably assumed all swans were black). The entire Earth (or at least the part likely to hold novel mammals) is now well enough surveyed for my assertion of zero mammalian hexapods to be a simple truth.

Not that I disagree with you in the slightest, but there is still the ocean as a frontier of biological discovery. Not there's many mammals in the oceans, though.

[JimC]

Absolutely - lots of interesting biological discoveries to be made in the ocean, for example its comparatively un-surveyed bacterial population. However, the world mammals are known well enough that the occasional discovery of a new species happens, but not the discovery of a totally different body plan - after all, the tetrapod lineage, dating from the early amphibians has pretty well locked in that pattern from a long time ago...

[Hermit]

All swans are white.

That, of course, was the assumption of a sub-set of human observers, in Europe, before the discovery of black swans by European explorers in Oz. (Those highly competent observers of nature, the Aborigines, probably assumed all swans were black). The entire Earth (or at least the part likely to hold novel mammals) is now well enough surveyed for my assertion of zero mammalian hexapods to be a simple truth.

Also, a trivial difference of pigmentation is very small beer in comparison to a totally different body plan.

All of that is true, but none of that refutes the underlying principle, The universal non-existence of x cannot be proven. Much as we can gather evidence for the non-existence of, say, a biblical god, or any other particularly defined god for that matter. we cannot prove that no god exists.

Not that it matters (teehee); What does invoking some abstract, ultimate creator to serve as an ultimate cause of everything actually achieve? I mean, if we accept such a thing, what then? Would it make any difference to the way we experience the world? Would it enable us to do things if it turned out the big bang had been caused by a god that we cannot do if we ignored the god hypothesis altogether? [/rhetoricalquestion]

[pErvinalia]

What can it achieve? Mass control of people. I.e. Religion.

[Hermit]

Of course. Any ideology is used for social control, including any one that claims to liberate people from bondage

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

The universal non-existence of x cannot be proven.

That may well be true in an abstract philosophical sense, but in practice, when zero evidence of the existence of a putative phenomenon has been found, one has no need to incorporate it into one's working model of the universe.

[Hermit]

The universal non-existence of x cannot be proven.

That may well be true in an abstract philosophical sense, but in practice, when zero evidence of the existence of a putative phenomenon has been found, one has no need to incorporate it into one's working model of the universe.

Yes.

Until further notice.

The principle underlying the "all swans" example remains valid regardless of whatever particular circumstances pertain. No matter how unlikely it is that mammalian hexapods will ever be discovered, the possibility of that they do exist somewhere cannot be excluded with 100% certainty. The difference between the likelihood of the existence of swans and that of mammalian hexapods is one of quantity rather than quality. To argue otherwise one would have to find a convincing criterion by which the magnitude of an unlikelihood becomes an impossibility. For all I know there may be one, but so far I have only encountered handwaving. Typically, it takes the form of asserting something like: "If something is sufficiently unlikely it just becomes impossible." No criteria of a tipping point is ever given. That is not an argument. It remains an assertion and it does not work for me.

[pErvinalia]

YET YOU CLAIM WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. You are such an Atheist!!

[Hermit]

YET YOU CLAIM WITH 100% CERTAINTY THAT GOD DOESN'T EXIST. You are such an Atheist!!

Careful. Our resident Dunning-Kruger posterboy will take your post as proof that that is my claim.