A conversation between goldfish

[Francis]

Two goldfish are in a tank. We suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine they are capable of a conversation. This conversation begins when one of the goldfish bumps his nose on the glass pane in the tank.

"Hey, who put that there"? says B.

A says "Don't be ridiculous. No one put that there. It is a foolish superstition to think otherwise"

B counters " But whatever my nose ran into is practically invisible. Everything else that can bump your nose isn't invisible. Water is invisible. Air bubbles are too. You don't bump your nose when you run into those"

A is ready. "Then what are you claiming it is that put that there? Maybe it's the magical floating jellyfish." A has a few laughs at B's expense.

But B remains thoughtful. "What about that dark, moving thing on the other side of the invisible wall thing"? B asks "How is it that every time we see it move near us, suddenly sandwiches start floating down around us"?

"Don't be ridiculous." says A "What evidence to you have for a magical being. Floating sandwiches maybe? Pretty funny. B's Floating Sandwich Magical god. How ridiculous"!

"My evidence"? B asks " My evidence is the invisible wall, which I think must have been put there by something greater than I am. My evidence is the food that floats down without us having to forage for it. My evidence is the perfect temperature of this place. And what about the fact that nothing is trying to eat us"?

A responds "You call that evidence ? That is just the way nature is. There are explanations for everything you mention that don't involve your god of floating sandwiches".

---------------------------

But the truth of the matter is, that in each instance, B was right. B sensed or perceived that something special was afoot, and attributed vast intelligence and powers to something outside of his tank environment.

And these fish, of course, like all fish, cannot even conceive of the vastness and power of the human intelligence that caused their world to exist.

How then can human beings even imagine the Creator of the universe, when the gulf between them is far greater than the gulf between the goldfish and its human keeper?

[Michael]

Oh wow. I didn't even realise you could make fish out of that much straw.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

And these fish, of course, like all fish, cannot even conceive of the vastness and power of the human intelligence that caused their world to exist.

How then can human beings even imagine the Creator of the universe, when the gulf between them is far greater than the gulf between the goldfish and its human keeper?

Ooooh look - a theologue plying his trade, deception, with the same tired old false analogies and fallacies!
Francis has such contempt for us he thinks we can't see through his bullshit. So, to the talking snake and the talking donkey fairy tale, Francis now adds the talking fish. Without vocal cords yet.
And let's not overlook Francis the talking Jackass.
Aaah, the good ole "begging the question" foollacy. Francis is claiming impressive abilities for his God thingie, before he has presented one iota of evidence for its existence.
Of course, in Francis' childish mind, a fairy tale about talking fish provides all the evidence anyone could want.
Whatta maroon!

[Kinich Ahau]

Worst analogy ever!

[Smellyoldgit]

I thought it was going to be a private conversation between Frantard & one of the Jerries .... ho hum ....

[Smellyoldgit]

[Michael]

[Smellyoldgit]

Nutjobs everywhere!

Florida Woman Finds Religious Imagery on a Goldfish Cracker

[Francis]

Not a single comment actually dealing with the analogy raised. The boring and expected RELIGIOUS claims of dishonesty, posting idiotic pictures, and of course prepubescent imagery posing as something else.

This will come as a shock, but snot and diarrhea do not address the issues of existence

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

This will come as a shock, but snot and diarrhea do not address the issues of existence

Having both blown my nose, and been prescribed Pepto-Bismal after a memorable Chinese restaurant visit, I can scientifically vouch that snot and diarrhoea really do exist.. Now tell us about talking fish, the simulated universe you think we exist in, and that invisible guy in the sky.

[Francis]

Sinfidel wrote

Having both blown my nose, and been prescribed Pepto-Bismal after a memorable Chinese restaurant visit, I can scientifically vouch that snot and diarrhoea really do exist.. Now tell us about talking fish, the simulated universe you think we exist in, and that invisible guy in the sky.

You did not have to state how important snot and diarrhea are in your world. We already knew that.

As far as the simulation issue is concerned, you are incorrect as to what I maintained. In any case, those issues are better left to the other thread.

As far as the fish are concerned, you should look up the term I used in the first sentence of the first post - "suspend disbelief", and, only after you are sure you grasp it, get back to me.

[Sinfidel]

Francis wrote

Not a single comment actually dealing with the analogy raised. The boring and expected RELIGIOUS claims of dishonesty, posting idiotic pictures, and of course prepubescent imagery posing as something else.

This will come as a shock, but snot and diarrhea do not address the issues of existence

[Francis]

By the way, refusing to face the issues I raise is one part conceit and one part cowardice.

Conceit because there is one characteristic common to atheists, which is not seen so much in people of faith - lack of humility. Atheists generally cannot and will not consider as real any person or entity smarter than they are. This is why they are unable to consider themselves akin to goldfish when compared to anything else within or without this universe.

Cowardice because they are afraid to have their self image challenged. preferring to live in an imaginary world where they think themselves geniuses. This is, of course, entirely contrary to good, scientific inquiry. All real scientists and philosophers must, if they are to grow, keep cool heads and accept facts and consider arguments when they come in. The people on this forum remind me of those scientists of the 1800s who declared that heavier than air flight was" impossible".

[Michael]

Francis wrote

Two goldfish are in a tank. We suspend disbelief for a moment and imagine they are capable of a conversation. This conversation begins when one of the goldfish bumps his nose on the glass pane in the tank.

"Hey, who put that there"? says B.

Why is this fish assuming it is a "who" responsible for the glass pane? It may well be a "who" - and in this case it is, but assuming a result before having solid reason is bad thought process.

A says "Don't be ridiculous. No one put that there. It is a foolish superstition to think otherwise"

Why is this fish disregarding this claim without reason? This is bad thought process.

The conversation - if you were to represent it accurately - would be more like this:


"I have been wondering about this solid, transparent wall I keep bumping into. It seems to me that such a wall would likely not have come about on its own" says B.

A considers this. "Okay. An interesting theory. What reasoning do you have for this?"

"None yet," replies B, "it is a theory of mine that I am working on. But I feel there is more going on here"

"Well, let me know when you have something more solid than feelings, and we'll talk"

B counters " But whatever my nose ran into is practically invisible.

"Practically invisible" is not invisible. Also, glass panes are not "practically invisible". Especially to those inside the water, due to the refractive properties of air and water, it would be fairly easy for them to tell where the pane is, and to feel it, as you said, when they bump into it.
Additionally, being glass it will have imperfections on it - scratches etc, plus potentially algae (even if properly cleaned every day the potential for small amounts of algae buildup is significant) to mark itself.
Add to that the physical existence of the pane - as you said, the fish can bump into it.

So we've got a visible, physical presence that the fish can and do interact with daily.
Can you start to see how your argument is full of it, yet?

Everything else that can bump your nose isn't invisible. Water is invisible.

No it isn't. Even clear water is visible. It is transparent, but that is not the same thing.

You must have a bad time at the beach if water is invisible to you. Baths and showers would be a nightmare.
"Ah, dang, I'm sure I just filled this bathtub up with water, but it's too invisible for me to see!"

Air bubbles are too.

Nope. Air bubbles are very much visible in water.

You don't bump your nose when you run into those"

What does bumping your nose have to do with visibility? Feeling something and seeing something are two different things entirely.
Your fish have already made multiple errors in conflating the two.



"Having ample opportunity to study this physical....let's call it a "wall". Having ample opportunity to study this wall, I have made some observations. It would seems clear that the world outside of our tank operates differently to the world inside the tank. Outside, things don't float around or give any appearance of being in water. It seems likely, then, that the wall seperates our environment from the environment on the other side." Says B.

A considers this as he looks at the wall, and the outside world.

"A fine theory. You have been able to demonstrate all of these points with the evidence available, so I am happy to accept - at least on a temporary basis, until further evidence is attained - that your theory has merits."

A is ready. "Then what are you claiming it is that put that there? Maybe it's the magical floating jellyfish." A has a few laughs at B's expense.

These fish have lived in a bowl their entire lives. A bowl in which, presumably, there are no such things as jellyfish.
So where did they get the concept of a jellyfish from? Why are you presuming that knowledge of jellyfish is innate knowledge? Why are you presuming that knowledge of anything outside of the world they experience is innate?



"Perhaps it was the magical floating jellyfish" jokes A.

"What the hell is a 'jellyfish'?"

"I don't know, I just made it up then."

But B remains thoughtful. "What about that dark, moving thing on the other side of the invisible wall thing"? B asks "How is it that every time we see it move near us, suddenly sandwiches start floating down around us"?

So these fish are able to physically see that there is an entity on the other side of the glass that interacts with their environment in a measurable way, by introducing an element - in this case food - into their environment on a regular basis.

Oh, yeah. This sounds exactly like the situation we find ourselves in, and not at all completely different scenarios.


"What about that moving thing on the other side of the glass? It clearly knows we are here, as it often comes over to bring us food. And its size, coupled with the way it interacts with the environment outside of ours would suggest that it is capable of having put this 'wall' here"

"All fine points, but it is merely speculation at this point. However, you may be onto something, and this warrants further investigation, but we should not just accept that as the answer until we know more".

"Don't be ridiculous." says A "What evidence to you have for a magical being.

The being that is visible and interacts with their environment in a measurable way on a regular basis, totally being equivalent to a "god" in our situation, right?

Floating sandwiches maybe? Pretty funny. B's Floating Sandwich Magical god. How ridiculous"!

Yeah. This whole thing is pretty ridiculous.

"My evidence"? B asks " My evidence is the invisible wall

Not invisible.

, which I think must have been put there by something greater than I am.

Which in your scenario, he still has no reason to think this, so he is throwing out other possibilities for one he favours without reason.

My evidence is the food that floats down without us having to forage for it. My evidence is the perfect temperature of this place. And what about the fact that nothing is trying to eat us"?

What reason does he have to think that can't occur naturally? In this situation, he doesn't. It is fallacious reasoning on the fish's part again.
It doesn't matter that he's right this time - in fact, it's more dangerous that he's right this time, because it's going to re-enforce the idea that believing something because of feelings rather than investigation is a viable way to go, and the next time, when he comes up with something completely wrong he's likely to believe it because feeling it worked out for him last time.

Even a broken clock is correct twice a day, but for those other 23 hours and 58 minutes, it can't tell time for shit.

This is why faulty reasoning is so bad. It is why coming to a correct conclusion for the wrong reasons is so dangerous. It's why things like proper investigation and the scientific method are so important.

This is just another of many reasons why your argument is so bad, and we've just made fun of it up to this point.

A responds "You call that evidence ? That is just the way nature is. There are explanations for everything you mention that don't involve your god of floating sandwiches".

And there are, and without having properly investigated, B is throwing out options without proper reasoning or investigation, which is a piss-poor way of figuring out the truth, and one that is going to eventually lead him to having incorrect beliefs about the world around him.

But the truth of the matter is, that in each instance, B was right.

No, B was wrong about a lot of things. Glass, water, and air bubbles being invisible for one. He also had incredibly faulty logic, and stupidly lucked onto the correct answer. So the next time B wants to figure something out, he's just going to take a wild stab in the dark and assume he's right without investigation, and the more he does this, the increasingly likely it is he's going to end up with scarily incorrect worldviews and beliefs.

B sensed or perceived that something special was afoot, and attributed vast intelligence and powers to something outside of his tank environment.

Something outside his tank environment that was visible and regularly interacted in a measurable way with his tank environment.
Not in any way similar as the situation we are in, and is a false equivalency.

And these fish, of course, like all fish, cannot even conceive of the vastness and power of the human intelligence that caused their world to exist.

And yet, in your story they are able to tell that the humans did indeed do so, without the supposed ability to do so. It's a huge contradiction there, that statement.

How then can human beings even imagine the Creator of the universe, when the gulf between them is far greater than the gulf between the goldfish and its human keeper?

Far, far greater. So great, in fact, that this story is in no way representative of the situation you are trying to suggest we are in.

fish are able to see humans interacting with them, therefore god exists.

No tanks.

[Francis]

Michael wrote

Why is this fish assuming it is a "who" responsible for the glass pane? It may well be a "who" - and in this case it is, but assuming a result before having solid reason is bad thought process.

If you hit your nose on a glass wall placed in your hallway, you can rightly ask "Who put that thing there"? and your thought process would be fine.

Michael wrote

Why is this fish disregarding this claim without reason? This is bad thought process.

Because, as I've stated in the past many times, agnosticism is the logical position, and the atheist insistence on nothingness behind nature blinds them to the inherent logic of not knowing. The A goldfish is obviously meant to represent views atheists commonly express.

Michael wrote

The conversation - if you were to represent it accurately - would be more like this:

........
"Well, let me know when you have something more solid than feelings, and we'll talk"

First of all, you don't get to set the parameters of the conversation. Secondly, B listed the transparent wall, the temperature of the water, the manna from above, and the absence of predators. Those are not feelings. They are quantifiable. They are evidence. You misrepresent facts as subjective feelings.

Michael wrote

"Practically invisible" is not invisible. Also, glass panes are not "practically invisible". Especially to those inside the water, due to the refractive properties of air and water, it would be fairly easy for them to tell where the pane is, and to feel it, as you said, when they bump into it.
Additionally, being glass it will have imperfections on it - scratches etc, plus potentially algae (even if properly cleaned every day the potential for small amounts of algae buildup is significant) to mark itself.
Add to that the physical existence of the pane - as you said, the fish can bump into it.

So we've got a visible, physical presence that the fish can and do interact with daily.
Can you start to see how your argument is full of it, yet?



No it isn't. Even clear water is visible. It is transparent, but that is not the same thing.

This is evasive on your part, when you know how light passes through air, water and well made glass. You are attempting to distract with an entirely side issue.

Michael wrote

A considers this as he looks at the wall, and the outside world.

"A fine theory. You have been able to demonstrate all of these points with the evidence available, so I am happy to accept - at least on a temporary basis, until further evidence is attained - that your theory has merits."

This kind of openness and objectivity is something I certainly encourage, yet it is something I have rarely witnessed in atheists or in fundamentalists.

Michael wrote

These fish have lived in a bowl their entire lives. A bowl in which, presumably, there are no such things as jellyfish.
So where did they get the concept of a jellyfish from? Why are you presuming that knowledge of jellyfish is innate knowledge? Why are you presuming that knowledge of anything outside of the world they experience is innate?

[color=red]

"Perhaps it was the magical floating jellyfish" jokes A.

"What the hell is a 'jellyfish'?"

"I don't know, I just made it up then."

Where these fish lived prior to the fish tank is not stated and not a part of the mental exercise. As far as the jellyfish is concerned, atheists have never seen a flying spaghetti monster either, but seem to invoke it often to attempt ridicule on people of faith. The jellyfish is used in exactly that context.

Michael wrote

So these fish are able to physically see that there is an entity on the other side of the glass that interacts with their environment in a measurable way, by introducing an element - in this case food - into their environment on a regular basis.

"What about that moving thing on the other side of the glass? It clearly knows we are here, as it often comes over to bring us food. And its size, coupled with the way it interacts with the environment outside of ours would suggest that it is capable of having put this 'wall' here

No, B does not refer to the person as an entity, nor does he describe interaction. It is a "dark, moving thing". B does not speculate on what the dark moving thing knows or does not.

Michael wrote

.... this story is in no way representative of the situation you are trying to suggest we are in.

fish are able to see humans interacting with them, therefore god exists.

No tanks.

The fish do not see humans. They see shadows and motions. The fish do not discuss or acknowledge "interaction". Their conversation is about pain in noses, food, comfort and danger.

You are assuming an intelligence in these fish that they do not possess in life and do not possess in this exercise. once again, atheists are refusing simple humility in the face of vast creation.

It is not a perfect analogy, of course, but it is close enough to it so that a person can learn something by considering it. Of course, if you must imagine yourselves the geniuses of all creation, you won't be humble enough to relate to the fish.