RAZD writes:
Sorry bluegenes, but I find you increasingly grasping at straws and avoiding the issue. I am disappointed, but really not surprised.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
When I describe omphalism, gods and fairies as evidenceless propositions, I mean that there's no positive evidence to support them. There is evidence (but not proof) against them, like the evidence that demonstrates that people make such things up.
Oh goody,
ANOTHER already dealt with bad argument. People make SOME things up, so to demonstrate that concepts you find unacceptable are ones that made up you need to demonstrate that you can distinguish one from the other. See Straggler for more failed attempts to make this assertion true via repetition rather any real evidence.
There is nothing relating to the word "unacceptable" in the extract from my post that you quoted. We can conclusively demonstrate that most "one true gods" that are believed in are made up, because of the many, many, many different and mutually exclusive "one true gods" that are believed in. This shows that making up and believing in false gods is the norm. To add to that, we can observe that no-one can actually present positive evidence in support of any one of these "one true gods". If they are believing in gods for whom they have no positive evidence, they must be believing in things that are made up.
That doesn't
prove that there are no gods, but it is positive evidence for the theory that gods are human fabrications, meaning that the "6" position that any god proposition made by and believed in by any individual human being can be described as "very improbable" is a rational and evidence based conclusion.
RAZD writes:
Your problem of self contradiction is multiplied by your assertion that taking an agnostic position on Omphalism means I cannot take a strong position on the age of the earth.
Your perception of contradiction seems to be based on your use of the word "agnostic". Being agnostic on omphalism merely means that you state that you cannot
know that it's not true. I do not assert that you cannot be agnostic on omphalism while taking a strong position on the age of the earth. I assert that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism while being a "2" on the earth being ~4.5 billion years old. If we are "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth (which I am), we have to be a "6" (or non-agnostic "7") on Omphalism.
As I explained, it is impossible to believe that the earth being ~4.5 billion years old is very likely (2) without believing that omphalism is very unlikely (6).
RAZD writes:
It is possible to have a negative hypothesis that is not a response to a particular positive claim. For example I can claim that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the age is anywhere close to this number, and what we have is X is NOT less than 400,000 years as the negative claim that now needs to stand alone on it's own merits.
It's the same as a positive claim that the earth is older than 400,000 years. But here you're talking about the observed phenomena of "planet earth" and "age", so the analogy with gods doesn't work. You can collect that kind of evidence in relation to things that exist, like an age of the earth, but you couldn't for anything whose existence cannot be established. All we have with gods is propositions. They are not known phenomena, observed either directly or indirectly. If you wanted to make an analogy, it would be with claims about the age (or any specific characteristic) of a god once its existence is established.
What is a known phenomenon is belief in gods. Here, your analogy is better. Here, we can present evidence to support the view that people invent them, as I've pointed out above.
To be a valid claim, I need to provide evidence or a logical proof to show why the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years, or this claim rates as a pseudoskeptic claim.
Proof?
Cannot? Surely you don't think you're arguing against people who think they have "proof" that gods "cannot" exist, rather than people who think that they have evidence that they are unlikely?
Now the question for you is: does this evidence or does it not support the claim that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old?
If the evidence does support the claim, then a strong position on the age of the earth is justified by the evidence.
If the evidence does not support the claim, you need to show what is wrong with the evidence. Now in order for
YOU to claim that omphalism demonstrates that this evidence does not support the age of the earth claim of being highly unlikely to be less than 400,000 years old,
YOU will need to prove that omphalism is
true within the time period covered.
You need to do away with the word "prove", but otherwise we seem to be reaching some agreement.
Omphalism without supporting empirical objective reproducible evidence that it occurred within the last 400,000 years does not refute the empirical objective reproducible evidence that the age of the earth is not less than 400,000 years. In science we only use empirical objective reproducible evidence for theories and conclusions.
Thus I can be agnostic out the wazoo about omphalism, due to a lack of positive and negative evidence, and it does not affect the conclusion that the evidence provided shows that the age of the earth is not less than 400,000 years. The amount of uncertainty engendered by the possibility of omphalism being true over the time period in question is enough to push the conclusion from a 7 to a 6, but no further. Curiously, no conclusion in science can feasibly be more than 6 (against or 2 for).
Good. So we've established that you are a "6" on omphalism on the basis that there's no positive evidence for it alone. You are an agnostic/atheist towards the omphalist-Christian god. (Remember that omphalism predicts all of your empirical evidence for an old earth - the proposition is that it was created to appear old).
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Nope. When someone says that there is no evidence for a proposition, the word "for" means something. There could be evidence against it.
When you can demonstrate how this resolves the conflict noted in my previous post let me know. For the record, here is your conflict again:
bluegenes writes:
"6" is agnostic.
bluegenes writes:
Your problem is that, if you are a "4" on omphalism, you are also a "4" (or greater) on the proposition that the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years. If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a "6", you cannot be a "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth.
RAZD writes:
Let's insert the definition claimed in Message 496 into this latest claim: you can't be an agnostic (based on evidence) if you are an agnostic (when there is no evidence) ... no, that doesn't seem to work ...
"6" through "2" are all agnostic. I said you can't be a "4" (completely non-committed either way) on something, while being committed one way on it. Because you cannot be a 4 doesn't mean you can't be a 6.
Do you now see your mistake? I did not say that you cannot be "agnostic", did I? I said that you cannot be a "4", which is completely non-committal. If you are completely non-committal on omphalism, you cannot make any positive commitment to a ~4.5 billion year old earth.
RAZD writes:
Read the words. They are your words. Honest debate requires that you recognize this.
They are my words, yes. And without translation out of English and into RAZDish, there is no contradiction. You are equivocating in order to avoid your own contradiction, which was being non-committal on the age of the earth (automatic if you're a 4 on omphalism) and being committed to an old earth.
Is your problem that you're still arbitrarily trying to define agnosticism as "only 4's" or "only 3's through to 5's"? If so, I repeat, what is it about the phrase "I cannot know" that you don't understand?
Is your problem thinking that my statement that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism (if a "2" on ~4.5 billion year earth) means you cannot be a "6" because of my previous point that "6" is agnostic and "4" is also agnostic? The description "Londoner" and the description "Mancunian" do not become the same thing because they are both in the category "Englishman", do they?
™ Version 4.2
(1)