RAZD has proposed a topic which no one wishes to take on, that would be the atheists here, who have no evidence for their position.
Although I agree with RAZD in general, I do not in some areas.
Since what RAZD calls strong or absolute atheists are hidding behind their keyboard, I'll take him on.
RAZD, I am a #1 absolute deist. God does exist.
I do not regard my position as illogical or irrational, and I am prepared to defend that.
Yes, and that would include presenting my evidence for my position.
I only ask that if I ask a question you answer it or say you don't how to or what it means. I will respond with an explanation. I will answer all your questions in time, or admit I can not..
You do know what a koan is? My questions will be on topic even though you may not see it immediately. Please just answer them or say you can't.
I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence.
As an absolute deist lets see if I can do better.
Admin and RAZD I'll go one on one in a great debate.
RAZD has proposed a topic which no one wishes to take on, that would be the atheists here, who have no evidence for their position [...] what RAZD calls strong or absolute atheists are hidding behind their keyboard ...
I see that you have chosen to begin the thread with a thumping great lie.
RAZD extended his invitation to just one person, namely Coyote, who didn't want to play. The moderators did not open the topic up to "the atheists here", because RAZD specifically requested that it be a one-on-one debate, on the grounds that: "this will likely need to be in Great Debates due to the probability of one against many participants". It was, in short, RAZD who was unwilling to debate "the atheists here" collectively, and not vice versa. You may, if you wish, make snide remarks about him "hiding behind his keyboard".
And now you wish to go one-on-one with RAZD, without any interjections from those pesky atheists. Should we admire your intellectual courage in being willing to debate the evidence for God with someone who, like yourself, is a deist? --- and in badmouthing atheists in a thread in which they are not to participate?
Content hidden by AdminModulous. This is a Great Debate for RAZD and petrophysics only. This post is an objection. It can be read by pressing 'peek'. The objection is noted, any further objections should be raised in a Peanut Gallery thread.
Please forgive my late reply. My wife just got back from doing the consulting on a Marathon well in North Dakota for the last 46 days and just came back. I actually haven't seen her since late October due to my work and her's.
I'll try and post here each day.
I thought I'd present my position in 4 parts.
Evidence, what is it.
My methods and results.
Part 3 and 4 goes to extending that and to what I found out.
quote:There is insufficient evidence, imho, to support a logical conclusion that god/s exist.
There is also insufficient evidence, imho, to support a logical conclusion that god/s do not exist.
Logically the only supported conclusion is no conclusion, that the evidence pro and con is insufficient to form a logical conclusion at this time.
Being open-minded, I consider both existence and non-existence positions possibilities.
Being skeptical, I see no reason to accept that either position is sufficiently demonstrated, however I do consider the possible non-existing position to be weaker than the possible existing position.
The proper logical conclusion based on evidence and the "rules" of logic is agnostic. I have discussed this previously on several threads, including
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
(4) is the position that logic supports: the default position when there is a lack of validated evidence is that no conclusion can be reached -- we don't know, can't know, which is true.
(3) is the position of someone that recognizes that (4) is the logical position, but is of the opinion that god/s may exist.
(5) is the position of someone that recognizes that (4) is the logical position, but is of the opinion that god/s may NOT exist.
(2) & (6) are people that think their position is based on something more than their opinion, and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
(1) & (7) are people that think their position is fact, not opinion, and they need to provide evidence to substantiate that claim.
Logically speaking: God is knowable, Message 34 (Straggler): Anyone who claims to be at 1 or 7 has to be deluded because either position requires a certainty about the source of their absolute certanty that it is impossible to have.
... iano's response was:
Message 50: I agree. The same could be said of positions 2-6 however.
Curiously, what we see from logical analysis is that the same is true for positions 2 and 6 - they too are logically invalid arguments based on opinion and not facts or evidence or sound logic.
Compare:
to:
OR:
Now, let Y = notX:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
Based on this analysis of the logical structures, positions (1), (2), (6) & (7) are not logical unless supported by objective empirical evidence, while positions (3), (4) and (5) are logical positions that are valid and rational positions. Positions (3) and (5) have added opinion to the logically on an agnostic position, but this is recognized as opinion and subject to change with contrary objective empirical evidence being presented.
The evidence needed is the evidence needed for level III in this scale:
Level I are hypothetical concepts, unsupported by any evidence, just opinion. Conclusions are based on opinion alone.
Level II are possibly valid concepts, supported by subjective evidence, evidence that has not been invalidated. Conclusions based on this evidence involve opinions about the validity of the evidence.
Level II are probably valid concepts, supported by objective empirical evidence and by repeated testing, Conclusions based on this evidence involve test results and are the kinds of conclusions made in science: tentative, can be treated as true until invalidated.
These are the basic parameters that I have used in discussing this topic with others (including many atheists): do you agree with them?
I have looked for months here where the atheists could present no evidence.
Yes, it amuses me the number of times I have seen atheists claim that they have "plenty of evidence," but when asked to present it, all they can come up with is their opinion/s and logically false arguments -- and as such only meet the requirements of level I concepts. ( Great Debate the bluegenes Challenge is the latest example of this).
You do know what a koan is? My questions will be on topic even though you may not see it immediately. Please just answer them or say you can't.
quote:A kōan (pronounced /ˈkoʊ.ɑːn/; Chinese: 公案; pinyin: gōng'àn; Korean: gong'an; Vietnamese: công án) is a fundamental part of the history and lore of Zen Buddhism. It consists of a story, dialogue, question, or statement, the meaning of which cannot be understood by rational thinking but may be accessible through intuition. One widely known kōan is "Two hands clap and there is a sound; what is the sound of one hand?" (oral tradition attributed to Hakuin Ekaku, 1686–1769, considered a reviver of the kōan tradition in Japan). The word koan, the name by which the practice is known to the West, comes from the Japanese pronunciation of the Chinese characters (公案.
Please forgive my late reply. My wife just got back from doing the consulting on a Marathon well in North Dakota for the last 46 days and just came back. I actually haven't seen her since late October due to my work and her's.
I'll try and post here each day.
No rush, enjoy yourself. I am in a similar situation, my wife cares for her elderly mother, and we have now bought a house (built in 1860 and in need of some renovations), started a business (consulting, one client so far), and need to get the squirrels out of the attic ...
I'd rather have a slow reasoned response than a hurried ad hoc one.
Hi RAZD Objective=unbiased Empirical=based upon experience or experiment
EVIDENCE LEVELS
These are the basic parameters that I have used in discussing this topic with others (including many atheists): do you agree with them?
No, I do not.
I come out of my house and notice a tire on my 2010 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited is flat.
I need to know what you would do. I change the tire because I have 100% confidence it is flat.
If you collect a large number of people to find out what they observe and need to read their entire peer reviewed literature before you change the tire I need to know about that. It means you have a profound psychological problem or you are playing some debate game.
Your psychological problems I can deal with, your debate games I will not deal with.
It seems to me that unless a single person can make a valid objective empirical observation of the world science is impossible.
I am a petroleum geologist. I can show someone a world wide flood did not occur. It may take me weeks or months, but I will do it without quoting or referencing another single geologist whose work I did not check. It is based on things I have actually seen and worked on. It is not based on things I’ve read about.
That would be a belief. Not a bad thing since we progress forward as a civilization based upon the work and experience of others.
Good luck on your business. I started mine in 1985 both geologic and petrophysical consulting as well as drilling my own oil and gas prospects.
Ditto on taking care of your parents or in-laws, been down that road too. My mom is 92 and still doing well, but I know about the concerns and time involved.
These are the basic parameters that I have used in discussing this topic with others (including many atheists): do you agree with them?
That wasn't about evidence levels but levels of confidence one can have in concepts about what is real and not real.
I come out of my house and notice a tire on my 2010 Jeep Wrangler Unlimited is flat.
I need to know what you would do. I change the tire because I have 100% confidence it is flat.
The flat tire is objective evidence not a concept per se, and it is a very common experience observed by many many people.
In fact I have this problem frequently.
Changing the tire doesn't answer the question of what caused the flat and what you need to do in order to drive your vehicle -- storing it and then putting it back on when you have another flat will not necessarily solve that problem.
If you collect a large number of people to find out what they observe and need to read their entire peer reviewed literature before you change the tire I need to know about that. It means you have a profound psychological problem or you are playing some debate game.
Curiously, the levels of confidence do not specify peer reviewed articles and a search of all previous literature before formation - this is a red herring.
The flat tire is the objective evidence at hand, and from this we can postulate several causes with level III confidence:
there is a nail (or similar object) puncturing the tire
the cold weather causes the air to have less pressure and the seal with the rim is jeopardized, letting air out
the rims are old and have oxidation around the seal edge that compromises the seal, letting air out
a neighborhood prankster has let air out of your tire to make you think it is flat
I change the tire because I have 100% confidence it is flat.
I inflate the tire first to see if it is a rapid leak or slow. If the seal has been broken or a prankster has let the air out then this usually solves the problem. If leakage still occurs, but slowly enough to drive on, then I take it to a garage to test where and how it leaks, and this eliminates the other possibilities. If the leak is too fast to hold sufficient air then I change the tire, and take the flat tire to the garage for repair or replacement.
My 12 year old car with aluminum rims has problem #3, and I periodically have to take it to the garage to have the rims sealed.
This is based on knowledge of common experiences among friends, acquaintences and relations, education and information on the behavior of tires, rather mundane knowledge that does not require the application of the scientific method and the big guns of the scientific process, including peer reviewed articles.
That process is only necessary to establish new knowledge. Concepts that are not based on common experience or that attempt to explain things in a new way.
It seems to me that unless a single person can make a valid objective empirical observation of the world science is impossible.
Science is founded on the principle of verification and replication. Initial observations can be made by individuals, but they are not accepted until they have been tested and replicated. Cold Fusion comes to mind.
I am a petroleum geologist. I can show someone a world wide flood did not occur. It may take me weeks or months, but I will do it without quoting or referencing another single geologist whose work I did not check. It is based on things I have actually seen and worked on. It is not based on things I’ve read about.
That's fine, however I don't think we need to do that here, perhaps if you want to debate a theist that believes there was a flood, it would be appropriate.
That would be a belief. Not a bad thing since we progress forward as a civilization based upon the work and experience of others.
I do think we need to rely to some basic extent on the works of others to provide the foundation of knowledge on which to work. The more skeptical (but open minded) person will at least validate the information from a variety of sources, and attempt to find contrary results as well confirmatory results in the available sources, before forming their personal opinion/s.
With such an approach, using objective empirical evidence and some testing to validate it, one can operate at a high level of confidence without have personally done all the experiments in the history of science leading up to the latest concept/s, such as on the age of the earth.
You don't need to write me a Mitchner novel everytime you answer.
I've read this stuff before.
I asked a simple question. If you come outside and see your tire is flat. Do you have 100% confidence that it is?
I was trying to figure out what you were doing. Since my question was simple. Why are you telling me about all the reasons a tire can be flat? Why the whole thing about concepts and how certain you are of them?
RAZD I came to the conclusion you think God is an idea, a concept, and abstract idea.
I'll show you why I don't think that is true.
If you will empty your tea cup, and just answer my simple questions this will go much faster.
Don't think about what my questions mean, just answer them.
I asked a simple question. If you come outside and see your tire is flat. Do you have 100% confidence that it is? Don't think about what my questions mean, just answer them. So RAZD are you 100% certain your tire is flat?
I have high (level IV) confidence, based on past experience, that it appears to be temporarily low on air.
The rest was an update of the confidence concept scale (adding a level) and my response to your other question ...
Message 8 I need to know what you would do. I change the tire because I have 100% confidence it is flat.
... and why changing the tire may not be necessary (even though it may solve the problem, because it may be unnecessary to spend that time and energy). Sometimes people jump to conclusions because their tea-cup is full.
Don't think about what my questions mean, just answer them.
I don’t care WHY the tire is flat, just that it is.
Let me try doing this a different way.
When I was 14, that would be 47 years ago, I came out of my parent’s house and walked down the driveway. My dog was digging a hole about 10 feet from the road.
I went over there and there was no pre-existing hole. So I thought what the hell is he doing. Now I’ve known this dog for 9 years and he is a great hunter and no dummy.
So I went to the garage and got a hoe to help him dig the hole he was working on.
This dog was great. He would dig until he got tired, step back and then let me dig until I got tired. We went back and forth. We hit many tree roots, sometimes I could break them with the hoe. One time I had one about ¾” thick. I couldn’t break it, he just went into the hole and ripped it apart with his teeth., I couldn’t believe it.
RAZD all this time I didn’t know what we were doing other than digging a hole for no reason. But you understand RAZD, that would be because my tea cup was over flowing and I didn’t understand the dog knew something about the world I did not.
As we continued doing this, I come across what I think is another root. Covered in dirt, I grab it and it moves. Scared the fucking shit out of me. There is an animal at the bottom of this hole. For whatever reason, the sent of my fear, or the emotion of my fear, my dog went crazy.
He pulled a huge ground hog out of that hole, it flipped through the air, and it landed on its feet. An exchange with my dog left my dog with about a 4” cut on his left paw.
He was pissed. He grabbed it by the neck and beat it against an Oak tree, until its neck was broken and it was dead.
Never seen anything happen this fast in my life. Martial arts pros suck in comparison.
I have 100% confidence this happened.
Tell me something that happened to you in your past that you have 100% confidence in having occurred
Petrophysics.
P.S. You don’t where I’m going here, if you did we wouldn’t be having this debate. Dump that tea cup out!
Tell me something that happened to you in your past that you have 100% confidence in having occurred
Curiously, I can't think of any experiences where I have 100% confidence, but I'd have to go with Descartes and Dubito ergo cogito ergo sum if I had to choose something. On the other hand Buddhists say all is illusion. Two of the assumptions we make in science is that we can perceive elements of reality by our senses, and that they are evidence of reality rather than an illusion.
P.S. You don’t where I’m going here, if you did we wouldn’t be having this debate.
I don't need to know where you are going. I'm in the back seat, enjoying the ride, and I'm not even asking "are we there yet?"
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
.