quote:If you dont know what they are how can you say RAZD is demanding them?
I don't have to know what is being demanded to know that something is being demanded.
The model works. RAZD says there's something missing. He won't say what is missing or justify that claim. Instead, he claims that those who observe the model and notice that it works don't actually have any evidence of that fact and are "pseudo-skeptics" for daring to ask that those who wish to declare problems actually provide evidence regarding the specifics of what is missing.
quote:What's wrong with your elegant definition? Looks good to me.
Then I'm confused. If it looks good to you, why do you seem to be confused regarding it?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
quote:Who in this thread is insisting that anything get tossed out? Certainly not RAZD!
On the contrary, RAZD is precisely who is. By insisting that we abandon all of the evidence we have in order to insist "there is no evidence" and preserve his precious "I don't know."
quote:As the scientific analysis is brought to bear upon the situation, the unexplained would be expected to melt away into naturalistic phenomena explained by the now expanded Model, as has always happened thus far, in it's self-correcting way. Nothing is getting tossed out.
Yes, by those who understand how the process of discovery works. The original assumption necessarily is that nothing exists. All claims for existence of any kind must be justified by evidence before being accepted. But for RAZD, he wants to take all of that and throw it away, claiming that there is no evidence of any kind, that any stray crossing thought is just as legitimate as any other.
It turns epistemology on its head.
quote:Soon there WILL be a naturalistic explanation that everyone will agree on. But speculation had been running wild for awhile there.
But according to RAZD, the idea that the undetectable, undefined Voorwerp gnome is just as rational an explanation as the idea that it's a celestial phenomenon, as if all the other knowledge we have about the cosmos didn't exist. Never mind that we have seen astronomical objects behave in similar ways. None of that is actual evidence or can be included in the analysis. No, the only "rational" response in his mind is "agnosticism" and his precious "I don't know."
quote:Suppose something does come along that would require a major change in how we understand the Laws of Physics. How much of a change would be needed to call it a bonified Chocolate Sprinkle, the Real Thing?
Until RAZD defines what on earth he's talking about, there's no way to know.
quote:
quote:And we've learned nothing in the process? We're still naifs when it comes to how this deck actually works?
Au contrere!
Indeed. But RAZD insits we throw out all that we have observed and start over again at nothing.
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
But this would entail computation of probability that RAZD wants to avoid.
But why does he want to avoid it?
He considers it a fake probability.
e.g., Scientific Probability of observing a god Event, p(G):
Events with Scientific Evidence of G
p(G) ~= ----------------------------------------
All Events
All Events = Events with Scientific Evidence of G + Events with no Scientific Evidence of G + Events not yet examined scientifically
Currently the scoreboard of the game in progress shows Events with Scientific Evidence of G to be 0. And the Events with no Scientific Evidence of G is some 83 gazillion already. But the conjecture is that within the Events not yet examined scientifically we cannot be 100% certain there is not 1 or more Events with Scientific Evidence of G.
Anyone who makes their estimate of p(G) is using conjecture in determining the numerator and denominator. There is no scientific evidence of how big All Events is, other than what we have seen to date. This isnt just an estimate of the kind they make to count the total number of particles in this Universe, because any particle can participate in any number of Events. To use my Chocolate Sprinkle Ace in the deck of cards analogy, we need to have a feel for how many cards there are. Now, I happen to think we have seen enough cards to make a statistical assessment on p(G), admitting that we are not sure, to support a RAZD-Dawkins level greater than the 5.0. But that is my opinion that we've seen enough cards - it's a subjective opinion ultimately.
I know. But why? Are all evidence based conclusions regarding magical undetectable beings fake probabilities? And what is RAZD proposing instead of evidence based assessment of probability? Pseudo-mathematical arguments against positions of logical certainty that nobody here is, or ever has, held. Pseudo-mathematical arguments that if applied to Santa or the Easter Bunny would demand that we be agnostic towards these concepts as well on the basis of them being logical possibilities that are immune to refutation.
RAZD's bizzarre attempt to mathematicalise his argument amounts to nothing more than a long winded, over elaborate and desperately convuluted way of saying "You cannot prove that my god does not or can not exist. Nah nah nah nah."
Xongsmith writes:
But that is my opinion that we've seen enough cards - it's a subjective opinion ultimately.
No more so than any other objectively evidenced conclusion.
The coin has been flipped many thousands, if not millions, of times. No-one has ever even seen the supernatural side to this coin. All the evidence strongly suggests that we are dealing with a double sided coin here.
quote:god (gŏd) n. 1. God . a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. . b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
quote:God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, by contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.
So with regard to gods we have to provide contradicting evidence that shows that gods do not, or can not exist to justify any scepticism.
No, you can have a skeptic opinion without any evidence at all -- you just need to admit that it is not supported by objective empirical evidence of a scientific nature. This is where the position 5 atheistic agnostics are.
No assessment of probability is even possible as a result of objective historical evidence that implies human invention of such concepts.
You are making two conceptual errors here. The first is that you can make a calculation when you only know part of the possibilities and have no idea how large the set is. It's not a probability, it is just an opinion based on your world view of what you think the probability is: there is no calculation. This pseudo-probability argument is just the argument from incredulity dressed up.
Second, you are making a logical leap, confusing the map with the mountain, and resulting in a logical fallacy:
• there is no evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that people make things up &there4 gods do not exist
is no different from
• there is no evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that mushrooms grow in the forest at night during a new moon when it is pouring rain &there4 gods do not exist
There is no connection between premise 2 and the conclusion, and this connection is absolutely necessary for a valid conclusion.
Could you tell me what direct empirical objective evidence you have that contradicts the existence of magical Santa Claus concepts,
This concept is originally based on a real person that actually lived and was of very benevolent (year round) disposition, someone worth emulating, and worthy of inspiring others to emulate. The mythos that has grown up around him is easily traced to various sources, including the recent additions of flying reindeer and living at the north pole being due to known fictional story-telling by documented individuals writing and illustrating documented poems and pictures.
Does this mean that the 'spirit of Saint Nicholas' does not exist? No.
Does this mean that the universe was not created by god/s? No.
You are confusing human concepts about reality with the actual reality, in thinking that any demonstration that a specific concept about reality is false means that the reality is also false, when it can just have been misunderstood, or have been misrepresented by the concept in question.
This happens in science all the time, why should we be surprised to see the same thing happening in concepts dealing with supernatural things?
Ahhhhh so there is evidence then........? What happened to your much stated mantra that atheism necesarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? And "convincing"....?????? Convincing to who? You?
Now you are conflating my position on what constitutes a logically defensible agnostic position with a common atheistic position.
My "much stated mantra that atheism necesarily equates to 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'" still holds - it is the observation that this is commonly used by atheists, and has been documented as such. This, of course, is logically defensible, being a logical fallacy.
The agnostic can review all available objective and subjective evidence from whatever sources, and still conclude that the evidence does not show that god/s exist, or may exist, NOR does it show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, and THEREFORE a logical conclusion on the existence of god/s cannot be derived from this evidence.
Convincing to who?
The person doing the review. Different people will reach different conclusions based on their particular world views, particularly when there is insufficient objective empirical evidence that speaks directly to the question. They will be swayed by their personal opinions one way or the other.
At best you can cite historical and cultural evidence that (very) strongly suggests that these are human inventions raher than real entities.
In your opinion.
They are magical undetectable beings that are inherently unable to be directly refuted in the ridiculous way you are demanding.
Then you have a problem, holding a position that requires that they be refuted in order to have a logical basis for your position that they are not likely. This is why your position is logically invalid and indefensible.
You certainly have been caught. Caught contradicting yourself.
So you keep thinking, and yet it always turns out that you have confused two different things, one is what you think my position is, and the other is my actual position.
Please do explain.
To recap, there are levels of confidence regarding concepts:
You can think of this as a three level pyramid, where scientific concepts are concluded based on objective empirical evidence and tested against reality, and where concepts invalidated by contradictory evidence are discarded.
When we step off that level we are necessarily limited in the validity of what can be concluded. We can have some confidence in concepts that are logically valid, that have some subjective evidence supporting it, and that have no contradictory objective empirical evidence contradicting it. This confidence only lets us conclude that such concepts may be valid, that they are possibilities, but we cannot conclude anything about probabilities. This is demonstrated with the following 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.
It is fairly clear that on level two we are dealing with opinions, logic, subjective evidence and possibilities. Probabilities are left on level three where there is objective empirical evidence to use in calculating actual probabilities. These possibilities are better than guessing.
Guessing is left on level one.
What we see in pseudoskeptical "6" atheists, is that they think their opinion about the available evidence is logical rather than just a subjective opinion. In this regard, they are intellectually dangerous, convinced of the accuracy of their opinion.
quote:The rational conclusion based on evidence is agnosticism, the uncertainty of existence of god/s.
Atheists are on one side of the line of agnosticism, deists are on the other. This may be a fine line, but the distinction is real, like the difference between negative numbers and positive numbers, with the zero position being your fine line.
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Enjoy.
In essence, that atheists and deists are similar, except that one assumes the existence of god/s and the other assumes the non-existence of god/s. As long as these positions are "5" atheistic agnostics, and "3" theistic agnostics, there is no substantial difference, as one is as logical as the other.
What has become clear since then, is that there are subcategories of atheism that range from "5" to "7" that are similar in degrees to the "3" to "1" positions of theists, and that some atheists, the "6" to "7" positions, have the same level of faith in their opinion, their position, being correct as the theist "2" to "1" position.
I certainly agree with other posters on this thread that faith is a poor determinate of validity of a concept, and the best concepts are formed, tested and continually re-evaluated by the scientific methods. This includes the faith some have in their opinions being valid. Certainly such opinions should have substantiation, if one is going to use it to form a credible concept of reality, and the lack of any substantiation should give any rational person pause before considering whether the concept is a valid portrayal of reality.
In pursuing a valid approach to reality one needs to be skeptical of negative claims as much as one needs to be skeptical of positive claims, and where there is an absence of evidence contradicting a concept one needs to keep an open mind about the possibility that the concept may be true.
One does not need to reach a decision unless the results directly affect their lives, and when a decision is necessary in those conditions a person will make a decision based on the available evidence and their personal world view, whether their choice is true or not, whether the information is sufficient to reach a valid choice or not, in response to the necessity.
My personal opinion is that we have evolved to make "snap" decisions as a means of self-preservation. Such decisions may not always have resulted in a positive outcome, but some did, and that is more than would have occurred with no decision: that small positive result is enough to evolve the ability to make "snap" decisions on insufficient information. We need to be careful not to feel forced into decisions when there is no particular personal threat.
If we consistently apply your logical argument we are required to be agnostic towards the Easter Bunny, the Tooth Fairy and undetectable, irrefutable magical Santa Claus concepts. You have yet again failed to demonstrate that this is not the case. You have yet again had to resort to quoting me in half sentences to disguise this abject failure on your part.
RAZD writes:
My "much stated mantra that atheism necesarily equates to 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'" still holds - it is the observation that this is commonly used by atheists, and has been documented as such.
Except that you and we all now agree that there is not, and in fact can never be, a complete absence of objective evidence. So you can never again justifiably assert that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Straggler writes:
Could you tell me what direct empirical objective evidence you have that contradicts the existence of magical Santa Claus concepts, The Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy?
RAZD writes:
This concept is originally based on a real person that actually lived and was of very benevolent (year round) disposition, someone worth emulating, and worthy of inspiring others to emulate.
So in other words - No you cannot apply your much stated criteria to justify significant scepticism towards concepts of a magical Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy. You cannot show that magical Santa "does not or can not exist". You are instead citing objective historical evidence of human invention as justification for scepticism in the existence of irrefutable magical beings. Exactly as I have been doing with regard to god concepts for some months now. Welcome to reality.
But just to be clear could you tell us all where you are on the Dawkins scale with regard to the Easter Bunny and with regard to the Tooth Fairy? And on what objectively evidenced basis you make these conclusions?
Second, you are making a logical leap, confusing the map with the mountain, and resulting in a logical fallacy:
What mountain? The only fallacy in operation here is your assumption that there is necessarily any mountain to map. In fact the absence of said mountain may well be the best explanation as to why the maps are all so conflicting and apparently wrong.
RAZD writes:
Summary Position
1) ALL of the atheist arguments that have been presented (by numerous people across multiple threads) are evidence based arguments. In any evidence based argument a degree of uncertainty is inherent and innate. Insisting that logical fallacies are being committed by conflating these arguments with statements of logical certitude is unjustifiable and simply demonstrates the absence of any coherent counter-argument.
2) A high degree of scepticism towards the existence of a concept is entirely justified if sufficient evidence in favour of the concept being a product of human invention is available. Even if the concept in question relates to an undetectable being that is inherently "unknowable" and logically irrefutable (e.g. Santa Claus). Insisting that it be shown that such concepts "do not or cannot exist" is a pointless, ridiculous and futile debating tactic. We cannot prove that the Easter Bunny "does not or cannot exist" but we can cite historical evidence regarding the origins and evolution of a concept to show that it is in all probability a human invention.
3) There is no such thing as an "absence of evidence". All claims are unavoidably made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. This is simply inarguable.
4) Human history is literally bursting with claims of the supernatural. None of these claims have stood up to scrutiny. All but a tiny minority have been completely abandoned as examples of human invention. Those god concepts that remain in circulation have retreated into the darkest recesses of human ignorance. They have evolved into gods of the most difficult to fill gaps. Exactly as you would expect of concepts that inspire deep personal conviction but which have no actual basis in reality. ALL of the available objective evidence indicates that the very concept of the supernatural itself is a human invention. NONE of the objective evidence available suggests that there is any reason to think the supernatural actually exists. For more on this see here: Message 499.
Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion with regard to supernatural gods is that they are most likely human inventions and in all probability do not actually exist.
This thread seems to have run its course. Detachment seems to be slipping.
If anyone feels the thread should be reopened, please make your case at the Thread Reopen Request thread.
Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach.-- Encylopedia Brittanica, on debate
™ Version 4.2
