Subjective Evidence of Gods

Hi GDR, been following your discussion here. One of the things that disturbs me is the degree to which some people feel they must have an answer to these difficult questions. This, imho, ends up in a rush to judgment even when there is no impending reason for coming to a decision.When there is a rush to judgment, then it seems to me that the likelihood of making a wrong decision increases, and sometimes that results of making a decision are worse than the results of waiting for more information. Bush rushing into Iraq as a case in point, but it also involves the topic of this thread: do we really need to decide whether or not gods exist? Theists rush to affirm that god/s appear to exist, atheists rush to affirm that none appear to exist. I've used this flow chart diagram before: where (B) and (D) are much more likely to be wrong than (A). As would all "natural mechanisms" ... thus making "Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None" (the subthread title by Straggler) more a blind assertion of opinion than a logical deduction from evidence (another "D" decision rather than an "A" decision).The main problem to me is that before you can state that "there is none" one would need a methodology that can positively test for a presence of whatever is being investigated.For example, take the kite experiment of Benjamin Franklin -- if he did not have a means to test for the presence of electricity, the experiment would have detected none. It would then be simple (simplistic?) to claim that there is no evidence of electricity in lightening. We perceive the world\universe as made up of matter & energy, but our perception of that world\universe is made up, a human invention, it is a map of how we see what is around us. I agree. Measuring brain activity, at best imho, tells you how the brain functions during different general tasks, whether it is mathematical calculations, reading fictional stories or praying, but it cannot recreate from the scan what those thoughts\perceptions\etc are. old joke: man is asked if he believes in reincarnation, and he says "No, but I used to in a previous life ... "Enjoy

Hi again GDR, nice posts. Perhaps you misunderstood me here, I wasn't making an analogy but citing an example of what I consider one of the worst instances of a rush to judgment in modern history. Thank you. It seems to me, however, that the replies of others seem to miss the point. For instance: Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence. I go back to my flow chart diagram: What we have is Straggler's opinion about the existence of the Easter Bunny, because he feels it is something important enough to have a decision about it. So you form an opinion based on your world view, just as Straggler, Panda, et al, do.The point is that any such decision is necessarily based on opinion, and needs to be recognized as such.There may be a large degree of consilience of opinions regarding certain topics, such as the easter bunny, but that does not change the fact that such decisions are necessarily based on opinions.There are questions that science cannot answer -- some because we do not have the means to test them, and some because they are untestable. That's a fact of life, and trying to force people into making decisions (or calling them irrational because they don't make your decision) doesn't alter that fact either. Because those subjective conclusions are based on opinions, and this explains why your conclusions are different from straggler's and mine and ... etc.added by edit: Excluding the deep convictions of straggler? ... Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

Hi Panda. Ah, so there are some supernatural concepts that you are agnostic on?That doesn't sound like a 6.9999 (and why not just say 7 at that point - you're just kidding yourself that you fit in the 6 category - rounding error).Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added

... Straggler, still struggling with the basic concepts I see. Once again Straggler misrepresents my position with fake quotes. Let's look at the actual posts from Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1: So what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that the earth is old, much older than any creationist model can account for OR a mechanism needs to be demonstrated that explains all these correlations.Last time I checked, "Last Thursdayism" does supply that mechanism, ... however that does not mean that the evidence then shows that creationism is correct -- "Last Thursdayism" does not support creationism either.Straggler really should pay more attention to the people he debates with, as the falsehood of his misrepresentations are easy to demonstrate. The problem is that he is so pervasive with them, that it's like a Gish gallop to deal with all of them. AND he seems to behave like Hovind, content to believe in his distorted perceptions regardless of evidence contrary to it. Sigh.I've already dealt with this type of concept with bluegenes, who also imagined a scenario involving my imminent death, and I see no reason to change my answer for Straggler.What happens will happen whether I believe the concept or not. There are in fact a number of discrete medical conditions that can cause my imminent death, whether inflicted by some unknown generic demon or not. I am not atheistic about a single one of them, but neither do I cower in fear of them. If I die by some supernatural hand, then I will know the truth, but Straggler will still be ignorant -- and all the doctors will ascribe some natural cause to my death - heart attack (due to medication), stroke (due to blood clots caused by medication), or due to "complications arising from the long battle with cancer" (the usual suspects etc etc etc). This is what xongsmith has said as well. Straggler, bluegenes, etc et al, seem to have this curious blind spot in their logical makeup, that somehow a known fiction proves that any other concept they can't explain must be a fiction as well. It's the "god-did-it" explanation for these pseudoscience atheists.This is a logical fallacy of the first order, and demonstrates a heavily biased view.Making up "evidence" does not show that your hypothesis is valid. Making up fictional characters only proves that the fictional characters are made up, not that anything else is.Fictional cowboy stories do not prove that all cowboys are fictional characters.This is, however, how pseudoscience is done. As I said to bluegenes, I would gladly confront such a situation, as this would be evidence that supernatural entities\forces do in fact exist, and whether or not I could communicate that result to anyone else, it would satisfy me to know the truth rather than shrink from it in ignorant fear.So no, Straggler's ludicrous mis-characterization of my behavior based on my beliefs is (once again) wrong.Once again we see that whatever Straggler says about RAZD is more likely wrong than right. Of course not, as that is not why Straggler (or blueggenes) is a pseudoskeptic.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.

​

The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism were coined in the early 1990s in response to members of skeptic groups who apply the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which are actually protoscience.

​

Pseudoskepticism - Example Usage

• Kaviraj2: RT @onlinerepertory: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (3) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof - http://t.co/t1QJ7QS
• Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
• OpenMinded2010: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (5) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims - http://t.co/v7qJeRg
• Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

---

Straggler is a pseudoskeptic because the definitions above fit him to a "T" ... the closemindedness and the continued inability to support his position with objective empirical evidence that makes him a pseudoskeptic.And as far as available evidence goes, the fact that Straggler (a) presents this concept while ostensibly remaining an atheist is evidence thathe did not have a supernatural experience that informed him of this being, (b) he do not provide any other source for knowing about it and (c) there is no other known information\documentation regarding this particular concept that I am aware of, so (d) I can logically conclude (form my opinion) that Straggler most likely made this one concept up.This is what logic and the available evidence shows in this one specific case. It is not enough to prove that it is made up, but it is sufficient for me to form my tentative opinion regarding this concept.Similar logic and evidence applies to the IPU and to other similar concepts promoted by non-believers (where a and b apply).Similar logic and evidence does NOT apply to many religious concepts which are promoted by believers (because, curiously, a, b and c do not apply).The failure to see\understand this rather basic and fundamental distinction here is also why Straggler and bluegenes are pseudoskeptics doing pretend pseudoscience rather than science.I base my worldview on my experiences, education, evidence, beliefs and logic, and I base my opinions on my worldview and the pertinent available evidence.Bluegenes admits to making up his bogus characterizations, but somehow does not realize that they prove nothing other than that he can make up fictional characters. And that would be because the logic and available evidence are not the same, as shown above.Straggler's problem, consistently, is not understanding what he thinks my positions are, or why his logic is so wrong in so many ways.Enjoy.

Straggles tries again, still fails to understand. His understanding is faulty, or his ability to actually read my posts has some defect in it. I've already answered this in Message 265 -- the fact that Straggles doesn't comprehend the difference between what I have consistently claimed and his misrepresentation of it is not my problem. I note in passing that many people have had this problem with Straggles in the past. Which is also another mis-characterization, and is more of Straggles fantasies about my position (some of which, like this, are rather humorous, if they weren't so pervasively wrong and repeated ad nauseum. Without substantiating empirical objective evidence positions 3, 4 and 5 are valid, while 1, 2, 6 (as Straggles claimed last time he listed) and 7 are invalid.I do not see a category for "complete agnosticism" there. I do see agnosticism mixed with opinion pro or con, that there is a spectrum of agnostic positions, and note that without substantiating empirical objective evidence, all you have is opinion. Opinion is something that Straggles has lots of. The problem is that he confuses his opinions with conclusions based on facts or objective evidence. If you don't know, then the honest thing is to say that you don't know. If you have an opinion about it, you can make a decision based on your opinion (which is based on your worldview (which is based on your lifetime experiences, education and beliefs)) and so it is necessarily an opinion rather than a logical conclusion.Anyone claiming a 6 position (like Straggles) without substantiating objective empirical evidence is basing their claim on opinion and deluding themselves that it is a rational logical position. The usual claim is that it is "more probable" ... without having a basis for making the assessment of relative probabilities, and usually end up claiming that it is more plausible when confronted with their inability to present evidence to substantiate their position.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

---

Isn't that a familiar theme that runs through Straggles arguments? See previous answer on Message 265. Failure (or refusal) to comprehend the answers provided is not my problem. Amusingly, science makes one assumption as the basis for testing concepts against objective empirical evidence -- that the objective empirical evidence represents reality.ie -- science (ALL science) assumes that "Last Thursdayism" is false. If a thing is detectable, it may not be empirically detectable, and there are reasons that they could not be tested. One of them would be the appearance of inconsistent results. Curiously, one of the predictions I have previously made\noted about supernatural beings etc, is that the results of encounters\experiences could well appear to be inconsistent due to a large variety of possibilities and the problems of (human) comprehending what is happening. Here we have another false dichotomy by Straggles, who seems to dearly love living in a black and white world. The simple answer is that there are many possible sources that (as yet) are not "empirically detectable." One is the well known and documented religious experience.If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience?Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings?Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)?Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc?Can religious experiences be broadly or narrowly classed as consistent? In other words, you can have detectable phenomena that cannot be empirically tested, so we are in the "otherwise" category, and Straggles admits he does not have a test to determine whether supernatural effects are involved.To come back to the topic at hand, this would count as subjective evidence either for god/s or evidence that does not rule out the possibility of god/s existing at this time.Enjoy.

Hi Panda, Well that's okay -- you have nothing to respond to. You just post snipes and quips with no content of value, so there is nothing to "try again" about.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.

---

Enjoy.

I have answered these questions. Repeating them just shows you do not understand\comprehend the answers, so repeating them would serve no purpose.Badgering serves no purpose. Trolling serves no purpose.Have you proposed a means to test for supernatural effects yet? If you don't have a means to test for this, then how can you claim to eliminate it from consideration?Why can't you answer this simple question once and for all and clear this issue up?abe: Curiously this is what your "evidence" of human imagination amounts to ... This is your "intuitive thinking" at work, not an evidence based argument.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added abe sectionEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Straggles struggles again What are you testing empirically? Be specific. You started with Thor, and have thus far absolutely failed to substantiate your claim in any way.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

* Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
* Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

---

While you continue to evade the fact that you have a false dichotomy here. Detectable phenomena may not be empirically testable (variable results that cannot be repeated) and still not be products of human imagination. This means your logic is absolutely false, as has been pointed out many times.http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism

quote:

---

... In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.

---

It amuses me no end how completely this describes you and your pattern of behavior.From Message 274

quote:

---

Message 94: If the thing is question is not empirically detectable then any conception of it must be derived from the internal workings of the human mind. How could it possibly be otherwise?

​

Here we have another false dichotomy by Straggles, who seems to dearly love living in a black and white world. The simple answer is that there are many possible sources that (as yet) are not "empirically detectable." One is the well known and documented religious experience.

​

If you met a supernatural being, would that not de facto be classed as a religious experience?

​

Are there documents of religious experiences where people claim to have met supernatural beings?

​

Can you detect when religious experiences occur (ie changes in brain activity)?

​

Can you empirically test religious experiences to see if they actually are experiences of supernatural beings etc?

​

Can religious experiences be broadly or narrowly classed as consistent?

---

These questions remain unanswered. The evidence of a false dichotomy is ignored (cognitive dissonance?) while he repeats his unsubstantiated assertions.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : added Message 274 section

A glimmer of light, quickly extinguished Yes, correct: it depends on the supernatural concept in question, so you cannot lump them all together as you keep trying to do. Yes that would falsify that the person/s observed were not {werewolves-that-changed-during-full-moons} -- but would it demonstrate that other werewolves do not exist? In native (and many other) lore there are "shapechangers" that can merely change into wolves at will. If werewolves are defined (as Dr Adequate stated) merely as people that can change into wolves, this would include those shapechangers, and they would not be detectable in this manner. So, again, this only means that this "commonly conceived" caricature (strawman image) of Thor (rather than one found in original beliefs) is a false conception, not that Thor is necessarily a product of human imagination. I repeat:Thor causes thunder and lightening. We have thunder and lightening.Can you test for supernatural essence in thunder and lightening to see if it is present or not? Ben Franklin in a field without a means to detect electricity in lightening. You still fail to see that this is NOT A DICHOTOMY. All you need is a detectable effect that is inconsistent and variable, thus making empirical evaluation unreliable. Again this type of behavior can virtually be predicted about supernatural beings, based on various documents of them. What I think about "internal sexual experiences" and religious experiences is irrelevant and a red herring logical fallacy here.The issue is whether or not you can detect supernatural presence. If you are unable to test for supernatural presence\effects\essences\forces\etc then you cannot honestly say whether or not they are involved in religious experiences, and all you have is your opinion.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : spling

Straggles still cannot understand that his interpretations of my positions are fundamentally flawed, because of his personal biases and his failure to comprehend it. Amusingly I can test and have tested for it everytime I enter my bedroom. But I don't know as well as you, whether or not you have made this up. It is impossible for me to know. All I can do is look at the objective evidence cited previously that indicates that this is likely a fiction on your part, and I can form my opinion on whether this concept exists in reality -- but I don't know this for sure unless and until you admit that it is a fiction that you have created. However, this does not mean that I cannot behave based on my opinion, and I don't need to claim that it is anything more than opinion to do this (category 5). What I know is that the data and evidence indicate an earth that is old. This is what I have said before, and your failure to comprehend the fundamental distinction is once again noted.Also, as previously stated, science assumes that the empirical evidence truthfully represents reality, as the fundamental principle of science.The alternative is that evidence is illusory, and you cannot then tell what is real and what is illusion, including all religions, all science, all philosophy, and all existence.For all you know the universe is assembled anew every second, as subatomic particles blip in and out of existence. If this is true then the data and evidence would still show an earth that is old.So no, you can't test for it, all you can do is assume one or the other, form an opinion and act on the basis of that opinion. Except that you haven't tested for the presence of a supernatural agency, just assumed it. Science does not consider assumptions to be evidence. All your test shows is how Thor could cause thunder and lightening, not that there is no supernatural agency involved.Your confidence is based on your opinion and biases, and not on any scientific objective empirical testing or data.This certainly does not show that any particular human mind invented the concept of Thor.Fail. Which only shows that humans can create fictions not that any particular concepts are fictions. Fictional stories about fictional cowboys do not mean that all cowboys are fictions.Assuming your conclusion is not evidence for your conjecture. Which, amusingly, can also be construed to be evidence for the Hindu Hypothesis -- that all religious concepts involve different aspects of the supernatural essence/s. Perhaps the universe has a built-in subliminal message: without a test for supernatural presence you don't know if this is imagination or detection, and you only assume a conclusion that fits your a priori conclusion.Enjoy.

Hi Dawn Bertot, been awhile. Try this visualization chart:

	willing	not[willing]
able	willing & able reply made	not[willing] but able reply not made
not[able]	willing but not[able] reply not made	not[willing] & not[able] reply not made

Where not[X] is the logical form for everything that is not [X] (used like (-x) in maths. So we have a grid of (+x), (-x), (+y) and (-y) and four possible results).Does that sum up your position?The question then comes down to what "willing" and "able" mean, whether there is a null (0) position, and whether there exists another dimension category.If we define "able" to mean that they have in good working order whatever is necessary to send and receive and understand the communication, and "willing" to mean caring, motivated, or inclined (etc), then we need to consider if there is a "zero" position between +x and -x for these terms.When it comes to "willing" it may be possible to be ambivalent (a null position), answering sometimes and other times not, as more of a whim than a willingness, perhaps based on the toss of a coin.

	willing	ambivalent	not[willing]
able	willing & able reply made	ambivalent & able reply made sometimes\occasionally	not[willing] but able reply not made
not[able]	willing but not[able] reply not made	ambivalent but not[able] reply not made	not[willing] & not[able] reply not made

Next, if there is a "Z" position\dimension with it's obverse "not{Z}"

{Z}	willing	ambivalent	not[willing]
able	{Z}, willing & able reply made	{Z}, ambivalent & able reply made sometimes\occasionally	{Z}, not[willing] but able reply not made
not[able]	{Z}, willing but not[able] reply not made	{Z}, ambivalent but not[able] reply not made	{Z}, not[willing] & not[able] reply not made

and

not{Z}	willing	ambivalent	not[willing]
able	not{Z}, but willing & able reply not made	not{Z}, ambivalent & able reply not made	not{Z}, not[willing] but able reply not made
not[able]	not{Z}, willing but not[able] reply not made	not{Z}, ambivalent but not[able] reply not made	not{Z}, not[willing] & not[able] reply not made

Your question is what would this {Z} position\dimension be, yes?Again, the {Z} position could be anything orthogonal to "willing" and "able", including the use of a coin toss.Enjoy. Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.Edited by RAZD, : Well I tried.Edited by RAZD, : colorsEdited by RAZD, : clrty

Hi AdminPD,It seems the best solution would be to have a new threadsee Proposed New Topics: Logical Question: | willing | not[willing] |able | not[able] |Enjoy.

Hi Chuck77 In the many years of debate I have had with Straggler I do not recall ever seeing him acknowledge being wrong on a specific point. A breeding woman? Or a water holding woman? He's just letting his feminine side out -- it's more like he's a bulldog that can't let go of a bone.See Winners and Losers in general and Message 11 in particular. I'd say he has more trouble acknowledging it than other people. Note that admitting to losing a debate is not the same as admitting to being wrong.Extreme inability to admit error in the face of contrary evidence could be pathological: Delusion_1a is dishonest, especially when it leads to other people being Delusion_1b or Delusion₂. Fortunately Delusion_1b and Delusion₂ are curable with education and information showing the particular belief to be wrong. Unfortunately Delusion₃ is pathological and often requires treatment, especially if it presents a hazard to others.Enjoy.

Hi Straggles, And not much has changed. That we should be skeptical of it? Yes.But you need to try the mochi. Well made mochi is delicious.