3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.
Why do you have such a problem with RAZD being uncertain yet inclined to believe in God, when you are:
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
??? Why are you consistantly turning the tables on RAZD when he is being completley open and honest about his position as being uncertain and agnostic about the possibility of God and leaning towards His existance rather than non-existance but has no clue and you are basically arguing day after day that it's about as unlikey God exists as it is that the earth was created yesterday. VERY UNLIKLEY. Which is YOUR stance on God, if not more so.
It is you who is being radical. Not RAZD, he is atleast saying it's possible and simply leans towards it. As you who leans VERY heavy against. Yet you badger him, why?
Why are you the one who gets to gloat about how right your position is and not RAZD' position?
Maybe because he's a little outnumbered?
It is you who is heavy on the unreasonable side and not RAZD. You are arguing way more for the non existance of God than RAZD is arguing for the existance of God.
Yet, you continue to badger him as if he is the one being unreasonable.
2) The positive evidence favouring human imagination as the only known source of supernatural concepts leads me to tentatively conclude that all such concepts are products of human imagination.
LOL. Come on Stragg ...that is a little different than:
"All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination". This is a high level of confidence theory. The human imagination is the only known source of supernatural beings, just as adult rabbits are the only known source of baby rabbits.
It is falsified by the demonstration of the existence of just one supernatural being beyond all reasonable doubt.
It is not falsified by unsupported assertions like "a supernatural being can exist".
If anyone does not agree that this is a strong theory, I'd be happy to participate in a one on one debate on the subject, and support the theory with plenty of evidence.
Are you sure you and bluegenes are on the same page?
Straggler writes:
It came to be as a result of the plethora of supernatural concepts which have been, and can be, shown to be false.
Ok, fine. Of course there are SN concepts which can and have been shown to be false. No problemo.
the reason we don't sacrifice people to the Aztec Sun god Tonatiuh etc. etc. is because we have scientifically studied the Sun and now know that these concepts (along with many many many many more such concepts) are not real entities.
They are products of human imagination.
Hmmmm, for me I accept that is true. This is where it gets murky for me. Im on my own island at times. Right between you and RAZD
It's not about me tho, it's for the good of the God(s). And in that respect IMHO, RAZD has been very consistant whereas you say he's in-consistant.
If I had intended to make such a claim I would have made it. My actual claim is that we do not have objective tested empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist.
That is wonderful to hear PaulK. Welcome to the club. We are currently taking applications for new members.
Our initiation process is different for every new member. Yours will be for you to use the above comment in a unbiased way relative to all discussions, including, yes, including, wait for it... bluegenes theory.
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
Straggler writes:
Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
Im pretty sure RAZd has already said this:
Just for being "mentioned" no, but Voldemort is not just "mentioned" -- he is a central character, a magical character, created by the author, in a fantasy fiction novel series.
Are you claiming that a magical character, created by the author, in a fantasy fiction novel series, central to the fantasy storyline, is real or has the potential to be real?
It really astounds me that you ask this question, when this seemingly minor difference is critical to actually being able to substantiate the hypothetical conjecture.
There is a possibility that "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are (may be) based on real experiences, while the "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" are known a priori to be fictional, and cannot rationally be considered supernatural beings.
What you display, by asking such a question, is that you are just assuming that all "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are fictional without actually determining that this is so.
To substantiate {your (bluegenes et als)} assertion that {all supernatural beings are fictional} you need to investigate and test ones that MAY be real instead of pretending that fictional characters, known a priori to be fictional, fill the bill.
and
You can't start from evidence of fiction to show that something else is fiction, as that something else isn't tested, and therefore the hypothetical conjecture isn't tested in any way shape or form.
You do not need to investigate "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" to see whether or not they are fictional -- that is a given, readily conceded, fact.
Humans are capable of creating fiction: sadly, for you, that does not mean that all human concepts are fiction.
You DO need to investigate "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" to see whether or not they are fictional, rather than just assume that this is the case.
Why oh why do you continue to as RAZD aKa (Zen Deist) about whether he thinks lord V is a real SN entity? It seems you are the one confused about fictional characters who are known to actually be fictional characters as opposed to thers that are not known to be fictional characters?
Can't we move on already? He's already answered that.
Straggler, Forgive me for being so blunt here but, are you asking RAZD if he's a 6 on the Dawkins scale when it comes to the "hogwarts hypothesis" because if he says yes,(without testing it) then we does he disagree with bluegenes since bluegenes doesnt have to test every known hypothesis to tentativly assume every known SN being is a product of the imagination?
Isn't that putting everything into the same boat? Can't we use our brains instead of dismissing all options? You are wanting to put lord v on a 6 scale, along with Jesus? Are you a 6 concerning Christ too? Is it so bad to be a 3 like RAZD that maybe just maybe some of these other more evidenced entities might exist over the JK Rowlings scenerio?
Why can't RAZD be a 6 concerning the "hogwart hpothesis" and still not contradict himslef?
Isn't RAZD trying to be fair here in not knowing what is true or false as far as reality goes? Whereas you are saying it has to be apples or oranges?
What's wrong with being agnostic? Isn't that a fair position to hold?
Again with the assumptions. Perhaps you could provide the evidence that Lord Valdemort is fictional? (But please don't post any argumentum ad populums. People believing something is true is not evidence - despite what RAZD thinks.)
So, where do you place yourself concerning Lord V?
- I am a 6 on the scale. (probably a 7 tho being that he is a known documented fictional character)
- Straggler is a 6
- Xongsmith is a 6
- RAZD is a 6 (possibly a 7 being that he is a known documented fictional character)
Well, RAZD and Straggler have a difference scale. RAZD isn't interested in the Dawkins scale so we'll use theirs.
RAZD is a O.(zero) on the RAZD/Straggler Concept Scale when it comes to Lord V possibly being a real SN being.
As for RAZD believing that Lord V is not a real SN being RAZD would be a IV b. on this scale being that it is widley accepted as fact that he is a made up fictional character.
Nope. RAZD is a #7 here, in regards to Lord V being a real SN being.
Also, RAZD would be a #1 here, regarding Lord V being a fictional character.
As well as me.
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
(a) - logically invalid positions (unless supported by substantiating tested objective empirical evidence - strong conviction in the validity of evolution is based on the massive amount of objective evidence and testing). (b) - logically valid positions (if not contradicted by tested objective empirical evidence - continued belief in a falsified concept is delusion).
Hello. I am going to ask all of the participants of any consequence in this thread the same question.
And then use the answer in the future against us when necessary? Dang yer good dude. I gotta come up with some questions to bank for myself. RAZD, any suggestions?
Question: - Does the fact that a given proposition is untestable preclude a de-facto atheist stance (i.e. 6 on the Dawkins scale) from being rationally taken towards that proposition?
No, it doesn't. It doesn't rule that out. I think it's more rational tho, to believe in Christ that Lord V. Im a #7 concerning V and #1 on Christ.
There are some things that will never need to be tested so who cares. For example, Lord V. No one is trying to come up with ways to test the "hogwarts hypothesis" right now I don't think. It's silly right? So is the talking snake you say? Dam you God Bless you Straggler...
So it's ok to be a 6 or 7 on the (old?) Dawkins scale with regards to that. A contradiction? Possibly.
NOTE: I am not remotely suggesting that untestability demands that an atheistic stance be rationally taken for any given proposition. I am asking if untestability acts as a BARRIER to such a stance being taken.
A barrier? Geez, now im gonna go off the board here. I assume you mean untestable in Science? Because you can test things in the spiritual:
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, BUT TEST THE SPIRITS, whether they are of God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.
By this you know the Spirit of God: Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is of God, and every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is not of God. And this is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard was coming, and is now already in the world. (1 John 4:1-4)
Sorry man. I had to do it. Im already am a #1 on the (old?) scale concerning God and for me im pretty much a #7 concerning all other gods BUT, am also a #1 concerning Jesus(God the Son), The Holy Spirit(God the Holy Spirit), angles, satan, demons. None of which can be tested.
I personally DO NOT think you can call me delusional concerning those things simply becuase they ARE NOT testable. What do you think?
Now, if I say that im a #1 on the scale concerning the worldwide flood then you can call me delusional because of the "evidence" that says otherwise. (im not convinced at all that it didn't happen btw and could possibly be a #1 but that is between me and you. There is a theory out there called " the hydroplate theory". Maybe a new thread? )
Do you see my point? How appropriate is it to call me delusional about something that can't be tested as opposed to something that CAN be?
Given your stated 6/7 regarding the "Hogwarts Hypothesis" I fully expect you to be in the NO camp Chuck. Right?
Yep, that's right Stragg, depending on the proposition of course.
It's amazing the audacity some people have on this site. When one goes under another one pops up.
Coyote for instance had a grand total of two posts here out of the then 370. The only reason Coyote showed up here was to mock? Discredit? Misrepresent? Insult? RAZD. No summation whatsoever. None. Nothing. Nadda. Ziltch. Zippo. Just here to rag on RAZD after he put in so many good posts, time, thought, to this thread only to get attacked in just about all the summations.
I agree with Xongsmith when he says the gang of four (+ Coyote?) has a different agenda than arguing Scientific knowledege on this thread. The summations show him to be right. Straggler, PaulK, Coyote, all took shots in their summations. Unfairly misrepresenting RAZD who is open minded and open to ideas about the reality we live in. For someone they say is constantly barking up the wrong tree they sure do follow along biting at his heels, which incidently they are always looking up at.
He thinks being open minded is a more logical approach than being closed minded. Well, I agree.
... we could foresee the effect, even without experience; and might, at first, pronounce with certainty concerning it, by mere dint of thought and reasoning. Now whether it be so or not, can only appear upon examination; and it is incumbent on these philosophers to make good their assertion, by defining or describing that necessity, and pointing it out to us in the operations of material causes. (Hume, 1737)
I must confess that a man is guilty of unpardonable arrogance who concludes, because an argument has escaped his own investigation, that therefore it does not really exist. I must also confess that, though all the learned, for several ages, should have employed themselves in fruitless search upon any subject, it may still, perhaps, be rash to conclude positively that the subject must, therefore, pass all human comprehension. (Hume, 1737)
This question (the problem of necessary connection and causation) I propose as much for the sake of information, as with an intention of raising difficulties. I cannot find, I cannot imagine any such reasoning. But I keep my mind still open to instruction, if any one will vouchsafe to bestow it upon me. (Hume, 1737)
...that is a little different than:
™ Version 4.2
(1)
