Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 137 of 219 (465999)
05-12-2008 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by iano
05-12-2008 9:45 AM


Evidence supports something, what is your something?
inao writes:
The goal is not to 'win' a debate against that notion - merely to stalemate it. To kick it into touch. To render it not-at-all-necessarily-the-case.
That may be a grand goal. But you have yet to accomplish it. You havn't even gotten started.
Straggler is attempting to find out what your position is. And you have yet to respond. You are the one hiding from questions.
Straggler is talking about evidence. Like in a murder case. Evidence would be GSR (Gun Shot Residue). The GSR on someone's clothing would be evidence that they had shot a gun recently, or been in close proximity to a gun that had been fired. If the GSR is centered around their hand, it is a clear indication that they actually fired a hand-gun.
You're walking into this murder case, and when asked to show your evidence you've placed some masking tape on the table. Everyone is looking at your evidence and wondering what it has to do with the topic at hand. What specific position does your evidence support? What is the one-and-only scenario that your evidence demonstrates? We can't even tell if your masking tape is meant to clear the murderer or implicate him. Straggler is attempting to ask you these question, and you insist on remaining quiet and simply pointing at your masking tape on the table. As if it somehow speaks for itself. And now you have the arrogance to state that your masking tape sitting alone on a table with no explanation is on-par with GSR and it's obvious implications in a murder case?
No one is attempting to disprove your evidence, because you've yet to state what your evidence even supports. You've just gone "here it is!" And everyone is asking you "what does this mean or even imply? How does this indicate anything?" Then you simply stare back with a blank face and declare yourself an equivalent.
Your "excellent" example is the fact that your wife has had a great impact on your life.
What is this evidence for? What does this evidence suggest?
Is this evidence that suggests your wife exists?
Is this evidence that suggests your wife does not exist?
Is this evidence that suggests your wife loves you? (In order for her to do this, she'd have to exist...)
Is this evidence that suggests you live with your wife? (In order for you to do this, she'd have to exist...)
Is this evidence that you have a vivid imagination?
Is this evidence that you own a car?
Is this evidence that planets orbit stars?
What is this evidence of, and how does it support that position?
Without being able to answer that question, your example (as Straggler nicely puts it) "renders the term 'evidence' as completely unwarranted in this context."
You have suggested this:
iano writes:
I'm posing it as demonstration of the fact that evidence need not be empirical in order to be evidence.
However, you have yet to demonstrate how your wife having a great impact on your life supports or demonstrates anything in and of itself.
If your evidence does not support or demonstrate anything in and of itself it then "renders the term 'evidence' as completely unwarranted in this context."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by iano, posted 05-12-2008 9:45 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:34 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 144 of 219 (466300)
05-14-2008 10:54 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by iano
05-13-2008 7:36 AM


Claims are not evidence
It is sufficient to argue that not all evidence need be empirical in order that it be evidence.
...
I'm asking you to accept that the principle that non-empirical evidence exists.
The reason why you are not attaining your stalemate position is because you are not doing what you say you need to do.
You have not shown how non-empirical evidence can be considered evidence. So far, you have simply provided a non-empirical claim that your wife has had a great impact on your life. No one has a problem with the existence of non-empirical claims. I am only arguring that this claim isn't evidence.
Evidence supports something.
Evidence shows something.
Evidence demonstrates something.
You've provided "your wife has a great impact on your life" as an example of your 'non-empirical evidence'.
What does this support?
What does this show?
What does this demonstrate?
Until it supports something it is not evidence, it is simply information.
Right now, "your wife has a great impact on your life" is not evidence of any kind. Perhaps you can enlighten us as to how it is? This is what's being asked of you. Without this, you do not achieve your goal of stalemate since you have not provided any evidence at all.
Stile in Message 137 writes:
Like in a murder case. Evidence would be GSR (Gun Shot Residue). The GSR on someone's clothing would be evidence that they had shot a gun recently, or been in close proximity to a gun that had been fired. If the GSR is centered around their hand, it is a clear indication that they actually fired a hand-gun.
You're walking into this murder case, and when asked to show your evidence you've placed some masking tape on the table. Everyone is looking at your evidence and wondering what it has to do with the topic at hand. What specific position does your evidence support? What is the one-and-only scenario that your evidence demonstrates? We can't even tell if your masking tape is meant to clear the murderer or implicate him. Straggler is attempting to ask you these questions, and you insist on remaining quiet and simply pointing at your masking tape on the table. As if it somehow speaks for itself.
Message 137
Like the masking tape on the table, the information that your wife has a great impact on your life is not evidence until you can show how it supports something and cannot be misconstrued.
GSR is evidence. It shows that person has been in the vicinity of a gun that was recently fired.
It does not show that a person killed another person, but can be used along with other evidence to support that position.
The masking tape alone is not evidence. It shows nothing. It explains nothing. It cannot be used to support any position.
The masking tape may be the murder weapon. It may not.
Maybe the murderer restrained his victim with masking tape. Maybe not.
Without being able to show how this masking tape is definitively involved in the murder case, it is not evidence.
Your wife having a great impact on your life alone is not evidence. It shows nothing. It explains nothing. It cannot be used to support any position.
Maybe the impact comes from your actual wife. Maybe it doesn't.
Maybe the impact is very great because your wife is a very loving person. Maybe it's just your imagination.
Without being able to show how your wife's great impact on your life is definitively involved in something, it is not evidence.
The additional problem is that the masking tape is an empirical thing, it at least has the possibility of showing definitively how it was involved in the murder case. Maybe there are fingerprints on the masking tape and DNA and teeth marks from the victim which would further support the position of the masking tape being used to strangle the victim.
The great impact on your life from your wife does not have this luxury. Maybe it's from your wife. Maybe it's from your imagination. Maybe it's actually from your neighbour or dog. We cannot definitively show how your perception of a great impact on your life by your wife is from your actual wife, or even if it's actually 'great'.
...but that's just the way I see it. Perhaps you know of a way where we can definitively show that this non-empirical claim supports something. That's why I'm asking you to provide this. If you can, then your stalemate position comes within reach. If you cannot, then your stalemate position remains unattainable.
Perhaps we could do scans of your brain and eventually identify something that's only from your actual wife. I don't think this is possible, but even if it was, this would only turn your non-empirical claim into empirical evidence. Again though, just because I can't think of a way doesn't mean there isn't one. If you know of one, please describe it.
You do not have to stick with the example you gave previously, feel free to choose any other information that you think is non-empirical evidence. Just don't forget to include what it shows, what it explains, and how it's definitively used to support a position.
Currently, your desired position of stalemate is not attainable with what you've provided. You have not provided any evidence. You have not provided 'non-empirical' evidence. You have provided information. You have provided a non-empirical claim.
Edited by Stile, : Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by iano, posted 05-13-2008 7:36 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 161 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 5:38 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 148 of 219 (466495)
05-15-2008 10:39 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Straggler
05-15-2008 9:45 AM


Ignorance is bliss?
Straggler writes:
I am intrigued to know how (or even if) Iano is going to attempt to defend his argument given that the existence and viability of non-empirical "evidence" has been the cornerstone of his position and participation at EvC for quite some time now.
I also think iano's response would be interesting, especially if he actually has some information I've been glossing over and not realizing.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Iano seems to have a history of ignoring posts as soon as he is unable to proceed without addressing the foundation of his position.
My initial attempt where iano stopped replying to me, but continued discussion of other issues:
Message 39
-this thread deals almost exactly with this same issue, and everyone is left being ignored by the end of it.
I think this thread will end with the same result.
I'm okay with being ignored, though. Anyone reading the thread can easily see when someone is unable to respond to an analysis of their position. And it is a message board, it's not like the discussion is simply going to disappear or anything.
I initially thought that it was just a mistake and iano's a busy guy. But, well, I think the pattern is becoming very obvious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Straggler, posted 05-15-2008 9:45 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by Straggler, posted 05-17-2008 8:23 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 150 of 219 (467748)
05-23-2008 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Wumpini
04-23-2008 8:20 AM


God's Existence has a 0% Chance
...that's rounding down, of course. Somewhere less then 0.5%, for sure. So rounding to one digit we get 0%
In order to obtain a number on the probability of God, we simply need to look at all the evidence that points towards the existence of God.
There is none.
This hurts the cause. A lot.
Not only is there none, but it is a fact that throughout human history, an overwhelming abundance of people have consistently dedicated their lives to searching for this evidence. And we still have none.
Evidence for unicorns was sought after for hundreds of years. None was found. The probability for the existence of unicorns is 0% (rounding down).
Evidence for God has been sought after for (at least) thousands of years, and is still currently highly searched for. None has ever been found. The probability for the existence of God is 0% (rounding down).
Just ask anyone who claims to know anything about God how they know such things about God. Their answers are always based on the same subjects:
-The Bible
-Other statements or documents or texts from organised religions
-Personal or internal feelings and confirmations
The one thing in common to these is their foundation in human imagination. None of these reasons for God's existence can be confirmed by reality, they can only be confirmed by imagination. This forces any chance of 'mere coincidence' that we "just don't have empirical proof of God (yet)" to be extremely low. Certainly lower than 0.5%
Is there a chance that God exists?
Yes.
If there is a chance, what is it?
Negligible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Wumpini, posted 04-23-2008 8:20 AM Wumpini has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by bluegenes, posted 05-24-2008 1:14 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 164 of 219 (483445)
09-22-2008 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by iano
09-22-2008 5:38 AM


Re: Claims are not evidence
iano writes:
You might see now that:
Stile writes:
Evidence supports something.
Evidence shows something.
Evidence demonstrates something.
... the above conditions are satisfied. In this case, supporting the notion that I should marry her. Whether or not you are convinced regarding me and her is neither here nor there.
But, the above conditions are not satisfied.
Your statment that "Whether or not you are convinced regarding me and her is neither here nor there", is the entire point, this is what makes something evidence. If your information is unable to convince all rational people, then your information is not evidence.
Like GSR, GSR found on a hand means that hand was in close proximity to a gun being fired. It means that to me, it means that to you, it means that to every rational being.
You are missing the main points of what constitutes evidence. Evidence shows something, or demonstrates something. If your information does not convince other people, then it does not show or deomonstrate anything, and therefore is not evidence.
...but then again we're not talking about empirical evidence. Nor are we talking of something that is empirically demonstrable to all.
We most certainly are talking of something that is demonstrable to all. If you can do so un-empirically... more power to you, but no one's been able to do that yet, so good luck.
If it is not "demonstrable to all", then it is not evidence! It is simply a claim.
Definitively show? There is nothing definitive about circumstantial evidence - other than the definitive decision that it provides sufficient evidence to warrant a conviction.
Yes, definitively show. GSR is not evidence because it warrants a conviction (in fact, it does not do so). GSR is evidence because it definitively shows that the person with the GSR was within close proximity to a gun being fired, to everyone.
What I hope to have done is point out to you that the word 'evidence' is not the possession of the strict empiricist. It's a wider notion than that.
You have not done this. You have showed that you call your claims "evidence". This is an incorrect usage of the word if you're intending that your claims should be enough to convince other people.
Evidence is enough to convince other people.
Your claims are not enough to convince other people.
I conclude God exists on the basis of non-empirical evidence. Given that non-empirically evidenced conclusions can be arrived at in principle, I would consider the argument stalemated.
You conclude God exists on the basis of your claims. The arguement is not stalemated, you are unable to convince all rational people. Such claims are certainly not evidence.
ALL rational people accept that GSR on clothes means that those clothes were in close proximity to a gun being fired. GSR on an object is evidence that an object was in close proximity to a gun being fired. It is impossible to come up with a rational reason why GSR would not indicate being in close proximity to a gun being fired.
ALL rational people accept that if you drop a ball in a vacuum on this planet, it will fall down. Dropping a ball in a vacuum on this planet, and it falling down is evidence of gravity. It is impossible to come up with a rational reason why the ball would not fall down in such a situation.
SOME rational people accept your claims that your wife loves you.
SOME rational people do not accept your claims that your wife loves you. She could be tricking you, she may not love you but perhaps is with you because you're such a happy person and you don't beat her, she could be possessed by God to do His good works and not actually be "her". It is NOT impossible to find a rational reason why your wife is with you other than being "in love".
Since not ALL rational people are convinced by your claims... they remain simply claims.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 5:38 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 12:34 PM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 166 of 219 (483457)
09-22-2008 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
09-22-2008 12:34 PM


Only Level 1
iano writes:
With respect, this last post of yours merely repeats a philosophy regarding evidence which demands, unsurprisingly, that it be empirical in nature.
Yes, I am merely repeating my stance. I have to repeat it because you refuse to acknowledge it.
I am not saying evidence must be empirical. I don't think I've even used the word so far. All I'm saying is that evidence needs to be able to convince ALL other rational people. If it doesn't convince ALL rational people, it's not evidence, someone's made a mistake. This doesn't require the evidence to be empirical, if you can find a way for non-empirical evidence to convince ALL rational people, then it's certainly good enough. Again, good luck with all that.
If your non-empirical evidence is useless in convincing other rational people... then it is useless in being called "evidence".
Something (the fact that I observed my thoughts turning to her at all times of the day - not the content of those thoughts) led me to conclude that this perhaps, was no run of the mill relationship. I concluded that this might turn out to be the woman for me - based partily on that fact.
If not evidence could you tell me what else this something is which led me to a conclusion?
It's not evidence, it's information. Lucky for you it seems to be turning out well, I hope it continues. I'm not trying to belittle the love between you and your wife, I'm just trying to say that there exists plenty of other people who are "not as lucky" as you. Even though they based their decisions on the same information you're basing yours on.
iano writes:
Stile writes:
Evidence supports something.
Evidence shows something.
Evidence demonstrates something.
..to me. That it doesn't to others means it's not empirical evidence.
No. The "...to me" means it's not evidence. The "...to me" isn't required if it's evidence.
Evidence shows or demonstrates something to ALL other rational people. If your information does not show or demonstrate something to ALL rational people, it's not evidence.
Forget the word games, iano, they are of no consequence. All the definition-dancing you can muster will never change the fact that we still have two different levels of information (whatever you'd like to call them).
Level 1 - Information that is convincing to oneself. This information is not necessarily convincing to ALL other rational people, or even to any of them.
For example: Your wife loves you.
For example: God exists.
Level 2 - Information that is convincing to oneself and is also convincing to ALL other rational people.
For example: GSR on an object meaning that object was close to a gun that was fired.
For example: A ball released in a vacuum on this planet will drop down.
You can call the two levels whatever you'd like. Most people call Level 2 "evidence" (but we no longer have to use that term, if you don't like it). Your claim that your God exists is confined to Level 1.
There is no stalemate.
"Iano says that God exists" is Level 1 information.
"Stile says that Toronto, Ontario exists" is Level 2 information.
Edited by Stile, : Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 12:34 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 169 by iano, posted 09-23-2008 10:21 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 171 of 219 (483596)
09-23-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 169 by iano
09-23-2008 10:21 AM


Wow, excellent.
iano writes:
Thanks for the assistance in thrashing it out.
No problem.
This was my only point the entire thread:
Stile writes:
Level 1 - Information that is convincing to oneself. This information is not necessarily convincing to ALL other rational people, or even to any of them.
For example: Your wife loves you.
For example: God exists.
Level 2 - Information that is convincing to oneself and is also convincing to ALL other rational people.
For example: GSR on an object meaning that object was close to a gun that was fired.
For example: A ball released in a vacuum on this planet will drop down.
iano writes:
There is no blindness. Perhaps "blind faith" need be re-defined as "belief based on non-empirical information". With your agreement we can leave it there and I'll use that definition in future.
That's a great idea, you've removed a bit of confusion there. You can remove all confusion, though, and re-define it as "belief based on non-verifiable information". Which is exactly what Level 1 information is. That's why other people aren't always convinced by it, because it's unverifiable.
The veracity of Level 1 information is not necessarily false, although the majority of information there does turn out to be false, like all delusions and illusions which are also included in Level 1. It's just that we have ways of verifying information (and moving it into Level 2) that are unavailable/unapplicable to information in Level 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by iano, posted 09-23-2008 10:21 AM iano has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 181 of 219 (483970)
09-25-2008 11:23 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
09-25-2008 5:44 AM


"Blind" is not "Totally Nothing"
iano writes:
The purpose is to stalemate those who would suppose faith necessarily blind.
When anyone says that "faith is blind", they do not mean that faith is based on an absolute vacuum of nothingness. What they mean is that faith is based on unverifiable information. Which means that it "may as well be" or "is likely just as good" as being based on an absolute vacuum of nothingness.
An illusion is information. It just happens to be information that is not a correct description of reality.
We agreed that faith is based on information (Message 169). We have Level 1 information (unverifiable) and Level 2 information (verifiable). It is obvious that your faith-information is Level 1 information. Which means that faith is based on unverifiable information. Which means that faith is based on the exact same kind of information that an illusion is based on.
There is no stalemate.
If you're trying to say that anyone arguing "faith is blind" is trying to say that faith is based on absolutely nothing at all... that's not something anyone actually thinks. There's no stalemate there either. You'll win that arguement all day. It's just that, well, it's a meaningless arguement.
Of course there is "something" that blind faith is based on, that "something" is just not verifiable. It's based on Level 1 information. Therefore, it's probability of being a correct description of reality is equivalent to that of an illusion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 09-25-2008 5:44 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by iano, posted 09-30-2008 6:34 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 193 of 219 (484641)
09-30-2008 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 192 by iano
09-30-2008 6:34 AM


Re: "Blind" is not "Totally Nothing"
iano writes:
We have already seen the trouble this thinking gets into.
...
For unless there is something to raise one category of information above the other (in terms of its ability to report on reality) then we might as well call 100 persons observation of a hot air balloon an observation based on blind faith
You are jumping ahead too quickly. Do not confuse the hot-air balloon example with what Level 1 and Level 2 information is.
The hot-air balloon example is simply meant to show how people can be wrong. To show how mistakes happen, to show that we are not perfect, and it's better to double-check our information before assuming it is fact.
Mr. Balls claiming a hot air balloon exists is Level 1 information.
100 other people claiming the hot air balloon does not exist is still Level 1 information (it's just marginally more reliable than Mr. Balls' possible mistake).
We don't move into Level 2 information until we can verify the information.
Mr. Balls' claim remains in Level 1 information until he can verify it. His claim just becomes even-more unlikely because so many other people were equally capable of making the same observation, but did not.
iano writes:
Certainly, neither notion is verifiable...
Perhaps Mr. Balls had a video camera, and we can view that to verify his observation.
Perhaps the balloon is always there, then anyone can climb the mountain and always see it.
Either of these would allow us to verify Mr. Balls' claim. Upon verification, his claim then becomes Level 2 information.
But, sometimes we are not able to verify a claim. Maybe there were no video cameras available, or the balloon went away. This doesn't change the fact that Mr. Balls' claim remains unverifiable. This doesn't change the fact that we could have verified his claim. This doesn't change the fact that his claim remains extremely similar to that of an illusion.
iano writes:
We have already seen the trouble this thinking gets into.
Yes, relying on Level 2 information as opposed to Level 1 information has led the human race into such "trouble" as:
-getting out of the dark ages
-skyscrapers and other architectural wonders
-electronics, including the computer you're using
-medical advances beyond anything imaginable 100 years ago
While, on the other hand, relying on Level 1 information has led the human race into such trouble as:
-entering the dark ages
-remaining in the dark ages for hundreds of years
-thinking that a war on terror is a good, efficient use of resources
If you really think the two are "equally unreliable" in any practical sense of the term, you may want to cover up, I think your bias is showing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by iano, posted 09-30-2008 6:34 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by Stile, posted 02-27-2009 9:00 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 196 of 219 (500555)
02-27-2009 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by Stile
09-30-2008 10:33 AM


The basic arguement
In iano's basic arguement, he is trivially and uselessly correct that there is no objective reason to take "objective evidence" above "subjective evidence." In this sense, iano most certainly is "right."
However, once we accept any relevent priority, even one as simple as "I want to honestly search for the truth of this universe." iano is then very, very wrong. And it is simple to show such (as seen in the previous posts).
Of course, if we don't accept such a priority, iano is right. But, well, why would anyone want to be right only if they must also accept being dishonest or not caring about truth? Such a "win" seems to fit clearly in the "irrelevent" bag, especially on a forum where we are all supposed to be searching for the truth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by Stile, posted 09-30-2008 10:33 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 197 of 219 (502029)
03-09-2009 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by Straggler
10-03-2008 6:39 PM


Another Day... again... maybe
Awwww... I really liked this discussion. So almost metaphysical and yet still so objective and verifiable. I learnt a lot about the boundaries of my own stance by going over these arguements. I was hoping it was about to pick up again, as this so implied:
Straggler writes:
iano writes:
Anytime Bubba. Anytime
I am happy to pick up where we left off here anytime...
From: Message 22
Perhaps "anytime" will come next year, though
This post has been brought to you by Blatant Bait Tactics... where we try valiantly to spark conversation in interesting areas, for you! The viewer!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by Straggler, posted 10-03-2008 6:39 PM Straggler has not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


(1)
Message 206 of 219 (528456)
10-06-2009 8:07 AM
Reply to: Message 205 by Hawkins
10-06-2009 4:54 AM


Current rational chances for God: 0.00%
Hawkins writes:
To mankind in stone age, there's not a slide evidence that elections exist. yet electrons exist long time ago even before the existence of the stone age men. It is thus a fallacy to believe the the lack of evidence means non-existence. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.
It may be incorrect at times, but it most certainly is rational. In fact, it would be incredibly irrational to believe in electrons while there is absolutely no evidence for them. Even if they actually exist.
If you believe in electrons before there's any evidence for them to exist, then to remain consistent (and therefore rational) you must also believe in all other things for which there is no evidence. Such a position is ludicrous.
The only rational, and consistent position is to ignore all propositions for which there are no evidence.
This means you may be ignoring something that actually exists. Temporarily, anyway, since as soon as some evidence of such a thing does surface, then it certainly is rational to change your position and start giving the concept some sort of respect. However, it also means that you're guaranteed not to be spending time on something that may only exist as imagination.
If, on the other hand, you decide that believing in something with no evidence is a good thing to do... there is no guarantee that you're not wasting your time on something that is pure imagination.
Therefore, while believing in things with no evidence you can be trapped into forever thinking that something imaginary is actually real. But, while ignoring all things for which there is no evidence, such a never-ending error cannot happen. It's still possible to be temporarily incorrect, but this error is minimized and does have an ending... when evidence can be found.
Rationally, it is better to allow a chance to be temporarily incorrect then it is to allow a chance to be forever wrong.
The truth is, if God exists, the probability of His existence is 100%. If He's not there, the probability is 0.
And, the rational truth is that while there is no evidence for God, the rational probability for His existence is exactly the same as the rational probability for all other things which cannot be differentiated from imagination: 1/Infinity. Or, rounding to the nearest few decimal places: 0.00%
Being rational doesn't mean it's a perfectly accurate model of reality. It only means that it's following our best known method for obtaining accurate results for modelling reality.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 205 by Hawkins, posted 10-06-2009 4:54 AM Hawkins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:23 AM Stile has replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 215 of 219 (721461)
03-07-2014 12:12 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:23 AM


Re: Current rational chances for God: 0.00%
Phat writes:
In a sense, I guess we could say that you believe in evidence. By that I mean that you believe...nay we say you know that evidence is a rational grounds for belief.
To be clear, I would only say that following the evidence is a good thing if your highest priority (at the moment) is to identify reality.
If you are not currently interested in identifying reality... say, you'd rather have some fun at the moment... then "evidence" isn't something you should be overly concerned about. It may or may not help, but it's not the "best known method" for humans to have fun... as it (evidence) is the "best known method" for identifying reality.
When you say "believe in evidence" it makes me think you're trying to parallel it with "believe in God."
Belief in God is generally an all-encompassing, all-the-time thing for most religiously inclined... right?
Belief in evidence is generally only something you do when trying to identify reality. Which has varying levels of importance throughout each day.
There is a mental process that allows us to watch reruns over and over and ignore the ending so that we can enjoy the show. Suspension Of Disbelief.
Perhaps what you are suggesting to believers is that in order to embrace reality over fantasy and to be honest, they in essence need to practice Suspension Of Belief. Is that close?
I don't understand. Are you trying to say that believers "already know" the ending to life? Hah! Sorry... that's just really rich.
There's a difference between saying you know something and actually knowing it:
I can say I know physics better than NoNukes and Son Goku and cavediver all I want. But everyone else can easily see that I don't.
Believers can say they know the ending to life all they want. But everyone else can easily see that they don't.
No, I'm not saying anything like that at all.
What I'm saying is that someone who claims to "know the ending of life" needs a smack upside the head and get back to reality.
You don't even have to be 'honest' to understand that... all you have to be is 'not helplessly delusional.'

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:23 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Stile
Member
Posts: 4295
From: Ontario, Canada
Joined: 12-02-2004


Message 216 of 219 (721462)
03-07-2014 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 212 by Phat
03-07-2014 10:34 AM


Re: Evidence supports something, what is your something?
Phat writes:
What if several witnesses approached the stand and declared that Ianos wife had also had a great impact on their lives?
We still have no evidence that Ianos wife exists, but we do know that something or someone is impacting lives. Iano claims that it is "his wife".
The point is... if you're going to try to claim God exists because he "has a great impact on your life" then you have to show how that impact cannot come from anywhere else. Otherwise it only shows that something has impacted your life and you currently think that it's because of God.
It is known that people can have a great impact on their own lives through the virtue of hope.
That hope can come from God, it can come from family, it can come from yourself, it can come from imagined ideas, it can come from infinite sources.
Therefore... having a "great impact on your life" is not evidence of God's existence.
There's too many alternative explanations for such a piece of information to point at a single source. It doesn't make any sense.
What is your response? That you too have other things which arguably impact your life as much as Ianos---and that you don't need to meet or know his wife in order to enjoy a rich and fulfilling life? How is this not an equivalent?
I think my wording wasn't clear.
"Equivalent" was not meaning iano was on the same level as anyone else who has had "a great impact on their lives" in some way.
"Equivalent" meant "God exists" as much as "my wife" exists.
That is... iano was claiming to be an equivalent on "God exists" as much as anyone else's claim that their "wife exists" just because each has had a "great impact" on their lives.
He's ignoring the other aspects, one being that wives can at least be seen by other people...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Phat, posted 03-07-2014 10:34 AM Phat has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024