Pseudoskepticism and logic

This is my point in a brief nutshell. The god hypothesis might be right, of course it might be right. I've never said otherwise. But there are so many possibilities on an equal evidential footing that it is just improbable that it is the right possibility.Of course if its the right one, its the right one. Just like a lottery ticket. It doesn't stop it from being unlikely that any given lottery ticket is a jackpot winner. Nope, bang on topic. I wasn't asking you to choose which one was true. If you have 52 face down cards, then you have access to no evidence with which to decide which one was the Ace of Spades. So you pick one of them. What are the chances it is the Ace of Spades. I know we don't know which one is the Ace of Spades, and I'm not asking you to pick one that you believe is the Ace of Spades. In fact - I suggest you should lack belief that the card you hold is the Ace of Spades. I also suggest it is improbable that you picked the Ace of Spades. For all we know, all the cards are the Ace of Spades in which case the real probability was 1, but from our non-evidenced position we have to consider all 52 possible cards as equally likely to be the one we have picked out.My position, in simple terms, is1) We can't know that god exists.
2) Given the large number of possibilities on the same evidential footing it is improbable that any given specified possibility is right.
3) So, when we are talking about a specific possibility (such as a god), my reaction is'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.'And apparently this might qualify me as a pseudoskeptic, which I dispute.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Because I am an atheist in regards to all of the proposed concepts of god by religions, tribes, cults, etc... Not to individual, subjective concepts.- Oni

According to RAZD's OP you need to have evidence of non-existence if you assert something doesn't exist. Or else you are a pseudo-skeptic. I'm not redefining it, here is a quote

quote:

---

if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.

---

No. If you think that is what is being argued it's no wonder you have a problem with it I propose things, and ask why you dismiss them as silly without accidentally dismissing your own beliefs. That's all. I have proposed things that people have believed in (and still do), and had them dismissed as 'silly'. I can't win. But it is perfectly rational to say that if there are 5,000 people with the same amount of evidence against them: It is unlikely that the one you essentially arbitrarily pick out is the real murderer. Beats me, you claimed the IPU didn't exist, not me. I have mentioned Yahweh about once in this thread. Most of my efforts have been talking about the "Philosopher's God". It's just that you see the word 'god' and you think I mean 'God' by which you think I mean 'Yahweh'.I have not attempted to disprove any god in this thread. Very few people have. And they also use that belief as a basis for deciding social policy, which means it affects others. So it might be important to be clear about the likelihood of that specific deity. I don't doubt you had a religious experience. But I think the probability that it was Yahweh is low. I appreciate that you are as convinced it was Yahweh as I once was that I had discourse with mystic elders, my spirit guide, a leszi, or that I engaged in astral travelling etc etc. But that doesn't mean that the mystic elders are real beings. Maybe. But this is just an argument from consequences. I have had several encounters with several deities which left me with no doubt about their reality. Over the centuries, many have done good deeds after having a profound encounter with a religious icon. None of those religious entities are any more real because of it.Religious experiences are profound.
It is almost impossible to not have them affect your life and your behaviour especially when they happen unexpectedly.But what you believe was behind the experience isn't necessarily the same thing as what was behind the experience. Otherwise all experienced entities would be considered real. Take care Mike, and enjoy the journey -at least we both agree we only get one chance at an earthly life like this Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Hi Linda, It's cool, I'm very used to it. I'll make sure he's cautious. From what I can understand, you, RAZD and CS are saying that if I consider it "nothing" then I should be agnostic. Right?Here's my consistent issue with that:If I say I'm agnostic, then that means I consider the concepts that people have put forth to describe god as possible, I just don't yet have enough evidence, or, I don't know enough to draw a conclusion. Which would be fine, I believe this is your position?BUT - My problem is this: I don't think ANY of the concepts put forth by people are possible because no one has any idea what they actually have a concept for. (I hope I said that in a way you can understand it?)If god is unknown, unevidenced, undetectable, outside of our universe, then those claiming that (god is unknown, unevidenced, undetectable, outside of our universe) would need something to base that conclusion on. If you have nothing, other than subjective speculation, then the only place that "god" exists is in the individuals mind.IOW, people are creating a concept (of god) to describe something that is in their minds (and has not been defined).To put it even more layman: people are inventing a thing (concept) to describe a thing (god) that they invented to explain another thing (phenomenon) that they can't understand. I've read your points on using the scientific method and I think it's a cop out excuse. It takes us back to the dark ages. The scietific method is the only way to investigate reality, if your "something" isn't part of our reality, then you're making it up and giving it that "supernatural" quality to get out of having to provide evidence. Since god/s have been used to explain phenomena (including existance, something instead of nothing, or our universe) then to me, the only "kernal of truth" is that people haven't fully understood nature yet. God is used as an answer to a question, he has always been a gap filler.- Oni

The "romantic" bit was a comment on your rosy tinted view of the religious beliefs of our species as "spiritual" and "divine". I think you could be a bit more agnostic about whether or not I'm laughing. My little list of examples of "spirituality" and the "divine" was just a comment on your romantic view our species' religious beliefs. Of course I can't prove that there aren't evil spirits who cause disease, and of course I can't prove that there aren't gods who would appreciate your child as a sacrifice, and of course I can't prove that you're not an evil black witch.I just think that all these things are extremely unlikely, a "6" unlikely, and you (perhaps) and RAZD, (certainly) are trying to call me a "pseudo-skeptic" for that. No-one is. Haven't you noticed. Being agnostic about something is just that; recognition that you cannot know. It has nothing to do with RAZD's desire that it should mean "close to 50/50."Agnosticism - WikipediaIf you read through my posts on this thread, you'll see me trying to explain this to RAZD, and eventually, hilariously, leading him into declaring himself 50/50 on omphalism. That's the point at which he discards the Dawkins scale, and brings in his own definitions. He also attempts to redefine agnosticism, bringing this comment from bluegenes: I think that last point pretty much sums up what this thread's really about.

Hi RAZD, So it seems like just semantics (sort of) that we are debating. Fair enough. I feel atheism (there is no god/s) is the logical position because I feel that the word "god" is only defining individual concepts of god. Since these individual concepts are purely subjective (as per your link), the concept is describing something that only means something when there is a concept for it.It's circular.The word "god" means nothing until there is a concept for it. The concepts are draw up from purely subjective speculation (as per your link).So, outside of this purely subjective concept the word "god" doesn't describe anything. But, within this purely subjective concept the word "god" describes whatever you want it to.My conclusion: God is a meaningless word until we give it a purely subjective concept. And to that subjective concept I am an atheist because there is no other evidence to substanciate the concept. Your concept is basically describing nothing at all.Some concepts are vague, nondescript concepts of an "unkown force." Ok, fine. Perhaps some unknown force exists, but so? Is that what god is? A force?How could I reasonably be asked to say "I don't know," IOW be agnostic, to a word that has no meaning and to a concept that describes absolutely nothing?To me atheism is the true position of the skeptic, because I did the leg work to understand the nature of what it is you/theist/diest are trying to describe. And I have come to the conclusion that when people use the word "god" they are describing absolutely nothing other than their own subjective speculation of what "god" (the word) actually means. It could be evidence of anything; I don't see what your point is?The subjective experience creates the concpet of god, not the other way around, RAZD.Even if it's trying to describe something, the nature of that "something" is created by the person having the experience. So yes, it's certainly evidence of something, but when you describe that "something," know full well that your description is purely imaginative.- Oni

Hi bluegenes, I'll kick this off with a false comment of yours. The correct term is agnostic - see Message 197 for clarification. Now if you think it is hilarious, then fine, but you are ignoring the fact that there is no evidence for or against it. The question is what is a reasonable conclusion?Let's explore the difference between the negative position and the neutral position.It is possible to have a negative hypothesis that is not a response to a particular positive claim. For example I can claim that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years. I am not aware of anyone claiming that the age is anywhere close to this number, and what we have is X is NOT less than 400,000 years as the negative claim that now needs to stand alone on it's own merits.To be a valid claim, I need to provide evidence or a logical proof to show why the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years, or this claim rates as a pseudoskeptic claim.The evidence I can show is on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1, Message 2, Message 3, Message 4, Message 5, Message 6, Message 7, Message 8, Message 20, and Message 21. The evidence doesn't stop there, but that is sufficient to establish that the earth is not less than 400,000 years.Thus evidence is provided that does establish reasonable grounds for accepting the argument that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old. Message 1 once again: I have now provided an example of a negative hypothesis and that it is indeed supported by substantial objective empirical evidence, thus the claim is not pseudoskepticism.Ah, you say, but omphalism theory says that all your evidence is made up, in this case by god/sOnce again, we look at the claim that omphalism is true, and we see that it is not supported by evidence or logic, and thus the claim is not proven.Then we look at the claim that omphalism is NOT true, and we see that it is not supported by evidence or logic, and thus the claim is not proven.Thus there is no need to make a decision about the validity of omphalism until more information is available, at which time the question can be revisited.Now remember what Truzzi said in this situation:

quote:

---

" The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact.""

---

This may seem like behaving as if the claim were false, as has been suggested, but to really understand this issue we need to look at what happens if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the claim - here I'll use a "generic" version that includes last-thursdayism, etc - is true: This means that up to that point the evidence and the conclusions are valid, so it is reasonable to proceed with their use.Beyond that point then the evidence is made up, it is an illusion made by god/s. We take this to the extreme point that this occurred in the last second, and thus everything you "know" is all an illusion.This conforms to the Buddhist view that "all is illusion" and thus validates that belief, but there is also a point where this agrees with science. In science we make as few assumptions as possible, but one necessary assumption is that what we learn about the real world is actually related to reality, for otherwise all is illusion. If this can be shown to in fact be true, then a more important truth has been learned.So do I need to claim that omphalism is true or false to make my claim that the earth is less than 400,000 years old? No, because it doesn't matter: the hypothesis remains true up to the point that omphalism kicks in, and the truth of the hypothesis is irrelevant if omphalism occurred in the last microsecond, as a more important truth has been learned and pretty much everything you thought you knew is irrelevant, not just the argument about the age of the earth.As such I remain agnostic on omphalism as there is no evidence pro or con that can provide me with reasonable cause to believe either way. Except that this thread OP and I fully agree with you that such an assertion unsupported by evidence would qualify as pseudoskepticism.So why does atheism get off?If someone from a traditionally atheistic culture gives much higher credence to the possibility of the nonexistence of god/s than the evidence would warrant, and is skeptical about theism, this would fit pseudo-skepticism, again due to cultural bias.Cultural bias is just how your world view interacts with your understanding of reality, and is the subjective part of opinion formation, whether atheist or theist.What is your special pleading reason for atheists to avoid the equal burden to show evidence of their claim? Nope.In agnosticism there is no "but (insert subjective biased opinion)" involved. The agnostic just says that they cannot know.Personally I can say that there is not enough evidence to base an objective opinion on, but that it would be wonderful to find if it is true.Now you can have an opinion of what you think is true, but asserting that opinion is not agnosticism, it is making a claim. The question comes down to how much you think that claim is true relative to the neutral position.Is it reasonable to claim that 'X' is true or not true if there is not enough evidence to make a reasonable conclusion (tautology intended)?

• The strong anti-X claims that it is most reasonable to think that X is unlikely
• The agnostic anti-X says that they think X is unlikely, but that there is reasonable doubt, and this prevents making a claim that it is not true
• The agnostic says there is not enough evidence make a reasonable decision
• The agnostic Xist says that they think X is likely, but that there is reasonable doubt, and this prevents making a claim that it is true
• The strong Xist claims that it is most reasonable to think that X is likely

The first and the last need to show why they think their position is true beyond a reasonable doubt.We all agree about the positive claim, and we've seen many instances where the negative claim needs to bear the burden of proof and substantiation.Why should atheism get a free ride?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : qs qsEdited by RAZD, : clrtyEdited by RAZD, : link tinker

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

And still you are unable to apply your own criteria to immaterial toilet goblins. Or any other imaginable yet irrefutable concept. You are a "pseudoskeptic" to every single irrefutable concept imaginable by your own stupid, pointless, self-defeating definition.Unless of course you invoke the evidence of human invention. In which case you have to special plead those entities that you subjectively think are worthy of your agnosticism, or even belief, rather than your atheistic derision as "obviously made-up" entities.Dude you are in denial.

Summary of your posts
61 by straggler
Message 5 suggesting that you have evidence
.... doesn't present evidence
Message 126 says "Thus I am not a "pseudoskeptic"." Message 395 still fails to understand the issue, still no evidence
Message 428 rather than present evidence, makes assertions that are not based on my position (once more), and now resorting to ad hominem while still avoiding the topicnow 428 posts in the thread
Still no evidenceThe evidence speaks louder than the words.Enjoy.

Hi Modulus and thanks again. Well it would be shorter if the people not addressing the topic didn't keep posting, but it seems that Percy may be testing to see how far a thread can go as long as there are sufficient numbers keeping to the topic. You may have more insight from admin connections.I've restated the topic on Message 232 and my last post to bluegenes, Message 427, pretty fairly summarizes my position as well. Because it would display open-minded skepticism, present arguments from alternative views and then show the numbers that form the basis for the calculation. The calculation could be repeated with the same results by a skeptic. If the basis is opinion rather than numbers, then it is some combination of subjective opinion, cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, no matter what position it purportedly defends. Doesn't the falsifiability of the claim that "there are no gods" contradict your assertion that the claim "there are gods" is unverifiable? It just shows that the individually different and varied greeness of all the leaves does not rule out the common cause of the greeness in all the leaves. Again, this shows how such experiences may occur, but not why they occur. A person is walking down the street with a chocolate ice cream cone.One person asks "How did you get that ice cream cone?" and they describe going into the shop, ordering the cone, paying for it and leaving. They can go into minute detail of choosing the flavor, how the ice cream was scooped and how the cone was handled, and even go into a discussion of how the ice cream and the cone were made.Another person asks "Why did you get that ice cream cone?" and they answer that it is because they like chocolate ice cream cones. They could add that they like chocolate and ice cream and that they think cones are convenient ways to eat ice cream while walking down the street.Different answers to different questions. The "how" question can be studied and tested by scientific processes, the "why" question is different.How eyesight evolved is a fairly straightforward question that has been answered by objective evidence and comparison of living and extinct animals.Why eyesight evolved is a different question, and it involves the purpose of eyesight, which is to provide clues to the reality around the organism. My personal opinion? That x = y + b is one possibility, where y is variable and b is constant. Except that you have a priori classified them as not being common in their experiences. Do you have any evidence that it is not?I am agnostic/deist because my personal opinion is that such evidence displays a possibility of a common experience or a religious\spiritual nature. I cannot say that this possibility is shown beyond a reasonable doubt, only that I have not found any evidence yet to contradict that view, and that the claim that there are no god/s is not proven nor shown by any empirical or objective data. As I said, it is a possibility that is not demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, not that it is "more likely" -- that was your claim for atheism wasn't it? They could also all have a common element of truth, no matter how many, and the chances of picking one with that element of truth would then be high. I see this as an argument from incredulity and a straw man that does not address the possibility of common element/s to religious\spiritual experience, and that the claim is not proven.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : submit button hit too soon

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Straggler, I'm with you on this, bro.All RAZD is doing is trying to philosophically shift the focus from his "belief" to how we view evidence. It's bullshit.No one lives their life with "maybe's," at least not to the extent RAZD wants us to. He believes some "unknown, vague, ambiguous entity" is responsible for creating the universe. If that wasn't one of the biggest cop outs, I don't know what is. This whole thread seems like a semantical arguement that lacks any evidence or support. Even if RAZD established what HE meant by god, how many people would he have that supports his imagined entity?Objective evidence is needed to establish the truth. RAZD's unkown entity lacks that...therefore, one can conclude that RAZD is full of shit when he describes his enity.RAZD you know you never saw anything, you know you can't reference any objective evidence, you know no evidence supports your claim...why do you continue to claim agnosticism for something that is unevidenced and unknown?It's bogus! I call out any and all believers! Do any of you have evidence for what you believe in outside of subjective speculation?Let me answer that: Fuck no! You don't!Apply faith, cuz nothing else will help you...- Oni (super drunk)... But in no way apologetic...Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

Hi RAZD False comment eh! Strong words, indeed. From Message 179At this time, you were still using the Dawkins scale, and a 4 is specified as meaning 50/50 on that scale. That it [omphalism] is extremely unlikely, as it's one of an effectively infinite number of equally evidenceless propositions.It's a 6 on the Dawkins scale, RAZD. "I cannot know for sure, but I think it very/extremely unlikely." No-one could justify a 5, even.This thread is going to be closed, and I have to go out now, but I'll enjoy answering the rest of your post on the inevitable follow up.I'm busy for a couple of days, but after that, I suggest that you and I have a one on one debate on this in which I'll not only defend the "6" position against charges of irrationality and/or pseudo-skepticism, but promise to demonstrate that your position on this thread is both irrational and pseudo-skeptical.I think we'd have fun, and it could be interesting.If you don't want that, I'll certainly cover the rest of this long post somewhere. You may find some or most of the ground covered in the last post I addressed directly to you (not Linda).Back soon, and think about the Great Debate proposition! bluegenes

Hi Perdition,

quote:

---

I would say everyone arguing with you is an agnostic, they don't know. Most of them are also atheistic, they don't believe.

---

Doesn't the logic of this statement seem a little absurd to you? Surely beliefs should have some basis in reality? The reality is that we don't know.

quote:

---

Incidently, the 50/50 don't know either way is an atheistic position, because by not mkaing a decision, that means you don't actively believe, therefore you're an atheist.

---

By this definition, atheism and agnosticism mean the same thing. I think it's helpful to make a distinction in order to avoid confusion, because we both know they aren't actually the same thing; one expresses a state of not knowing while the other expresses a degree of certainty.

quote:

---

Here's a Venn Diagram that I know RAZD likes so much

---

While I'm a visual person, these things were my bane when I was 13. They were the only thing in math class I couldn't wrap my head around for some reason, and they caused me to be dropped to the second set the next year, where I spent most of my time spinning jacks on my desk while the teacher reviewed how to do addition. But still . . .

quote:

---

I would say the blue circle is the atheist circle and unfortunately we don't have a name for the people who fall into the red circle.

---

It's possible that I still don't comprehend the things, but I doubt it. When I look at that diagram I see categories of atheist, theist, and agnostic in the middle. Presumably the circles are meant to indicate that there are people belonging to those sets who have varying degrees of belief, but I can't be sure because that doesn't appear to be how you're interpreting them. How about avoiding confusion and explaining in sentences what you think that diagram shows?

quote:

---

Now, I wouldn't put an agnostic anywhere on that diagram because this deals with belief, not with knowledge.

---

I'm not sure that distinguishing between belief and knowledge is useful to us here. Presumably we'd all agree that the more someone's beliefs deviate from knowledge, the more deluded they are? If no evidence exists, then why is it logical to choose to believe one way or the other?

Hi Straggler,

quote:

---

what do you mean by "genuine agnostic"? Are you ever "it's 50-50 I just don't know" agnostic about any defined but irrefutable claim? Or does every claim have a context in which it is considered? Your next statement suggests the latter.

---

RAZD and I have explained this over and over, and again recently from RAZD:
Message 427

quote:

---

Ah, you say, but omphalism theory says that all your evidence is made up, in this case by god/s

​

Once again, we look at the claim that omphalism is true, and we see that it is not supported by evidence or logic, and thus the claim is not proven.

​

Then we look at the claim that omphalism is NOT true, and we see that it is not supported by evidence or logic, and thus the claim is not proven.

​

Thus there is no need to make a decision about the validity of omphalism until more information is available, at which time the question can be revisited.

---

I've lost track of the number of times both of us have said similar things.
I can't see how saying "I don't know" about this or any of the hypothetical entities mentioned here, is going to cause us problems. I don't see any reason to even think about them. Now if you've got a bit of evidence for or against, it's a different matter. There is no evidence whatsoever for omphalism or your toilet monsters, etc.

quote:

---

I would go a step further and say that we indisputably and always consider any claim in the context of what we understand about objective reality. In short this amounts to "No claim operates in a complete vacuum of all objective evidence".

---

Sorry to burst your balloon, but that's not what I've been saying. Not all hypothetical examples here have been of entities; for example, that teapot floating around Mars. My understanding of reality is that humans make teapots, humans haven't been to Mars, and therefore it is unlikely that there is a teapot at Mars. This is not an ontological question. When we look at ontological questions, we find that it's more difficult to construct such simple logical statements because the evidence isn't there. We first encounter the problem that I illustrated to Rrhain with the null hypothesis: that this would mean getting stuck in solipsism, where we cannot get past the notion that one's own consciousness is all one can truly know of existence. Everything from there is an assumption to some degree. Objective evidence comes into it after we've established some system of metaphysics whereby we can operate in the world. The existence of God is part of that metaphysics. I've seen the accusation that this is a "cop-out" but no explanation was given as to why that is so. Personally I see the struggle to fit theism into an empirical epistemological frame as a bit of a nonsensical one.

quote:

---

All the objective evidence available, including the context in which they arose, suggests that the concepts you consider "silly" (immaterial toilet goblins, ethereal squirrels and the like) are human inventions created to fulfill human needs.

---

That's how you interpret reality. I don't know if you've ever been a theist; or more particularly, a theist who believed you'd had some sort of deep contact with God. If not, don't you think it's a little arrogant to claim that such beliefs are wishful thinking, warm fuzzies or convenient explanations for things we don't understand, when you can't conceive of any other possibilities?As I've said a number of times, and as I've been discussing with Modulous, I think there is evidence that the divine is a real possibility, because of the fact that people have believed in aspects of it -- those possible kernels of truth that RAZD and I have mentioned. I like his analogy:

quote:

---

It just shows that the individually different and varied greeness of all the leaves does not rule out the common cause of the greeness in all the leaves.

---

And also because people's brains seem to be hard-wired to believe, though the possible implications of that particular study are best left for another thread.Two reasons why I would move from 50/50 on the side of likelihood for theism, but will stay at 50/50 for the IPU or whatever other completely nonevidenced proposition one cares to mention. I just don't see any reason to think about it. And yes, I honestly do leave the door open to such things. How do I know that there isn't invisible stuff going on that I can't detect?

quote:

---

I don't claim to be certain about anything.

---

And yet you call yourself an atheist and put yourself well beyond 50/50 with the belief that you are correct. Again, the topic of this thread is that such certainty requires evidence to support it. Your evidence appears to be "It's likely that people made it up." This is a debatable assertion, not clear-cut evidence.

quote:

---

Fine. In many ways I actually agree with you. I am certainly not denying that the unknown exists. That would be both arrogant and stupid. I think that there are many aspects of nature that we have yet to discover anything about. I hope that this is true and believe that it is.

---

I got the impression that that was the case. You seem to be interested in the possibility of such things, don't see any evidence for them and think it's likely that they don't exist, yet your curiosity is piqued by reasonable-thinking people who believe differently. Is that an accurate assessment?

quote:

---

But it is also not very clever to ignore evidence just because it doesn't agree with the conclusion you want to be true.

---

Are you claiming that I've done this?

quote:

---

If you tell me that invoking the supernatural and unknowable is an "interesting" answer to anything then, again, I will disagree.

---

I wouldn't. If you think I have then I can think of specific posts I've made in other threads in which you have participated that prove otherwise.

quote:

---

I don't see "somethingsupernaturaldidit" as any different at all to "Goddidit" as an answer. We condemn creationists for falling back on "Goddidit" but how is what you are doing here ultimately any different?

---

You're rapidly slipping away from the reality of what's actually been said by RAZD or me.Your final questions seem to be losing focus on the topic here as well, which is that negative claims need evidence to support them just as positive claims do. Do you have anything to say in support of your negative position regarding theism other than "People make stuff up"? Remember -- the topic under discussion is not whether a supernatural explanation for anything is preferable to a naturalistic one. It's the question of whether G(g)od(s) exist(s).Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

LindaLou responds to me:

quote:

---

Hi Rrhain, still insisting on applying mathematics to metaphysics?

---

Ahem. You do realize that metaphysics is a branch of philosophy and that logic is, too, yes? That mathematics is based in logic, yes? That science exists only because of its philosophical underpinnings, yes?So no, I don't find any problem with applying logic to ontology. It's all part of the same thing. Have you even bothered to look up anything regarding the philosophy of science and/or the philosophy of knowledge?I am not here to do your homework for you.

quote:

---

Ontology

---

Argumentum ad dictionary? You know better than that, LindaLous. It's what creationists revert to when they try to claim that evolution is just as "guess" since "theory" means "guess." Ontology is the study of reality.But since you seem to like Wikipedia, let's look at what it has to say about ontology: Hmm..."electrons" and "god," both in the same category.Yes, I would say that the scientific method is an essential part of ontology for philosophy requires testing against reality or it simply becomes mental masturbation and we wind up in a crazy version of Candide listening to Pangloss. It's the flip of the creationist claim that "Science says bumblebees can't fly!" Your philosophy may say one thing, but reality doesn't really care about your philosophy. And the best way we have to study reality is scientifically. Thus, your philosophy had better be paying attention to how the world actually works.

quote:

---

Sure we can use science to obtain information about a rock's composition, age, history, etc. Ontology, as I'm sure you're aware, would look at what it's like to "be" a rock.

---

Are you seriously claiming that the physical characteristics of a rock have no bearing on what it's like to "be" a rock? This is a common argument among many theists: That the physical is something to be denied and discarded. Plato had the same problem, abandoning the world around him for his "ideal" world...and in the process wandering off into la-la land.

quote:

---

Your example of the null hypothesis only serves to explain what it is and how it can be useful in the scientific method.

---

That's because the scientific method requires the application of logic and the process of developing the null hypothesis and its presumption of truth is a part of logic.Are you saying we shouldn't study reality by applying logic? Just what should we apply? Gut feelings? Wishing makes it so? Clap your hands and shout out that you do believe in fairies and that somehow makes it true?

quote:

---

The problem is, when we look at metaphysics, it's all about defining the status quo

---

Where did I say otherwise? That's the entire point: The model works. The model is the status quo. So where is your justification that something more is needed?Why are you demanding chocolate sprinkles?

quote:

---

The question, "Is there a god?" is not on the same metaphysical ground as "Does three 'heads' in a row when I flip a quarter mean that I have a two-headed coin?".

---

Why not? Be specific.

quote:

---

I can't prove that anything exists outside of my own consciousness, can you?

---

Cartesian Doubt? That's your response? Even Descartes didn't hold truck with it.Hint: What is the difference between reality and a perfect imitation of that reality that can never be pierced no matter what circumstances could ever be made?

quote:

---

This is the null hypothesis until I have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.

---

What is your justification for thinking that you're in a sophisticated simulation of reality? It seems you fail to see how the null hypothesis applies to your own fanciful claim. The null hypothesis is that things are real. Where is your evidence that they aren't?Hint: What is the difference between reality and a perfect imitation of that reality that can never be pierced no matter what circumstances could ever be made?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Have you not read the work of Descartes and Popper and Kuhn or any of the other scientific philosophers?

---

​

Maybe you can cite some evidence from those sources that is appropriate to this topic?

---

I am not here to do your homework for you and it would be extremely inappropriate to try and type in the entirety of Meditations on First Philosophy. This is something you're going to have to do for yourself, LindaLou. You need to step away from the computer, go to the library, pick up a book, and read it. It will take more than two minutes. It is not something that can be discussed in soundbites. You need to read the entire thing before you can even begin to discuss it with any hint of ability.Note: Descartes believed in god and thought that his philosophy proved the existence of god.

quote:

---

And yet, accepting the truth of a null hypothesis (until shown otherwise) can make one prone to error.

---

For the fifth time: What part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with?You accept the null hypothesis precisely because you don't have any evidence to show that it is false. If you did, then you'd reject it. You don't accept it blindly. It is presumed true until you can find a reason to declare it false. You do understand what the word "presumed" means, yes?

quote:

---

There may be some truths which are unevidenced, unprovable, or which we cannot investigate without the right tools.

---

So if there is no evidence, what justification do you have to say that something else is required? Why are you demanding chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is something missing?No?Then what makes you think the model that is working really isn't?

quote:

---

This frame of mind excludes all these possibilities by default, refuses to consider them.

---

Incorrect. What it excludes is the claim that clapping your hands and shouting that you do believe in fairies has any bearing on their existence. Your personal belief that something is missing is not sufficient. You must show evidence that the model isn't working. Until you can do that, then the model continues to work.For the sixth time: What part of "until shown otherwise" are you having a hard time with?

quote:

---

It excludes, or considers irrelevant, many ontological questions because they are not empirically based.

---

Name one. Be specific.

quote:

---

Surely the more rational position to have in such circumstances is "I don't know for certain."

---

That assumes the complete absence of evidence but that is never the case. There is never a complete absence of evidence.

quote:

---

Maybe you can explain to me how it's rational to reject an idea with no evidence for or against its validity with the statement, "That's ridiculous," when such a statement has no iota of support?

---

Perhaps you can explain to me where anybody has ever said any such thing?Instead, what has happened is that people reject an idea with the statement, "That's ridiculous for these specific reasons: A, B, C, D...."You keep pretending like there is a complete absence of all evidence of any kind absolutely everywhere. Of course, if that were true, then we are left with the question of how on earth you can even know what the hell you're talking about since such an absence means you don't even have a word to describe it since words require descriptions and descriptions lead to evidence.Hmmm...perhaps that why RAZD is being so vague. By actually defining what it is he's talking about, that would lead to actual investigation into the reality of the object he has defined which may lead to a conclusion that it isn't there. By keeping it undefined, he can hope to wrangle an admission of ignorance which he can then twist into a claim of possibility. Instead, all that's coming is a demand to define that which he wants to discuss and until then, the entire question is nonsensical. How can one be "agnostic" about something that can't be described? How does one "not know" about 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.