Pseudoskepticism and logic

And so the denial continues. I am addressing this post to you but it is aimed more at any casual readers of this thread as frankly I think you are a lost cause.Do you think that there is rational justification to seek naturalistic answers over supernatural ones for any given unexplained phenomenon?How many previously unexplained phenomenon have been successfully explained by invoking the supernatural? How many natural phenomenon have been erroneously attributed to supernatural causes throughout history? If human history has taught us anything is it not that invoking the supernatural as an answer is a pointless dead-end that acts as a blockade to human progress and understanding?Why do you think that invoking the supernatural to explain "unusual" human experiences is any different? Why do you think that invoking an undefined unknowable supernatural "something" to explain the apparent willingness of humanity to attribute the unknown to the unknowable is any more valid as an explanation than every single other disproven supernatural explanation humanity has invoked throughout history? Purely because your supernatural "something" is as irrefutable as one can devise a concept to be? In effect the ultimate god of the ultimate gap. The god of the gap that is god itself.You talk about closed mindedness and pseudoskepticism. You talk about "interesting" possibilities. But the answer "somethingsupernaturaldidit" is no different, no better and no more interesting than the answer "Goddidit". Once you invoke the "unknowable" you hit a blockade to enlightenment and open the door to every flawed human misinterpretation of nature imaginable. If you really want to reveal the truths of reality, if you really want to seek out the interesting answers, then all of the evidence suggests that invoking the supernatural and unknowable is the very last thing we should do."Somethingsupernaturaldidit" is not the enlightened, open minded path to understanding reality you seem to think it is. It is in fact the very opposite. As evidenced by human history and the steady march of scientific understanding at the expense of superstitious mysticism. How much more evidence do you need?

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

No, compositional error.

---

But you don't know what that means. Where is the error? A logical "error of composition" is the claim that a collection of items has the same properties as individual items in the collection. For example, because an atom is extremely light, therefore a sky-scaper, being made of atoms, must also be extremely light.The IPU (BBHH) is functionally identical to any other god proffered. This isn't a question of "composition" but one of comparison. Since A is identical to B, then something that is true about B is necessarily true about A. That's the point behind identity.

quote:

---

The undistributed middle

---

Again, you don't know what that means. Where is the error? A logical "error of undistributed middle" is a syllogistic error: A -> B, C -> B, therefore A -> C. But that isn't the argument here. Instead, the argument is that A is identical to B. B -> C, therefore A -> C.

quote:

---

The only property the IPU (BBHH) shares with God, is that it is immaterial.

---

Incorrect. The "I" in "IPU (BBHH)" doesn't stand for "immaterial." It stands for "invisible."Instead, the IPU (BBHH) shares every characteristic you care to name with god. Thus, there is no composition. Instead, there is identity. A B, B -> C, therefore A -> C.

quote:

---

Making up characteristics for the IPU (BBHH) is posteriori, and will not prove that God's characteristcis are made-up or similar.

---

Once again, you toss about words you don't understand. The IPU (BBHH) is not "a posteriori" but rather by definition. It is designed specifically to be identical to your god. Therefore, any trait shared by the IPU (BBHH) must also be shared by god due to the nature of identity.

quote:

---

When are you going to learn that I do know what i'm talking about.

---

As soon as you demonstrate it. Instead, you toss out words you think I'm not going to understand in the hope of cowing me into submission: Dazzle 'em with bullshit, as the cliche goes. The problem is that I know all of these terms. I am a mathematician. Logic is a required course. You will note that in this conversation, it was I and not you who defined these terms you are throwing around.I have asked you to provide the way to describe the argument in terms of the logical errors you are trying to ascribe. So far, you haven't been able to do so. What is the "middle term" that is being distributed that you are claiming is the basis for an error of undistributed middle? What is the category that you are claiming is the basis for a category error?

quote:

---

You come up with a dumb IPU (BBHH) which is shallow, known to be made-up, and think that this means God was made up

---

First, I didn't come up with the IPU (BBHH). Someone much cleverer than I did (though I was there when she was). Her origins have no bearing to the logic behind her use in theological discussion. Surely you're not saying that things are true simply because someone believes them to be true, are you? That if we just clap our hands and shout that we do believe in fairies, then Tinkerbell really does exist?No, the arguments surrounding the IPU (BBHH) have to do with her traits, inherently inconsistent and incompatible as they are.

quote:

---

Hitler was a nasty pasty, but my imaginery friend is a nasty pasty, therefore Hitler didn't exist.

---

That's not the argument, though. Instead, it is that:Inherently inconsistent and incompatible traits are not amenable to existence. A and B have identical inherently inconsistent and incompatible traits. To reject A but not B is a logical error of special pleading.

quote:

---

IPU (BBHH) is immaterial

---

Incorrect. The IPU (BBHH) is invisible.

quote:

---

and ??silly/madeup unprovable negative??

---

Incorrect. Instead, "inherently inconsistent and incompatible in an identical way to any god proffered."Immateriality doesn't enter into it.

quote:

---

At best you have a line of reasoning based on reductio ad absurdum

---

You don't even know what that means. You do realize that reductio ad absurdum is a valid method of argumentation, yes? It lies behind the method of indirect proof: Assume that which is to be disproven and lead yourself to a contradiction. Because of the contradiction (reductio ad absurdum), the original assumption must necessarily be false.

quote:

---

but it's not solid enough because it's only one property.

---

Incorrect. The IPU (BBHH) is more than just invisible. She is identical to your god in every trait you care to name.

quote:

---

Logical positivism states that nothing exists until there is a positive, but does that mean everything we don't know wabout is silly?

---

Of course not. But nobody's saying that. Instead, what we're saying is that since the model works and you have no evidence to claim that it doesn't, it is silly to claim that the model doesn't work. Your claim of chocolate sprinkles requires evidence that demands their existence. Wishing doesn't make it so no matter how hard you clap your hands.

quote:

---

All you can now do is say that the IPU has all of those characteristics aswell, BUT it's all vacuous BECAUSE we still "KNOW" why the IPU exists. For refuting the possibility of God.

---

So? What does that have to do with anything? You're engaging in special pleading: A is identical to B and yet you reject A but not B. Since there is no difference between them, what is the basis for the exemption? Because you clapped your hands for one and not the other?The reason for introducing the IPU (BBHH) was to take out people's personal agendas with regard to the question. By pointing out the logical processes that people would take in order to reject the IPU (BBHH), we show that they cannot then claim special exemption for their own pet beliefs. Identical objects behave identically. A B. B -> C. Therefore, A -> C.

quote:

---

If belief in God is meaningful then amazing things will follow, (external).

​

Amazing things have happened. (external)

​

Therefore this confirms my belief in God.

​

Obviously it's the ponen, not the tollens, so don't accuse me of saying that these amazing things prove God.

---

But that's exactly what you've done. You've assumed that which you are trying to prove ("Therefore, this confirms my belief in god.") The only way this could confirm your belief in god is either by showing that the only way an amazing thing could happen is it being caused by god or by showing that the amazing thing in question specifically was caused by god. The mere existence of an amazing thing cannot confirm your belief on its own.And thus, you show that you don't even know what "ponens" and "tollens" mean. An argument of "modus ponens" is: If P, then Q. P, therefore Q. An argument of "modus tollens" is: If P, then Q. ~Q, therefore ~P.Your argument is neither but is, instead: If P, then Q. Q, therefore P.Modus ponens is affirming the antecedent and modus tollens is denying the consequent.Your argument is affirming the consequent which is a logical error.

quote:

---

All I am saying is that nobody's lives are affected by an IPU.

---

And you would be wrong.

quote:

---

They are only identical to you.

---

They are identical by definition. That's the point behind the IPU (BBHH).

---

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.

Except then you get into the problems of consistency, which I've already explained. If you don't want to acknowledge them, that's fine. Instead of just saying I'm incorrect, it would be helpful if you could explain why you think so. So far, you haven't been able to give any rational reason for why you are being inconsistent (and therefore the agnostic position is not rational).The subject of this thread is about showing why the burden of proof is on those who claim "100% false" to evidenceless ideas. This has already been answered many times over... no one here claims "100% false" to evidenceless ideas. And it's agreed that for those who do, a burden of proof does fall upon their shoulders. However, all people here claim is that while there is no evidence, it is more rational to ignore the concept.You seem to agree with this for aliens and Morlocks. But when God is concerned (an equally unevidenced idea), your inconsistency shows and you defend special treatment.Just because something is rational, doesn't mean that it's a 100%, undeniable description of reality. It's quite possible that God does exist. However, it's not rational to acknowledge such (above the most miniscule of levels) without any evidence to point towards such a conclusion.Like with Black Holes. They were entirely made-up and fictional. It turns out they are real. However, before there was any evidence to point towards them being real it was rational to ignore the concept. Turns out that being rational at this point temporarily resulted in an incorrect description of reality. No (known) system is perfect, but being objective and rational is the best system available. It destroys the competition completely and utterly in a "what works best to eventually discover the real world and not be fooled" arena.Temporarily being wrong is much better than fooling yourself forever.
This is the trade-off that being rational provides. It allows you to never be in an unreconcilably lost position. However (as all systems do) it does have the chance for temporarily being incorrect. Of course, it minimizes the chances of these temporary errors way better than any other method.So, it may very well be that we'll find some actual evidence of the supernatural at some point. However, until such a point comes, it is rational to ignore the concept. It is also irrational to believe in the concept.Exactly like how it is rational to ignore aliens and Morlocks until any evidence pointing in their direction is found. It's equally possible that we may one day find evidence of aliens or Morlocks.This method is the only one that retains consistency. When we break that consistency, it is only prudent to be honest with ourselves so that we do not create a fantasy world in our own minds. It certainly can be beneficial to us to break this inconsistencey. As you mentioned, we certainly can gain personal happiness, solace, and other benefits from irrational decisions and beliefs. And I have absolutely no problems for anyone who wants to pursue happiness in this fashion. I do it all the time myself when dealing with unimportant decisions like what video game I want to buy or what movie I'd like to go and see. However, it gets dangerous when we fool ourselves into thinking that this is actually rational. That's the beginning of confusing the objective and subjective, and that leads to living in a fantasy world.Only you can decide if being rational or being irrational is best for you in this situation. But it is dangerous to take an irrational position and think that it's rational... this is what leads to insane decisions.

Hi Rrhain, I was wondering when you'd rejoin us.I never was happy with my title for my previous post to you.

quote:

---

still insisting on applying mathematics to metaphysics?

---

I really should have said,
Still insisting on applying the scientific method to metaphysics?"

quote:

---

So no, I don't find any problem with applying logic to ontology

---

I don't either. But the scientific method is more problematic. By the way, while mathematics is logical, it is also a language for describing reality; and like the words we use, it can be used to make both true and false propositions while maintaining its internal logic. That's beside the point though.

quote:

---

Have you even bothered to look up anything regarding the philosophy of science and/or the philosophy of knowledge?

---

Am I supposed to be chastened by your alleged superior knowledge of the subjects? I asked you before if you would care to share anything that seems pertinent to this particular topic. Curiously, little seems to be forthcoming.

quote:

---

Argumentum ad dictionary?

---

Last I checked, the dictionary was handy for defining terms. Defining terms is pretty important in a discussion don't you think?

quote:

---

Hmm..."electrons" and "god," both in the same category.

---

Curiously, this particular example refers to the question of whether these nouns are physical entities or abstract concepts. It is not a discussion of science or theism and it is not concerned about the question of whether any of these terms are real or imaginary. I don't have a problem with conceiving of the divine as either physical or abstract, if she/she/it exists.

quote:

---

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 [snip]

---

Am I detecting a hint of a materialist prejudice here?
How do you test concepts against reality if there is no empirical evidence for those concepts?
Can the scientific method get us out of problems like solipsism? No.

quote:

---

Are you seriously claiming that the physical characteristics of a rock have no bearing on what it's like to "be" a rock?

---

I claimed no such thing. But the being-ness or essence of something is more than its physical characteristics. Unless you think like a materialist.

quote:

---

The model works. The model is the status quo.

---

Exactly what model are you referring to in this instance?

quote:

---

Why are you demanding chocolate sprinkles?

---

OK, I'm going to assume that your "model" is how we all believe we are experiencing reality. Whether or not you believe that this excludes anything that is non-verifiable empirically, I can't say. You then seem to be asking me why I'd want to add stuff to this model that isn't there.Maybe because I'm open to the possibility that it is there. I don't know. If you think we can be sure to any degree that it isn't there, then you need to support your claim with evidence. If this is impossible to do, then the rational position is agnosticism.

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.

---

Because the first question is one about the nature of reality, for which there is little or no empirical evidence. The second question is rooted in a known physical reality which is easily investigated. We know the probability of obtaining "heads" on three tosses of a coin and we can look at the coin.

quote:

---

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?

---

You don't seem to like Cartesian Doubt much, but you haven't explained what your particular problem with it is. He only "didn't hold truck with it" because it made him feel uncomfortable, and he used God as a get-out clause. I'm not sure what your question above has to do with anything; it's just another example of the problem Descartes had with trying to find something that is 100% certain.

quote:

---

What is your justification for thinking that you're in a sophisticated simulation of reality?

---

Pardon? When did I ever claim that this is the case?

quote:

---

The null hypothesis is that things are real.

---

I see. There are a few problems with this. Firstly, you are contradicting your original Wikipedia source which said that the null hypothesis is the "status quo," which is different. Secondly, how do you know what's real and what isn't? Have you suddenly obtained omniscience or enlightenment?

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?

---

Maybe you'd care to read the OP again? I can see where relying on the null hypothesis would work. I can see where it would stifle progress. I can see how it would make you closer to "wrong" than someone who took the agnostic position. I can see that it's nonsensical when we're talking about what constitutes the nature of reality itself and we have no empirical evidence to go on. Are you even willing to concede the possibility that there may be things that exist for which we don't currently have any empirical evidence? If not, please explain your reasons.

quote:

---

There is never a complete absence of evidence.

---

Really? Where do you see evidence for or against the existence of the divine? "Absence of evidence" does not itself constitute evidence.

quote:

---

How can one be "agnostic" about something that can't be described? How does one "not know" about nothing?

---

How can you be anything else in the absence of evidence? If you'd used the word "atheistic" instead of "agnostic" in your first sentence, as some others have done here, then this would have been another lightbulb moment.

Well I've asked you what you think the number x is, but you haven't answered. I think it is high, and I can show why. I'm not asserting that 'there are gods' is unverifiable. I'm asserting that the claim 'there are unverifiable agents' is unverifiable. If you are talking about verifiable gods then the argument for or against them might be different. I've been arguing for some time that there is a common set of causes to beliefs in gods and their kith and kin. Is that all you were saying? As for the purpose of a common belief in god - there doesn't need to be one any more than there is a purpose to optical illusion, cancer, our blind spot or any other of a number of 'silly designs'. The evidenced reasons probably lie in evolutionary contingency, 'just good enough' brain design.It is a field under present study, but there are some interesting answers. Hmm. Well I hold that x is very high, possibly infinite. Which is why my view is as it is. I can show my argument as to why it is high. A very well thought out argument. You make an assertion without explaining it and expect it to hold weight? I have not only not done as you say, but I've been saying the exact opposite. I'll take that as a no. I don't have evidence that it isn't. Just like any other of a thousand similar hypotheses. I think that the evidence displays a strong likelihood that there is a common set of causes for these common experiences. OK, so assuming it one is not more likely than another (based on what evidence we currently have), then that means that either one is equally likely to be true. If we are only considering the two possibilities and we assume one of them is true - the probability you pick the right one is 50%I put it to you that there are a lot more than two possibilities and that this means the probability is likewise lower. Yes, they could. Or they could not. And we still don't end up any wiser as to what that truth is (it might be something trivial like 'there is more to the universe than we know'). What we do agree on is that there is a common set of causes behind these phenomena. It is an argument from incredulity in that I am explaining why I am incredulous to the god hypothesis. I am not arguing that the god hypothesis just feels personally improbable I can't see how it could be true therefore it isn't. I am arguing that I have a set of reasons for believing that the god hypothesis is improbable, I've laid them forward for examination. If you think that the reasons I have put forward would categorise me as a pseudoskeptic, then go right ahead. I don't feel that it is a problem to be a pseudoskeptic by those standards. If however, you see a specific problem, then speak out.I have addressed the common elements to religious experience on a number of occasions, and it is embedded into the argument. Do I need to repeat it? Are you going to continue dismissing my argument with skeptical sounding catchphrases and by ignoring the important parts or are you going to show that your view of my argument is true?

Mod's argument in brief

1. There are common experiences.
2. Almost certainly as a result of common causes.
3. What people believe is the cause, and what the cause is are separate things.
4. There is evidence for some of the proposed causes.
5. There is no evidence for many many possible causes including those that have been proposed and those that have not yet been proposed.
6. The chances that you picked the right set of causes from the evidence-less pile is low given the size of the superset.Note: I've tried to generalise this argument, it isn't just about gods or chi or ghosts. It is about any experience that is common such as optical illusions etcIf at any time you care to address this argument I'll be keen to hear your view. I am still unsure which of the above statements you disagree with and why.

No, because I am basing it on all the objective reality I have, namely, people make things up, whther consciously or subconsciously, to provide an answer for something they can't answer.The reality is that we don't know: agnostic. So, based on not knowing, do you then decide to believe? If not, you're atheistic. Not at all. Agnostic means something entirely different from atheistic. In fact, they talk about two entirely different phenomena, they are not in opposition, nor are they synonymous, they're completely different. One deals with knowledge, one deals with belief (or more accurately, lack of belief).There is absolutely no certainty in the atheistic view. It is a negative definition, a lack of something. If someone has not actually made the decision to believe, they lack belief. Therefore, they are atheistic. Once someone decides to believe, they are not atheistic. However, someone can (and people quite regularly do) make belief decisions without complete knowledge...mostly because complete knowledge is impossible to attain. So, we are all agnostics, even theists and deists. What we decide to believe based on our incomplete knwoledge is completely different from whether we know or not. And that's why we have this debate raging for thread after thread after thread. The diagram is showing all possibilities of belief, not touching at all on knowledge. Agnostic is a knowledge statement, and therefore is not represented at all on the graph. If you're a theist, you believe. If you lack belief, you are an atheist. Now, whether you then believe in the lack of gods is again, another category (the blue shading) but as long as you do not actually believe, then, by definition, you lack belief, whether you assert the possibility or not. The 50/50 position on belief is an atheistic position, because you do not actually believe. Ok, in the blueshading is people who assert: "I believe there are no gods." In the purple shaded are are people who say "I don't believe either way." And in the red shaded area are people who assert, "I believe there is a god."Can we both agree that people in blue and purple both contain the property of not having belief in gods? If so, we've just defined atheism, which is the lack of belief in gods. Atheism does not make the positive statement, "I believe there are no gods." It's merely the negative statement, "I DON'T believe there are gods," which is a far different statement. The first believe in the lack, the second merely lacks belief.What you and RAZD seem to be doing is conflating belief statements and knowledge statements.I don't KNOW if there are god/s: I'm an agnostic.
I don't believe there are gods (based on the evidence I have seen): I'm an atheist.I don't KNOW whether there is an invisiible wall in front of me when I'm walking: I'm an agnostic when it comes to the invisible wall.
I don't actually believe the wall is there (or I would try to protect myself from walking into it): I'm an a-wallist, I lack belief in the wall. But we can't, absolutely know anything, so following your logic, it is delusional to believe anything at all. We should take precautions against any and all possiblities, even the contradictory ones and therefore fall down in a quivvering mass of goo, unable to do ro decide anything. If there is absolutely no evidence one way or another, then it comes down to a coin flip. If you believe one thing over another, it's not delusional, it's just not logical. If we can acknowldge that, then we'll be fine once evidence shows up, even if it contradicts our previous belief. However, we're never in a complete vaccuum of evidence. As others have shown, there is the possibility of human invention, intentional or not, and we CANNOT discount that as a possibility. If that's all we have to go on, I agree it's not much, but it's more than the total lack of evidence for the claim being true. Until there is evidence provided, the only evidence we have is on the side of the nonbelievers, thus that is the logical side to be on, despite not being able to say we know, and allowing the possibility of changing our minds if and when new evidence comes in.

Not for no. But there is objective evidence that strongly suggests the mutually exclusive alternative of human invention. The ""People make stuff up" (your words) argument that you seem so determined to simplisticaly misrepresent. The objectively evidenced fact that you are so wilfully determined to deny as being the legitimate baseline position. Oh dear. We seem to have reached that inevitable point in proceedings where the proponents of mysticism are on the brink of invoking the "brain in a jar" scenario. Where rather than discuss the objective evidence available we are instead forced to contemplate the solipsistic notion that all reality is wholly subjective. Why must we pursue this pointless conjecture? Purely because the proponents of mysticism are in denial regarding the consequences and conclusions of the objective evidence at hand.LindaLou if you are claiming that any concept of the supernatural you hold exists solely in your mind then I, nor Oni, nor I suspect anyone else will particularly disagree with you. If however you are claiming that some aspect of an unknowable supernatural reality exists externally to your own mind and has been revealed to you by means of meditation (or whatever) then you need to pull your head out of that silly little solipsistic rabbit hole you have managed to dig for yourself and present us with the evidence that you have used to deduce this conclusion. Along with your reasoning for supposing that the method of acquiring knowledge you have chosen leads to conclusions about external reality that are any more reliable than simply wishful thinking on your part. As for your "kernel of truth theory", your advocacy of a supernatural "something" based on lots of people believing in a supernatural "something"....... Well I have a number of criticisms. Firstly how arrogant! Lots of people don't believe in "something" actually. Lots of people believe in Christ. Lots of people believe in Allah. Lots of people believe in Vishnu. Lots of people did once believe in Apollo etc. etc. etc. You have the gall to call the atheists arrogant for judging these beliefs as very probably wrong but at the same time you see fit to tell every believer that they are in fact wrong about the specific object of their belief because they are in fact unwittingly supporting your advocacy of "something". How nice of you to tell others what they really believe in.Secondly arguing that belief in "something" is itself evidence upon which to base belief in "something" is an obviously circular argument.Thirdly if we do accept that belief itself justifies belief then my son and his squadron of little nurseryites will give you (at great length and in a cocophany of excitement) reams of evidence in favour of the actual existence of Santa Claus. Go figure. I thought the question being posed was whether or not atheism was evidentially and rationally justified? I thought you were citing your "kernel of truth" argument in favour of the supernatural actually existing? In which case the question of whether or not seeking a naturalistic answer for the reasons people believe in gods is rationally and evidentially superior to invoking actual supernatural entities as an explanation seems really rather relevant.But you and RAZD share the same penchant for declaring any questions you cannot (or more accurately do not want to) answer as off-topic and I expected little else from either of you.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I am almost hurt that you ever doubted me RAZD is playing debating games because deep down he knows that his position and his justifications for his beliefs are flawed and will not hold up to open scrutiny. He is trying to win a debate so that he can justify an argument. Quite possibly to himself as much as anyone else. But that said credit where credit is due. He is pretty fucking good at it. Not many could have strung this level of ambiguous bullshit out for as long as he has done. Even taking into account the rampant declarations of "off-topic" and other less impressive forms of evasion. Which is why he won't describe it and should he ever be forced to do so he will backtrack rapidly. Exactly as he did conversing with you in this very thread. Onifre is onfire! I am sure I am not the first one to make that pun but I enjoyed it anyway. Dude you should post pissed more often!Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Well I won't speak for Rrhain but I would suggest that the model is the model that doesn't require supernatural gods to intervene at any point. The model that explains the observable phenomenon in terms of the objective evidence. It is an objectively evidenced fact that people believe in the "divine". But whether this is most rationally and evidentially explained by invoking the supernatural or by seeking the objectively evidenced naturalistic alternative is surely at the heart of the matter here.Given the history of science Vs mysticism is it ever now rationally and evidentially justifiable to invoke the supernatural over the naturalistic answer to such questions where a naturalistic answer exists? That is a genuine, as opposed to a rhetorical, question. No claim operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence LindaLou. That is, and has been for a very long time now, my defining point. Imagine the following single isolated subjective experiences:If I say I have just seen a bird is that likely?
If I say I have just seen a cat is that likely?
If I say I have just seen a T-Rex is that likely?
If I say I have experienced Thor creating thunder and lightning is that likely?
If I say I have experienced Jesus Christ is that likely?
If I say I have experienced an immaterial supernatural unknowable "something" is that likely?In each case we bring to bear a mass of objective evidence in order to evaluate the claim. Birds and cats are common and highly objectively evidenced phenomenon. T-Rex's are extinct (a conclusion borne from objective evidence). We know that thunder and lightning have little to do with Thor's hammer. We know for a fact that people have a long history of erroneously attributing unexplained natural phenomenon (such as storms) and experiences to supernatural entities. In your "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" lala land each claim operates as an island. Thus a subjectively experienced T-rex is no more or less likely than a subjectively experienced god or a bird in objective terms. But once we stop treating each claim as an evidential island, once we factor in the objective evidence that indisputably surrounds each claim, the situation is very different.As much as you despise it, deride it, mock it and outright deny it, the fact is that humans can and do create false concepts to explain the phenomenon and experiences that they do not understand and cannot explain. This is utterly undeniable. Thus the baseline position needs to take this into account. Yet you and RAZD remain in denial of this overwhelming objectively evidenced fact. You talk of "absence of evidence" and "50-50 agnosticism" when there is just no such thing. Your position amounts to creationist style denial of fact. Period. I have a concept in my head LL. It could be anything. It could be buttered toast. It could be the French political system. It could be a vision of the universe with the Sun orbitting the Earth. It could be my imaginary friend. It could be the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It could be anything humanly imaginable. I know what this concept is but I am not going to tell you. Are you agnostic about the actual existence of this concept? Or atheistic? Or "theistic"?Saying you are agnostic about the existence of telephones (for example) would be a pretty dumbass thing to say would it not? Any claim of "I don't know" on your part relates to the meaningless of my question. It cannot be taken as a sign of agnosticism towards the actual concept in question until that concept is revelaed (I was actually thinking of the concept that is "the English language").So when you and RAZD say you have a concept of "the divine" that you wish us to pronounce our agnosticism, atheism or whatever towards but won't tell us what it is how is this actually any different to my example? And if you genuinely do not know what concept of "the divine" you are asking us about how the hell can either of you believe in "it" either?I put it to you and RAZD that you are playing word games. Word games to falsely get the answer "I don't know" in response to the meaninglessness of a question whilst then claiming this pronounced "agnosticism" as relating to the concept that you won't, or can't, define.

Hi bluegenes, But it is. Why? Because I did not use the "50/50" pseudo-probability to describe my position, rather I used the words, as they are a more accurate description.You can't do probability without knowing all the possibilities.To claim that I said it was 50/50 is just as false as Straggler saying that my description of what a deist might say is my personal description, because it is a misrepresentation of the truth. Last time I looked misrepresentation was a falsehood. And the reasons why I discarded the pseudo-probabilities from further discussion are (1) it is a made up probability that is not necessary to describe the positions, while (2) you and others are obsessed with discussing the numbers rather than the issue. More pseudo-probabilities with made up infinities to sound like a reasonable position. They all have a common denominator - that at some (unknown) time in the past the world was made up by god/s.Every one of your "effectively infinite number" are cescribed by that one single position.Let's compare your argument to the example I provided for the age of the earth, which - interestingly - you completely avoided: Message 427
Now, what your argument is like would be if I had claimed that I don't need to provide evidence for the earth being older than 400,000 years, because there are an "effectively infinite number" of ages between 0 and 400,000 so the probability of it being any chosen age is infinitesimally small. Thus a younger earth is "extremely unlikely, as it's one of an effectively infinite number of equally evidenceless propositions."Curiously, I don't think that argument would have lasted as long as the one currently in it's 4th incarnation.Do you, perhaps now, understand why I think phaque calculations of pseudo-probabilities that are really nothing more than dressed up personal opinion are as worthless a measure of reality than honest opinion? And deprive the others of the opportunity to actually show some evidence for the atheist position?Straggler and some others are now claiming that I am in denial, as if this is an argument for the atheist position being logical, and I have to wonder what he thinks I am in denial about:

• the evidence that has not been presented?
• the logic that doesn't hold up to scrutiny?
• the absent posts addressing the issue of providing evidence for a negative position?
• the equivocation that atheism = agnoticism and therefore is immune even though the next breath says that X is "highly unlikely"?
• the argument that the negative hypothesis is the "default" hypothesis, as if THAT excused it from providing evidence when it is asserted as "highly likely"?

I'd ask what I am missing, but the fact is that what I am missing is an honest debate about atheists providing actual evidence to support the atheist stance, an argument that can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the negative claim that there are no gods is substantiated by anything other than opinion, evidence comparable to the evidence that the earth is not younger than 400,000 years.Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Hi Modulus,It appears that we are at a cross-roads. etc etc etc.And yet you have not shown that any two such concepts are completely and entirely mutually exclusive, but keep operating on that assumption.Your argument is like the analogy of the green leaves, that every leaf is measurably different from all the others, and therefore being able to select a single leaf that is the "true" leaf is next to impossible. You've posited a blind man picking a leaf and just by chance finding that "true" leaf.And yet the blind man can pick up any leaf in any forest in the world in the last 400,000 years (just for good measure), even including dead and well preserved leaves, and be almost 100% guaranteed of finding one with chlorophyll in it. That is not the question. The question is what is the purpose of the religious or spiritual experiences - why do they occur, now how, and why do they have common elements. I already have.Your point 4 does not address ALL cases, so it is not a refutation that many experiences could be entirely valid religious and spiritual experiences, nor does this show beyond a reasonable doubt that this can explain all the religious and spiritual experiences.And you have not been able to demonstrate that an explanation for how a religious experience occurs means that it necessarily is not a true experience of a religious or spiritual nature. We can explain how we see things with our eyes, but this does not explain why we see, nor does it mean that what we see is explained by the how mechanism. Now if you want to argue that our vision is subjectively interpreted in a flawed and error prone manner, then I will agree with you, but note that even so there are valid experiences seen with our eyes, experiences that are evidence of reality and that can be repeated by other people.Your point 5 seems to be claiming that the explanations in point 4 do cover all the possible religious and spiritual experiences, even though it is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt that this is so.You have not been able to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that there is no "god=chlorophyll" common to the many numerous and well documented instances of religious and spiritual experiences.Without the assumption that 4, 5 and 6 are valid points, you are left with not enough evidence to show that the existence of gods is "highly unlikely" beyond a reasonable doubt.Curiously, all it takes is one religious or spiritual experience to actually be true to render your whole argument void. There remains reasonable doubt that your claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" is a valid conclusion, the claim has not been substantiated.Now that we have driven that issue into the ground, can we deal with the issue of providing evidence or logical proof to substantiate any negative hypothesis or claim?Let's try these simple scenarios:

1. Do you agree that the agnostic bears no burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I don't know whether X is true or not, because there is insufficient evidence or information on which to form a rational decision pro or con"?
2. Do you agree that the absolute theist bears a burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is true because evidence or information on which to form a rational pro decision is available"?
3. Do you agree that the absolute theist has not born the burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is true because it is my opinion"?
4. Do you agree that the absolute atheist bears a burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is not true because evidence or information on which to form a rational con decision is available"?
5. Do you agree that the absolute atheist has not born the burden of providing evidence or logical proof for saying that "I know X is not true because it is my opinion"?

Do you agree that 2 and 4 are similar, and thus we need to see the evidence or logical proof that demonstrates - beyond a reasonable doubt - that it is not just opinion?Do you agree that 3 and 5 are similar, and that both fail to meet the standard of providing evidence or logical proof substantial enough to show beyond a reasonable doubt that their position is true?After we can find some agreement on these points then we can proceed to what is rational for mixes of atheism and agnosticism or theism and agnosticism.Enjoy.

---

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) • • •

Thanks for these two posts RAZD. I think they nicely summarise what you and I have been saying. I haven't been able to keep up with the posts to me here, I have 8 waiting again, but I think what you've just said addresses them pretty well. People are trying to have the exact same arguments with me that they are with you and I don't think they're reading the posts by both of us.I would add that it's interesting how some here don't like the solipsism proposition. And yet they feel that all they need to say about it is it's "navel-gazing" or nonsense -- I have not seen any attempt at providing evidence against the proposition anywhere on this thread. It's the same as atheism guys -- if you're going to declare with any certainty then you need to back it up with evidence.

I hope so, it feels like a roundabout. I haven't shown it, because it clearly isn't so. I certainly haven't been operating under that assumption. Several times I have suggested that the chances of correctly picking out a subset of entities from the superset are low. The case where there are only two options, and only one of them is correct - is used for illustrative purposes. The description causes could trivially be modified so that they are mutually exclusive in case you were thinking that mutual exclusivity was all that important. Yep - and a person can pick any concept and find it conceivable. I'm not sure why that is an interesting thing to say.We of course, cannot rule out the possibility that one leaf is both green and contains no chlorophyll. It might be that some other molecule operates in the (as yet undiscovered) species of tree it belongs to. It might be that it is naturally white or some other colour and it was painted green by somebody. It might be that it is actually red but for some reason the crazy moon beings are using their blasted ray to make humans perceive that single leaf as 'green'.But I'd be inclined to think that any given leaf is probably green because of chlorophyll rather than crazy moon beings, despite not having a shred of evidence that rules out crazy moon beings. The same argument applies. There need be no more reason that the reason we are so compellingly fooled by optical illusions, or why we have a blind spot or any other 'silly design'. There might be more reasons - maybe it helped build larger communities in our evolutionary history. I suspect it might be like asking why do we enjoy cake or music or any art, why do we laugh/smile or have any definable 'pleasures'. I've not suggested that it was a refutation of all experiences for one single second. You are not discussing my argument. Try again. Why would I? I do not believe that it is the case - it is not my argument. Yep, and they often report objects which can be weighed, touched, and measured. If you tell me you experience an optical illusion moving, even if everybody else reports they see it to. That does not mean that the picture is moving, "What people believe is the cause, and what the cause is are separate things." Not at all. 4 + 5 actually says that there are a set of possible causes. Some of which we have evidence for (4) and some of which we do not (5) and that there are many members of the set described by (5). You are making it out to be far more extreme than the words I am using, almost like you think I'm a hardline extreme atheist and so you are trying to interpret my words as if I was trying prove the statement 'God does not exist' rather than explain the position 'I think a god is unlikely to exist'. Almost like. Of course, that isn't true. But then again, it is possible. Correct. But I have at no point argued that god is not a real or existent entity. You misunderstood my points 4 and 5 and have not tackled point 6.Now do you accept that there are some causes of religious experience for which we do have evidence for? If so, you agree with point 4.Do you accept that there is a possibility for some cause for which we do not have evidence for (I assume you do) AND that there are many such possible causes? If so, you agree with point 5. I think you think my claim is a negative hypothesis or claim. So I've done that - your criticisms seem to be levelled at an entirely different argument that I'm not actually making. Disagree. There are two claims being made here:
1) I don't know if it's true.
It might seem trivial, but it is a claim.2) There is insufficient evidence.
This is a negative claim, so by your standards it requires evidence. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. I thought we all agreed on these points a long time ago, and we were trying to justify the Dawkinsian '6' rather than the '1's and '7's.Edited by Modulous, : correcting grammar, expanding a few points.

Hi Modulus, And there you have a negative claim with no attempt to provide evidence. So (5) is the set of imaginary mechanisms similar to (4) that you have made up to enhance your argument. Except that I have, you just reject it because the refutation contradicts your beliefs. Here is your rejection again: You have made an a priori assumption of virtual exclusiveness and then use this assumption to claim that the possibility of common elements "clearly isn't so" when you have not born the burden to show why it "clearly isn't so" which brings us to: So you are clearly guilty of the absolute atheist type argument when you say X "clearly isn't so" and the question is whether it is the first case - pseudoskepticism - or the second case - in which case, where is the evidence. The real claim that the agnostic says is "I don't know if it is true OR FALSE" and one cannot logically "utter" that it is both true and false. How does one claim that? This has been done.Curiously, the absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence.The other part of the claim is that the evidence for the possibilities of god/s is not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that god/s exist AND AT THE SAME TIME that the evidence for the possibility that no god/s exist is not sufficient to show beyond a reasonable doubt that god/s do not exist. With neither claim being adequately supported, there is insufficient information or evidence on which to base a rational decision. Yes, so now we can discuss the "blended" positions and their relative rationality. For instance the blended atheist claims that he doesn't say that there is no possibility that god/s exist, just that he thinks it is "unlikely" "very unlikely" or "highly unlikely" -- all of which are assertions about the relative truth of the claim, and not statements of "I don't know because there is insufficient evidence to know pro or con"So the "blended atheist" is a combination of agnostic position + atheist position, and the atheist portion needs to be supported by substantiating evidence or logical proofs, or subsumed in the agnostic portion.The "weak atheist" (agnostic atheist) says that "overall the evidence is insufficient, we cannot know for sure, pro or con, but my personal opinion is that god/s are not likely." Because opinion is not evidence and it lacks any ability to affect reality in any way, this is really a claim of being an agnostic first and foremost: the claimant is predominantly agnostic if they recognize the inherent fallibility of their opinion, and pseudoseptical agnostic if they do not - as you agreed in relation to the absolute atheist basing a claim of knowing the truth based on opinion.The strong atheist says that "overall the evidence is sufficient to show that god/s are "very unlikely" or "highly unlikely" although there is a slight, small, possiblity of god/s being true. Here the claim is predominantly atheistic, and the claimant asserts there is sufficient evidence to judge the relative likelihood of god/s. This claim needs to be supported, or we have another pseudoseptical agnostic condition. Let's look at another example: the YEC claim that life could not possibly develop from chemicals. They can claim that there are virtually millions of possible combinations of chemicals, and the likelihood of your blind man picking one that actually results in life is extremely low, therefore it is extremely highly unlikely that life developed from chemicals.The problem is that a single instance of such development shows that it is not impossible. While such a single example will not show absolutely that the life we know began in exactly that way, it does provide sufficient evidence that the formation of life from chemicals is possible beyond a reasonable doubt.Curiously, when this same logic is applied to your argument about gods, a single instance means that your claim is wrong, invalidated, void, null.Thus you need to show that you claim applies in all instances. This just has not been done, (4) does not do this and assertions otherwise (5) are just additional opinion.Thus your (6) is not demonstrated beyond an reasonable doubt, (4) does not do this and (5) insufficient to show an exclusive explanation is even possible.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : full quote

---

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) • • •

Now you are getting silly. It's like you aren't even following the immediate discussion. Do you honestly think it is not clear that any two such concepts are not necessairily mutually exclusive? Your entire argument seems at least partially based on the premise that that they are not mutually exclusive possibilities for unverified entity's sake!It seems clear you have completely misunderstood what I was saying. (5) is the set of all possible mechanisms for which we have no evidence. (5) includes god. If you want to argue that I made up god, then I guess the argument is over. For evidence of this you present me talking about something entirely different: Gibberish. How you can so tragically misunderstand my position is shocking.The possibilities are not mutually exclusive. Several of them might be true at the same time!This is clearly true.There are common elements, which are probably explained by common causesYou have have so badly misunderstood my argument you are trying to make out I am saying the EXACT opposite of what I am actually arguing. Instead of trying to show my argument fails - how about we just concentrate on you understanding what it is? It is very very simple - even if you happen to disagree with it.I won't defend your version of my argument because it is gibberish. I'll defend my argument when you get round to understanding it. Hopefully it is now clear that my reference to it clearly not being so was in reference to you thinking I was claiming one thing which I wasn't because it clearly wasn't true. And we both agree it isn't true. How you interpreted to mean that is beyond me. So we agree that it is a claim for which there is a burden of evidence required? Whether the burden had been met was not the question you asked me. Yes, which I have been debating with you for some time. Did you think we were debating something else? It would explain a great deal.Now that you are on the same page, explain to me why my argument doesn't support the position that god is unlikely, thanks. The correct response to the Creationist claim is to say that nobody supposes that amino acids randomly bump into each other and out poofs a complex organism. That there are a sequence of probable, perhaps inevitable steps that occur.And yes - if a single god exists then the probability that a god exists is 1 - this isn't curious at all The same can be said of the IPU, to those that think it is unlikely - yes? Based on the evidence we have to hand, we cannot say this at this time. As you seemed to concede - the probability there is a god is not greater or lesser than moon rays. Indeed there are many possibilities with equal grounding and no way to tell which is more likely. Let's consider a specific (and real) case.I have a religious experience.It might be that it was caused by an entity or process for which we have evidence (4).It might be that it was caused by an entity or process for which there is no evidence (5).Do you agree that this just about covers it?Great.OK. So let's assume that it actually turns out to be (5).Now, the question is - which entity or process was it?We don't know, right? But if we decide to pick one, or a collection
of processes and I was to ask you - "What is the probability the one I picked is right?" what is the answer? It might be difficult to give an exact answer, but I think it is evident that it is low.There are many many possible processes/entities that fall into (5). I am fairly sure that there are plenty of things in the (5) which will one day by (4). It might even be the case (and probably is) that there are some things in (5) that are real and they will stay in (5) throughout the entirety of human history.It is a huge set.So, let us suppose that I think the experience was given to me by ultimately malevolent 'demonic' figures who want to tease me with temporary glimpses of greatness only to have them snatched away.This is possible.It is one many many possibilities.If we assume of those many possibilities is true - what are the chances that the 'taunting demons' hypothesis happens to be the right one (or among the right ones)? I would say it was many to 1 against.