Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 511 of 562 (528756)
10-06-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 495 by RAZD
10-06-2009 4:07 PM


Re: probability problems continue
They still only explain how such experiences would occur.
Agreed.
They do not disprove the existence of god/s.
Correct. You keep saying this like I've disagreed with you about it or something. It's quite odd.
Dividing them into piles does not answer the question.
Which question, exactly, does it not answer?
Both the mechanical explanation and the religious\spiritual experience could be occurring at the same time.
Yes, they could. And both the mechanical explanation and CIA poisoning could be occurring at the same time. This is perfectly in line with the argument I'm making - do you think it isn't?
How you experience something doesn't control what you experience.
Indeed. So - of all the possible things you could be experiencing (moon rays, CIA poison, aliens, Cartesian demons...) what are the chances any one of them is right if we assume that one of them is? I mean - we are going to have to essentially guess here, and you've guessed that god is preferred. I think your guess is no better than rolling a die, or interpreting entrails. Could you explain why this is not the case, if your choice is better?
Curiously, I have answered that, and I am agnostic on it
And then you go on to answer it 'no.' You suggest that you do not hold that omphalism is true and you suggest that you also do not hold that omphalism is false.
The question is - why do you decide to not hold that it is true? Why does it matter that there is no evidence? It could be true, right?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 495 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 4:07 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 514 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 9:40 PM Modulous has replied

kjsimons
Member
Posts: 821
From: Orlando,FL
Joined: 06-17-2003
Member Rating: 6.7


Message 512 of 562 (528757)
10-06-2009 8:55 PM


For all pratical purposes
This whole discussion reminds me of the joke about a mathematician and an engineer being on one side of a room with a scantily clad female seated on the other end. When told that they could only move half the distance between themselves and the woman each time they took steps forward, the mathematician refused to move as he would never reach the woman. The engineer immediately began crossing the room saying "I'll get close enough for all practical purposes!" .
Most people live their lives on the practical assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (until there is further evidence to refute it). So in general most people dismiss IPUs, orbiting teapots, Yeti, bigfoot, etc out of hand and so therefore, by RAZD's view, would be pseudoskeptics. Many people, me included also use this practical logic to dismiss the supernatural and supernatural beings until any positive evidence is provided (as there is zero evidence so far).
I don't see how dismissing somebody elses claim for something that they have no evidence for is asserting a negative position that I need to back up with evidence of my own. I'm not trying to refute the claim, I'm just making a practical decision to ignore/dimiss an unevidenced claim until there is evidence for it.
So RAZD are you really agnostic to orbiting teapots or not.
Edited by kjsimons, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 513 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 9:15 PM kjsimons has not replied
 Message 542 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:36 PM kjsimons has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 513 of 562 (528760)
10-06-2009 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 512 by kjsimons
10-06-2009 8:55 PM


Re: For all pratical purposes
Welcome to the thread Kisimons,
So RAZD are you really agnostic to orbiting teapots or not.
Why don't you read my posts and see if you can answer that question.
I don't see how dismissing somebody elses claim for something that they have no evidence for is asserting a negative position that I need to back up with evidence of my own. I'm not trying to refute the claim, I'm just making a practical decision to ignore/dimiss an unevidenced claim until there is evidence for it.
Dismissing (if you really need to) someone else's claim because it is not proven is not the issue here.
Making a claim that X is unlikely, though is different - it is asserting a relative truth, and this assertion needs to be supported.
Most people live their lives on the practical assumption that absence of evidence is evidence of absence (until there is further evidence to refute it).
Most people live their lives based on assumptions of what is true based on their personal world view of reality, whether that world view includes gods or not, and on the assumption that the world will continue to behave according to their personal world view of how reality behaves. This has no bearing on the actual truth of any of the world views involved, and nobody has an inside track on what reality actuall includes.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 512 by kjsimons, posted 10-06-2009 8:55 PM kjsimons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 10:26 PM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 514 of 562 (528761)
10-06-2009 9:40 PM
Reply to: Message 511 by Modulous
10-06-2009 8:54 PM


Re: probability problems continue
Hi Modulus, getting down to the end issue?
Agreed.
Correct. You keep saying this like I've disagreed with you about it or something. It's quite odd.
Yes, they could. And both the mechanical explanation and CIA poisoning could be occurring at the same time. This is perfectly in line with the argument I'm making - do you think it isn't?
Indeed. So - of all the possible things you could be experiencing (moon rays, CIA poison, aliens, Cartesian demons...) what are the chances any one of them is right if we assume that one of them is? I mean - we are going to have to essentially guess here, and you've guessed that god is preferred. I think your guess is no better than rolling a die, or interpreting entrails. Could you explain why this is not the case, if your choice is better?
So the fact remains that we do not know if a religious or spiritual experience could be real or not, not one of these arguments shows that one is more likely than another, and there just is not sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that either X or notX is true.
Neither position is proven
Neither position is invalidated
The logical position is that "we don't know" or the agnostic position.
Which question, exactly, does it not answer?
Whether or not the experience is a true experience of a religious or spriritual nature. This could be true in either pile.
And then you go on to answer it 'no.'
Read it again:
quote:
Curiously, I have answered that, and I am agnostic on it: why would you assume that I would change my position since Message 179, Message 197, Message 427, Message 445, and Message 478?
quote:
So on your question of omphalism:
Claim: omphalism is true. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
Claim: omphalism is false. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
The only logical position is impartial agnostic ... unless you have evidence.

There is no "no" there.
You suggest that you do not hold that omphalism is true and you suggest that you also do not hold that omphalism is false.
The question is - why do you decide to not hold that it is true? Why does it matter that there is no evidence? It could be true, right?
Either could be true, each is unproven, each is not disproven, each is not supported by sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt whether they are true or not.
If it is true, then it is true.
If it is false, then it is false.
And we won't know until we have evidence that demonstrates one or the other.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 511 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 8:54 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 515 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 9:56 PM RAZD has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 515 of 562 (528765)
10-06-2009 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 514 by RAZD
10-06-2009 9:40 PM


Re: probability problems continue
So the fact remains that we do not know if a religious or spiritual experience could be real or not, not one of these arguments shows that one is more likely than another, and there just is not sufficient evidence to show beyond a reasonable doubt that either X or notX is true.
I've never claimed that either X or notX is true and as such I didn't realize it was of import to this debate.
However, unless the person is lying - the religious experience is definitely real. The question at hand is 'what caused it?'. We can dream up any number of possible explanations, yes?
The logical position is that "we don't know" or the agnostic position.
Agreed, I don't know. Like I've been saying for some time now.
Whether or not the experience is a true experience of a religious or spriritual nature. This could be true in either pile.
No. No no no no no. No! That is not the case, by definition.
We have a pile of things that explain religious experiences for which there is evidence.
There is no evidence that god caused any religious experience.
So that hypothesis isn't in that pile.
God is over there -> On that huge pile of hypotheses for which we have no evidence.
Somebody picks up all the hypotheses that are consistent with 'god done it' and creates a third pile. This pile might contain a true hypothesis. But so might any other arbitrary pile of hypotheses. The chances that your arbitrary picking method managed to fortuitously pick one that is true is very low.
Read it again:
There is no "no" there.
Really? Looks like it to me - oh well I've been wrong before. RAZD holds the belief that omphalism is true.
Maybe I should have picked another example: Or do you hold them all to be true?
Of course - I anticipate you'll object. That's not true - read it again you'll say. And I'll say 'Oh, sorry so you don't hold the belief that omphalism is true'.
One state of affairs or another must be true. So which is it?
Is RAZD an omphalism believer?
Or has he withheld belief in omphalism because of the lack of evidence?
Or is the some other reason RAZD does not believe that omphalism is true?
I am not asking if RAZD believes omphalism to be false.
I am not asking RAZD if he thinks it can be known.
I am not asking RAZD if he thinks he does know.
I am merely asking RAZD if he has accepted a belief in omphalism. Does RAZD hold the belief that omphalism is true? Is RAZD a '2' on Omphalism?

Word it how you like. I'm almost certain the answer is 'no'. The follow up question remains: Why not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 514 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 9:40 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 10:34 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied
 Message 535 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:09 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 516 of 562 (528768)
10-06-2009 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 513 by RAZD
10-06-2009 9:15 PM


Re: For all practical purposes
So RAZD are you really agnostic to orbiting teapots or not.
Why don't you read my posts and see if you can answer that question.
Number of RAZD Posts: 10,877 and steadily climbing
Good lord, man. That could take a very long time!
Some of them ramble on for pages & pages.
And, if I'm not mistaken, isn't the Orbiting Teapot Around Mars one of Straggler's special little pets? So that means that when Kisimons starts getting close, there will be all those snarling tangles of huge rambling-ons between 2 of longest long-winded posters in the forum.
Give the poor Kisimons a break.
Maybe a math problem to solve for the right post/thread number?

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 513 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 9:15 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 518 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 10:43 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 527 by RAZD, posted 10-07-2009 8:38 PM xongsmith has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 517 of 562 (528772)
10-06-2009 10:34 PM
Reply to: Message 515 by Modulous
10-06-2009 9:56 PM


Re: probability problems continue
Is RAZD a '2' on Omphalism?
He said he was a '4'.
He doesn't believe and he doesn't disbelieve.
He doesn't know.
There's no 'no'.
And there's no 'yes'.
And furthermore these horsechestnuts are not in my mouth, they're in my hands.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 515 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 9:56 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 518 of 562 (528774)
10-06-2009 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 516 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 10:26 PM


Re: For all practical purposes
So RAZD are you really agnostic to orbiting teapots or not.
Why don't you read my posts and see if you can answer that question.
Number of RAZD Posts: 10,877 and steadily climbing
Sorry - new here. A lovely search function (thanks Percy!).
Post 157 in this thread, Kisimons.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 516 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 10:26 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2951 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 519 of 562 (528790)
10-06-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 6:11 PM


High xongsmith, (kinda liked that greeting RAZD gave you )
There may be a lot of stuff we can do before we have to go back and fill in the clouds with real stuff.
I believe, if I'm not misunderstanding what you're writing, that this proves my point in regards to the OP.
If nothing is inside the "cloud" -if no description is given- then how can anyone hold a negative position? What, at that point, do we hold a negative hypothesis for?
If you're saying that the "cloud" will eventually, or is tenetively, filled with possible ideas for unknown "things that can exist," then how is atheism relevant to the discussion?
Now, if you're saying that the "cloud" is God and what gets filled in it are the possible concepts for God, then this assumes the premise (cloud/god) is true without evidence for it yet. And this is a logical fallacy. However, showing how that is a logical fallacy (which I believe I have done) is not what I would call a negative hypothesis.
I may be wrong though but I would like it explained if I am, because I feel this is still an issue with the OP.
Sorry - just being flippant that time...couldn't resist.
LOL, oh I know, I just didn't want my point (if I even have one) to have been lost.
But anyway, it's a cloud, what difference would it make to the idea of the OP?
First, I'd like to say that I really enjoy your analogies. They're funny and actually make sense.
Anyway, to your question.
IMO, god, the word the OP assumes we have a negative hypothesis toward, doesn't mean anything until you give it a description. So the word "god" is meaningless until that point. Man created the word to describe a specific "something," refined many times over to now, at the most knowledgable times in our existance, describe a "vague, ambiguous force" that is unknowable.
IOW, man has now described this original "something" to be something that is unknown to man.
To defend this description, man introduces terms like "supernatural" to describe something that, by it's very definition, man describes as unknowable. So then you have to ask yourself, if man claims that god is unknowable, how can man at the same time claim that god has a characteristic such as "supernatural"...? - or in fact any other characteristic at all?
(One of those being that god is a mortal human being, which is a valid concept because of the infinite possibilities that exist for god. So know not only are supernatural concepts valid, but natural concepts of god are valid too.)
So then I would have to ask, if ANY concept is valid as a possibility, then how can anyone reasonably be asked to provide evidence against that?
Not only can god be natural, avoiding the "unknowable" quality about god (getting us past the BB issue), which gives us no need for atheism (avoiding the negative position). God can also be an endless possibility of "unknowable" things. So do we even know what we are looking for as evidence?
If any concept is possible, then god is anything, god is everything, and equally, god is nothing at all. Then what is anyone holding a negative position aganist?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 6:11 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 11:14 AM onifre has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


(1)
Message 520 of 562 (528827)
10-07-2009 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 510 by RAZD
10-06-2009 8:54 PM


Any evidence FOR the proposition "fairies are unlikely"? ANY AT ALL?
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
RAZD writes:
Hi bluegenes, this is getting tiresome.
Dawkins' scale: "4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' "
Ultimately your continued insistence on nit-picking a secondary argument is unproductive, off topic and irrelevant. The primary argument is from Truzzi and his definition of true skeptic. That this matches "Completely impartial agnostic" is all that is relevant to the thread.
If you're finding it tiresome, the fault lies with your terrible English comprehension. The Dawkins definition is clear, so you need to admit that you made a mistake and misread it when you answered my question. You are not a "4" about Omphalism on the Dawkins scale, which is fine.
Your position appears to be that there's no evidence on which to make a probability estimate on omphalism. This contradicts your description of all YEC models as being delusional and irrational. YEC omphalism is one of their models.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Truzzi defines the "true skeptic" as one who " takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." Atheism of the "6" variety on the Dawkins scale does not claim that the god hypothesis is disproved, neither does atheism claim to explain the ultimate origins of the universe and everything.
The problem is that you are still asserting that god/s are unlikely and that is a negative claim. On this claim the true skeptic would say "the claim is not proved rather than disproved" AND that if you claim a truth - that god/s are unlikely - you need to bear the burden of proof.
"Gods are unlikely" does not contradict the position that the claim is neither proved or disproved. English comprehension, again.
Truzzi is talking about the examination of phenomena. In the case of the god hypothesis, the phenomenon is the universe, "god/s" being presented as one possible explanation of its origin which, like all others, has no evidential support. As we have no knowledge of the ultimate origins of the universe, the skeptic will be agnostic on it, and will regard any specific unevidenced proposition as unlikely. Just as the proposition of universe making machines or the universe being formed by the collision of other universes would be regarded as unlikely.
Truzzi's burden of proof would apply to someone who is approaching the problem thinking that they have an explanation for the universe, as with his example of someone who explains a "psi result" as being due to some artifact.
Atheism does not offer an explanation for the ultimate origins of the universe, and a "6" on the Dawkins scale about god is just describing one of the evidenceless propositions made by others as very unlikely, as it would be, considering that it must be made up by humans who cannot look outside the universe, just like all other propositions in that area.
A "6" on the Dawkins scale about the god/s explanation of the universe is an impartial agnostic. Someone who promoted any proposition about the ultimate origin of the universe from a six to a five would be being partial to that explanation, as there's no evidence to support any of the many speculative ideas that we can make up about a completely unknown area.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
The "6" position is agnostic.
LOL
Over 500 posts on this thread and this is the best you can do? Special pleading anyone? Equivocation anyone?
English comprehension, anyone. Agnosticism is the position that one cannot know something.
Dawkins' "6": Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
"I cannot know for certain". Agnostic.
The Dawkins' scale is in a section of the book on agnosticism in which he describes himself as a "6", and as an agnostic. 2 through 6 on the scale are agnostic, because they do not claim certainty. As Huxley puts it:
quote:
"Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle." [6]
"Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him."
You quoted this earlier in the thread, apparently without much comprehension. Anyone who does not claim certainty on a given proposition is being agnostic on that position. Now, read "6" again.
This provides me with this humorous image:
Atheist: I'm an atheist, a "6" on Dawkins Skalea strong atheist, I believe that god/s are highly unlikely.
Terrible reading comprehension again. Read the Dawkins scale again, and you'll find that only sevens are defined as strong atheists.
RAZD writes:
Skeptic: where's your evidence?
"6" Atheist: The fact that humans have a proven tendency to believe in supernatural beings that are not there (there are many mutually exclusive beliefs) and that anything proposed to exist outside the universe must be a human fabrication, because we cannot look outside the universe. This, combined with the fact that all zero evidence propositions can be regarded as very unlikely, is why I think gods are very unlikely.
Any other position would be special pleading, and would indicate partiality towards gods.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
... but you'd probably treat it [killer bogeyman in his bedroom]as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, ...
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
So, you'd move out of the bedroom. Interesting.
Your view that omphalists are deluded would indicate that you are a 6 or 7 on omphalism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 510 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 8:54 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:13 PM bluegenes has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 521 of 562 (528851)
10-07-2009 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 505 by RAZD
10-06-2009 6:30 PM


Re: Denial II - The Revenge of The Deist
Straggler writes:
You are in denial of the objective evidence that favours human invention over the actual existence of gods. You are in denial of the ever diminishing role of the god of the gaps. You are in denial over the full range of possibilities that could be presented as unevidenced explanations for religious experiences. You are in denial of the circularity of citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief. You are in denial every single time you cite "absence of evidence" because no claim operates in a total vacuum of all objective evidence.
You are in denial.
None of which demonstrates that no god/s can exist
If anyone here had said at any point that gods cannot exist then you would have an argument clinching point here. As it is nobody has made that claim so your point is completely irrelevant.
Various people, including myself, have said that the actual existence of gods is but one explanation from a near infinite multitude of possible answers as to why people believe in gods. Various people, including myself, have pointed out to you that the possibility of human invention is a very evidenced possibility whilst the actual existence of gods is a wholly unevidenced possibility.
people make things up, people have religious experiences, therefore religious experiences are made up,
Nope. Nobody has made that illogical argument. I don't doubt the genuineness of the experiences. I simply question the cause of the experience as being god. Why do you elevate god as a more likely cause than telepathic dolphins, cosmic rays or any other wholly unevidenced explanation?
Because you are unwittingly assuming that belief in gods is itself evidence upon which to elevate the actual existence of gods as a superior answer. Belief itself as evidence upon which to justify belief. And so the circularity continues. Round and round and round you go.
"the absence of evidence is evidence of absence"
Nope. Even in the complete and utter absence of all other evidence we know as an objectively evidenced fact that the human brain is capable of, and indeed prone to, inventing and creating false concepts. As much as you deride this fact you ignore it at your peril. If you fail to take this fact and the associated context into account you end up declaring that every single irrefutable entity imaginable is worthy of agnosticism. Looking rather ridiculous in the process.
Immaterial toilet goblins, the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion, the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel, Vishnu, Allah, The Christian God, Mookoo, Wagwah, the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum that holds the universe in place on the back of the immaterial green turtle as it wades through the invisible aether, Santa Claus, The Easter Bunny, your deity, Catholic Scientist's concept of god, the tooth fairy, the garage dragon and every single other imaginable irrefutable concept anyone can pull out of their arse. By your foolish "absence of evidence" logic we should rationally be equally agnostic to all of the above and every single other unevidenced yet inherently irrefutable such claim. Go figure.
pseudo-probabilities that are nothing more than made up opinions
The god answer to the question of why people believe in gods is but one amongst a near infinite myriad of possibilities. Some potentially evidenced (e.g. commonality of human psychology). Some not evidenced at all (e.g. maliciously telepathic dolphins or the actual existence of gods). You are blinded by the circularity of your thinking into supposing that the god answer is superior to any other answer whether evidenced or not. In short you are more deeply embroiled in circularity and denial than ever.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 6:30 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 537 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:18 PM Straggler has replied

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


(1)
Message 522 of 562 (528866)
10-07-2009 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by RAZD
09-30-2009 11:49 PM


Evidence that unevidenced concepts are highly unlikely
RAZD writes:
And assuming that a claim is false or that it is based on imagination without having sufficient evidence to make that claim is not being rational.
And, again, no one is making such a claim. I'm only saying that any claim that has no evidence is highly unlikely to be true. Therefore, I'm ignoring any claim for which there is no evidence until such a time that evidence is found.
Modulous in message 509 writes:
RAZD in message 503 writes:
So where is your evidence that god/s are "highly unlikely"?
My evidence is that the god hypothesis is equally evidenced and unfalsified as any of a potentially infinitely large pile of other hypotheses and that there is no way to discriminate between any of them. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that guessing one (or using any method to pick for that matter) will strike it lucky.
...
That is the evidence.
No one is saying that such evidence proves God does not exist. I'm only saying that such evidence is valid for concluding that God is highly unlikely. As highly unlikely as any other evidenceless proposition.
I may be wrong. It may be that God actually does exist. But this position of ignoring the God concept until evidence is presented is based on evidence (as given above) and it's also consistent and rational.
Perhaps you're trying to say that the God hypothesis is "larger" in the sense of not being mutually exclusive with the rest of the infinite number of unevidenced possibitilies? And, if so, the God hypothesis should then be considered more of an either/or... like a mundane explanation or one including God? Thereby increasing it's relatively likelihood amongst the other unevidenced ideas?
There are problems with this though. Bascially, it's impossible.
1. God may not be mutally exclusive with a lot of other unevidenced possibilities. But the problem with the unevidenced possibility pile is that pretty much anything goes. As such, there is always an infinite number of unevidenced possibilities that are by very definition mutually exclusive with the God idea (or any other proposed, unevidenced idea). That is, things like "There is no God, but there is a _____" type of ideas. Strictly mutually exclusive to the God hypothesis, and yet still an infinitely large number of possibilities.
2. Or we can attempt to redefine what is meant by "God" to be more of a "anything that isn't a mundane explanation" type of unevidenced idea. This would seem to increase the "God hypothesis pile" to something more approaching 50/50. However, this only actually results in moving the goal posts. The first question would be a near 50/50 between "is it a mundane explanation or is it an unevidenced God (not mundane) explanation?" And this trivial totallity is quickly identified and replaced with the real question. Which is: "if it is an unevidenced God (not mundane), what is this not mundane thing? And the possible answers are, again, the entire pile of infinitely unevidenced ideas. Therefore, the "highly unlikely" issues of any particular one are equally valid as above.
There's no way to get around it. As soon as we start considering unevidenced ideas (regardless of it being God or not) there is always a valid infinitely large pool of other mutually exclusive ideas that are all equally unevidenced. There may be even more unevidenced ideas that are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't negate the ones that are.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2009 11:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 538 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:24 PM Stile has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 523 of 562 (528880)
10-07-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 519 by onifre
10-06-2009 11:52 PM


If you're saying that the "cloud" will eventually, or is tentatively, filled with possible ideas for unknown "things that can exist," then how is atheism relevant to the discussion?
I think I was saying the cloud is a consensus of what the group thinks are supernaturals things, whether they exist or not. Straggler would like to put his IPUs in there, but we kneaux those are made up apriori. Maybe Joe The Plumber will get rid of his toilet demons as well. One of the reasons I want to leave this as a cloud is exactly to address people trying to stuff it with nonsense. Clearly the group isn't ready to make a consensus definition of the supernatural.
Now, if you're saying that the "cloud" is God and what gets filled in it are the possible concepts for God, then this assumes the premise (cloud/god) is true without evidence for it yet.
I'm not saying that the stuff in the cloud is True. I'm just putting stuff in there that we think belongs in there and not deciding on whether it's True or False until later. The purpose of putting stuff in there is to get it out of the way of the other issue, which is finding a way to formulate how one would devise a scientific test to demonstrate the Presence of Evidence for a Universe with NO Supernatural things. We've had what I consider to be distractions from the OP regarding quantifications of probabilities, like "50-50" and "highly unlikely". And we've had a lot of Box 4, Absence of Evidence for a Universe with supernatural things. We've even had a lot of Occam's Razor parsimony, such as Rrhain's chocolate sprinkles not being needed. Which is not an issue of physical evidence.
And this is a logical fallacy. However, showing how that is a logical fallacy (which I believe I have done) is not what I would call a negative hypothesis.
I would agree if that was my intention with that cloud.
I may be wrong though but I would like it explained if I am, because I feel this is still an issue with the OP.
Yeah. Me too.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 519 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 11:52 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 524 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2009 12:48 PM xongsmith has replied
 Message 526 by onifre, posted 10-07-2009 5:06 PM xongsmith has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(3)
Message 524 of 562 (528905)
10-07-2009 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by xongsmith
10-07-2009 11:14 AM


I think I was saying the cloud is a consensus of what the group thinks are supernaturals things, whether they exist or not. Straggler would like to put his IPUs in there, but we kneaux those are made up apriori. Maybe Joe The Plumber will get rid of his toilet demons as well. One of the reasons I want to leave this as a cloud is exactly to address people trying to stuff it with nonsense. Clearly the group isn't ready to make a consensus definition of the supernatural.
By the definitions RAZD is insisting upon we are all "pseudoskeptics" with regard to immaterial toilet goblins. Rationally, according to him anyway, we should be agnostic until we have evidence of their non-existence.
That is kinda the point........
One of the reasons I want to leave this as a cloud is exactly to address people trying to stuff it with nonsense.
And who decides what is and is not nonsense? I personally and genuinely subjectively think that an immaterial pink unicorn who kicks off the universe and then watches it dispassionately is far more believable than a big beardy bloke who lives in the sky relentlessly intervening in the affairs of a small band of nomadic desert people before sending his son down to sort things out.
But rationally I would suggest both are worthy of a 6 our our scale of belief.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 11:14 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 525 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 2:28 PM Straggler has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 525 of 562 (528928)
10-07-2009 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 524 by Straggler
10-07-2009 12:48 PM


By the definitions RAZD is insisting upon we are all "pseudoskeptics" with regard to immaterial toilet goblins. Rationally, according to him anyway, we should be agnostic until we have evidence of their non-existence.
That is kinda the point........
One of the reasons I want to leave this as a cloud is exactly to address people trying to stuff it with nonsense.
And who decides what is and is not nonsense?
We decide by consensus, I guess. Later! Do it later!
I personally and genuinely subjectively think that an immaterial pink unicorn who kicks off the universe and then watches it dispassionately is far more believable than a big beardy bloke who lives in the sky relentlessly intervening in the affairs of a small band of nomadic desert people before sending his son down to sort things out.
I bet RAZD agrees with you there.
But rationally I would suggest both are worthy of a 6 our our scale of belief.
And I am agreeing with you on the '6'. It is a rational position. But that is not what the OP is looking for.
It isn't a defense of how rational your position is, it's a demand for Evidence. "Highly unlikely" is based on Box 4. "We've never seen it" is Box 4. "Every story turns out to be made up." is Box 4.
Now, if you argue that you are not using the Absence of Evidence to determine for you that it's "Highly Unlikely" then you are either making a very well-opinionated guess or you are relying on some Presence of Evidence, in which case I'd like to know what it is.
Box 1: Presence of Evidence for a Universe with supernatural
Box 2: Absence of Evidence for a Universe with NO supernatural
Box 3: Presence of Evidence for a Universe with NO supernatural
Box 4: Absence of Evidence for a Universe with supernatural
So far, Rrhain's observation that "The model works" is the only thing all of us '6's and '7's have come up with that goes in Box 3. However, for certain Deist positions, including even your IPU kicking the Universe off and then doing nothing, this body of scientific evidence is not contradicting that either and, under those circumstances, goes in Box 1. So it doesn't have much value. Neither position has been falsified. The YEC folk and perhaps the beardly bloke folk are in trouble.
Remember, this is not all about where you think you are on that scale - it's about providing Presence of Evidence.
(Maybe I'm a 5.7 - RAZD would like that choice)
Maybe this example will help. A vacuum box with sensors and windows and a special door. We can measure to our hearts content with the sensors and windows that the inside has reached vacuum. There is NOTHING in it. All our sensors & windows provide us with is the Absence of Evidence of something in the box.
Now to the special door. It's equipped to measure the airflow rushing in when it is opened in a well-known way. A prediction can be made on a whole raft of characteristics of the air flow if it is true that the inside in a vacuum. The door is opened, the data taken and - lo - the air flow behaved exactly the way we predicted it would if the inside was a vacuum. This is Presence of Evidence of nothing inside. I think this is the kind of evidence RAZD wants '6's and '7' to come up with. Not anything off those gauges and laser measurements on the sealed vacuum box.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2009 12:48 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 532 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2009 6:10 AM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 534 by Phage0070, posted 10-08-2009 12:53 PM xongsmith has not replied
 Message 540 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:34 PM xongsmith has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024