Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

According to RAZD predictions made by mathematical models are the same as science fiction, the pre-discovery coelacanth was evidentially equivalent to the possible existence of gods because we just hadn't looked in the right places and the possibility of life on other planets is more evidenced by subjective experiences of alien abduction than it is by the fact of life on Earth. (I can pull up old posts that state these things if you need them).RAZD's terminal inability to differentiate between those possibilities that are evidenced and those that are not is an ongoing source of confusion in these threads. So what exactly is the difference? Why is the possibility of alien life existing evidentially different to the possibility of gods existing? Why are comparisons of gods and their etheral domains with the discovery of the coelacanth unjustified?RAZD will tell us that there is no evidence for alien life. He will tell us that for 65 million years here was a complete absence of evidence for the coelacanth. And in a very simplistic sense he is right. If you don't look beyond the evidence of actualities then there is indeed no evidence in either of these scenarios. We have no objective evidence of the actual existence of aliens. No remnants of long dead alien civilisations, no messages from across the galaxy and certainly no actual objectively evidenced alien encounters. So why do we consider the existence of alien life a viable possibility? Is it just subjective world view as RAZD asserts? The result of too many sci-fi films? Or is there an evidential basis for considering this possibility? An evidential basis that makes the possible existence of alien life evidentially very different from the possible existence of gods? WHAT ARE EVIDENCED POSSIBILITIES?
Evidenced possibilities are those possibilities derived directly and incontrovertibly from fact. They may or may not turn out to be actualities but they are essentially propositions derived from the logical extrapolation of an entirely factual evidential basis. In terms of "the model" they are possibilities that are consistent with known facts not just in the sense that they are not contradicted by them, but in the sense of being actually positively suggested by them. EXAMPLES
With regard to RAZD'smost common set of conflations:
Alien Life
We know that life arose and evolved on this planet. This is a fact. Thus the possibility that life could also have arisen elsewhere is a possibility directly derived from known fact. It may or may not turn out to be an actuality. But there is at least a directly evidenced reason for investigating the question and thinking that it mightbe true. On what similar factual basis do we think the proposed existence of gods might be true?
Mathematical Predictions of Reality
We know that our scientific and mathematical models work to a high degree of accuracy. The laws of physics expressed mathematically allow us to predict and even manipulate aspects of nature. This is a fact. Thus the possibilities derived from extrapolations of these models, such as black holes, anti-matter and the Higgs boson, are evidenced possibilities. They may or may not turn out to be actualities. But there is at least a reason for investigating the question. The LHC was not constructed at the cost of billions of dollars to investigate a whimsical concept that was simply plucked out of someone's subjective arse. Gods and mathematical extrapolations are not evidentially equivalent.
Life on Earth
We know that life on Earth exists in various forms and that it evolves and adapts to it's environment. This is a known fact. We also know both that life is abundant and that many of the environments on our planet have not been investigated in detail. Thus the possibility of as yet undiscovered species on Earth is an evidenced possibility. Not an evidenced actuality. But there is a directly evidenced reason for investigating the question and seeking out new species. No such basis exists for seeking out gods.
The Coelacanth
With regard to the coelacanth.... Well before it was discovered we know as an incontrovertible fact that such a creature was potentially able to exist because we know that it did exist. What similar factual basis can be claimed for gods? PROBABILITY
But if the coelacanth was so evidenced why was it such a surprise? The reason that RAZD and others are so confused is because relatively subjective notions of (im)probability are so easily conflated with factually derived possibilty. Are as yet undiscovered species on Earth likely to be found? Frankly it would be amazing if we didn't discover any new species given what we know about the adaptability of life and our lack of detailed inspection of so many environments in which life could flourish. Is the Higgs Boson likely? Well physicists seem to think so. But who really knows? Likewise is alien life likely to exist? Well the probabilistic arguments with regard to that question could take up a whole thread of world views and I personally wouldn't claim to have any very strongly evidenced opinions in either direction. If the coelacanth is an evidenced possibility does that mean that the T-Rex is also equally evidenced for the same reasons? Well purely as a possibility yes it does but the probability of such a find is next to zero because of all else that we know about T-Rexs and the extent to which we have explored any environments in which T-Rexs might be present. Evidence upon which we can ascertain probability is not the same as evidence upon which we can conclude possibility. And (as is most easily conflated) low probability is not the same as unevidenced possibility.The point is that something can be evidenced as a possibility regardless of any evidence that can be used to determine (or subjectively argue over) probability. The possibility of a T-Rex existing is evidenced by the fact that we know such a creature can exist in the correct enviroment even if the probability of the actuality of a T-Rex existing now is essentially zero. The same was wrongly assumed about the coelacanth. But there is no such basis upon which to think the existence of gods is even possible. The two concepts are in different evidential ballparks. GODS
So from what objectively evidenced factual basis is the actual existence of god considered a possibility? The answer is none. Some, like Catholic Scientist, may convince themselves that belief in gods is itself evidence upon which to believe that gods potentially exist. RAZD has previously cited subjective experiences of gods as an evidential basis upon which to consider the possibility of gods existing. The fact is that in objective terms neither of these phenomenon are reason to consider gods possible. No more so than they are to conclude that telepathic dogs are inducing religious experiences and beliefs or that such phenomenon are the result of fluctuations in the matrix designed to pacify rebellious minds. Neither are a direct and incontrovertible extrapolation of fact in the way that the other examples RAZD is so keen to conflate are. Gods are just one explanation for such phenomenon from the infinite myriad of possibilities. CHOCOLATE SPRINKLES
As Oni keeps on asking: Why is the question of god even a valid question?The answer is that in objectively evidenced terms it isn't. However all of RAZD's material conflations are (aliens, coelacanths, fundamental particles etc. etc.). The model works. But the model is always incomplete. Evidenced possibilities are those toppings which we have good objectively evidenced reason to think might be needed. Unevidenced possibilities are the chocolate sprinkles for which no valid evidential case exists at all.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Phage0070, sorry I missed this last time: Thanks for answering this, and I apologize for missing it. Now perhaps we can clear up the trouble between A and B positions with the more nuanced D and E positions.Because of the way logic works, if a statement is logically true it is absolutely true, thus when A and B conclude that their belief is true, it is an absolute belief, not a nuanced one. If A is true it does not allow B to be true, and if B is true it does not allow A to be true.The problems you have had, as I see it (from my totally unbiased position (/sarcasm)), were due to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, and your preconceptions and biases:(1) the portrayal of B as an absolute atheistThis conflicts with your opinion that atheists are agnostic, and thus you rejected the B position as being absolute. Your preconceptions and biases interfered with being able to treat B as an absolute atheist. This was your first round with cognitive dissonance, as demonstrated by the emotion in your reply.(2) you felt that the A position was not logicalThis was likely due to your preconceptions about theist beliefs being wrong, and so you did not need to give much thought to why this position was wrong. This is using confirmation bias rather than analysis.(3) you felt that the B position was logicalAgain, this was likely due to your preconceptions about atheist non beliefs being true, and so you did not need to give much thought to why this position seemed right. This too is using confirmation bias rather than analysis.(4) the logical analysis showed that A was just as logical as B and that they contradict each other, and both were logically flawed for the same reason (part for the whole fallacy)This sets off your second round of cognitive dissonance. You saw B as a nuanced atheist position, and considered that such nuanced atheist positions are logical, so having evidence that the B position was not logical was a problem. You have difficulty rejecting B as a logical position, so therefore the logic must be wrong. It isn't. So you get angry instead of trying to figure out where the problem is.The logical form of the A argument is the same as the logical form of the B argument. Both are equally invalid.I apologize for putting you through the wringer on this, but the logic does not equivocate. You can take comfort, perhaps, in that you are not the only one here with this blind spot. Indeed, let's compare the A, B, C, D and E positions with the notorious (and flawed) Dawkins scale:

quote:

---

1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'

​

2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there

​

3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'

​

4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'

​

5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'

​

6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'

​

7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'

---

Very few people here will argue that the A=1 absolute position is logical or that the B=7 position is logical.Now if we can agree that the absolute positions are indeed not logical, that A and B are indeed absolute positions, and that they are both invalid arguments, if we can agree that these do not represent the nuanced positions that admit some agnostic portion with either theist or atheist positions, then we can move on. Indeed, but you should be able to do better than just have an opinion that they appear logical if we are discussing the logic in the form of the statements and the logical validity of the premises. We should be able to show that these two arguments have the same logical form but are not mutually exclusive or contradictory. It has nothing to do with assumptions or squirming if you follow the logic and analyze the statements for valid form and valid conclusions.

• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
  ​
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

Now we substitute Y for X where Y == notX, as before:

• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is true,
  ​
  If the form of the logic is correct then D(Y) should be just as logical as D(X). This now becomes:
  ​
• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is true,
  ​
  and
  ​
• person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

Ending up with the same position as person E. Likewise, when we substitute Y for X where Y == notX, we get:

• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is not true,
  ​
  If the form of the logic is correct then E(Y) should be just as logical as E(X). This now becomes:
  ​
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is not true,
  ​
  and
  ​
• person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true,

Ending up with the same position as person D, once again. Here, however, we do not have a conflict with both D and E being logical at the same time, because the possibility of one allows the possibility of the other.D(Y) == E(X) and E(Y) == D(X) and the logic of the D position is as valid as the logic for the E position.This now gives us: Do you agree with this?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clarity, added to end

---

Hi Modulus, And the significant point here, is that the evidence we now have for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker being a currently existing species is due to dedicated people not accepting that the absence of evidence was evidence of absence.These are people that felt there was no objective empirical evidence that showed continued existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was not true, and therefore concluded that it was logical to consider the possibility that continued existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was true, and they acted on that possibility.And yes, this has been mentioned before.Enjoy.

---

Hi Straggler. My experience bears out that secularists, especially athiests will never accept anything as evidence, no matter how substantive it is, simply because to admit to even one miracle, shoots down their mindset.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

The problem with miracles is that either they happened to someone else in another time, or they look deceptively much like natural events.Do you know of any modern day miracles, ongoing or objectively evidenced, that can be distinguished as such?Respectfully,-Meldinoor

Meldinoor writes:

quote:

---

The problem with miracles is that either they happened to someone else in another time, or they look deceptively much like natural events.

---

Well, more problematic is that they tend to happen once when no equipment to measure what is going on is available. In some sense, being able to examine aftereffects is OK (it happens in astronomy all the time as we are rarely looking right at the spot where a supernova or gamma burst just occurred), but when it comes to miracles, it's much more difficult."Healing" miracles aren't really up for examination as there are many cases of spontaneous remission on the record that we don't consider "miraculous."It would be a great help if whoever it is that is performing the miracles would be a bit more deliberate about it. There are plenty of people looking for them. Why do they never occur in front of the people who are prepared to examine them?

---

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.

And would you care to actually address the part where I pointed out that there was not an absence of evidence?

Hi Modulus I thought I had"And the significant point here, is that the evidence we now have for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker being a currently existing species "The evidence (that you have pointed out) is due to people looking for evidence and not assuming that, because it appeared that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was extinct, that the evidence would not exist.Enjoy.

---

No, that's simply a fact.The significant point here, is that those people who went looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker did so irrationally and illogically. They used a very poor system for discovering the truth about this world, and they happened to be right.One blind sailing trip that finds an island in the ocean doesn't mean that blind sailing trips are the best method for finding islands in the ocean. What about all the blind sailing trips that end up lost at sea?What about all the people continually searching for other non-evidenced birds that have yet to find anything? And never will because the bird actually is extinct?This isn't about identifying a methodology that works every time and is never, ever wrong. This is about identifying a methodology that is rational, consistent, logical... and works the best.You are right, some irrational, subjectively driven people happened to find the Ivory Woodpecker when all evidence pointed to it being extinct. (I'm not actually sure if all the evidence actually pointed this way, but I'm certainly willing to grant such for this discussion).If such people didn't go looking, the Ivory Woodpecker would not have been found that day. And likely not the next day, or the next week. But it would have been found eventually, because the objective, evidence-based system being promoted by Modulous, Straggler and others here.... works. It works the best. It's foolproof. It's not the fastest all the time, but that's not the goal. The goal is to have a foolproof method that works the best.Taking the absence of evidence as evidence of absence would have resulted in the Ivory Billed Woodpecker remaining seemingly-extinct for longer. However, that error would not have been forever. And, it is rational and consistent and does not waste resources on an infinite number of unknowns.You can't seriously be suggesting that people should dump resources into exhaustive searches looking for any and all species that are currently believed to be extinct. Such a thing is obviously irrational, and subjective. Just like it was irrational and subjective to look for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker.Therefore, unless you think we should be putting resources into exhaustive searches for dinosaurs, you agree that this method is irrational and subjective. Because there is just as much evidence for the extinction of dinosaurs as there was evidence for the extinction of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (granting to you that "all" evidence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker actually pointed to it being extinct).No one is proposing that being objective, consistent and rational (including that after looking, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence) is going to return absolute truth about reality immediately.We are only proposing that being objective, consistent and rational (including that after looking, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence) is going to return our best possible chance of being correct about the truth of reality within the time we have to operate.

The issue at hand is dealing with the logical fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam and this argument from personal incredulity. Sure, you say there is no good reason to assume that deities exist based on what you perceive to be scanty evidence or a complete lack of evidence. That is fine. The issue though is that this lack of evidence does not equate to evidence itself.For one thing, the very nature of deities (by the very supernatural order) is obviously said to be beyond nature. That's what the supernatural is! By attempting to use a lack of natural phenomenon as the basis for disproving the supernatural is thereby a preposterous notion.There is no empirical evidence of love, aside from the fact that everyone claims to have felt it. But you could not say, here is love, and hold in your hand to show the world. That is an inner truth and a personal experience for the individual. So people say it is with God.I am not here trying to defend God, or argue why you should believe in a god, or anything of that order. I am simply stating a truism -- that the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. All serious luminaries would agree, which is why it is categorically listed as a logical fallacy.What some people are attempting to do with this thread is use ridicule and reductio ad absurdum (another logical fallacy) as way to prove a point. The FSM is fits nicely in to this category.The simple fact that people are still arguing about the (non)/existence of God simply proves the point that people are no better equipped at proving or disproving it as they were when this inquiry first began thousands upon thousands of years ago, hence true agnosticism is the suggested default position until a thoughtful and careful analysis has been examined. Edited by Hyroglyphx, : No reason given.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

Reductio ad absurdum is a perfectly valid way of showing a logical argument to be incorrect. If you can use the premises to arive at a contradictory conclusions, then you've shown the argument is invalid.

But I am arguing the very opposite of "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Because in reality there is no such thing as a vacuum of all relevant evidence. I have been saying this for months and RAZD seems to have finally got the point by being forced into contemplating the reasons that he doesn't believe in a magical and inherently undetectable Santa Claus. Namely evidence in favour of the mutually exclusive alternative of human invention. Message 201Now if we can at last get past this "absence of evidence" straw man we might at last be able to get to the point where we can compare the evidence in favour of god existing with the evidence that implies that the very concept of god is a human invention.But in order to do that we will need to agree on what concept it is we are comparing evidence for. We will need to define "god". So we will need RAZD (and others) to tell us what it is he means by "god" and why he thinks that such a thing is more likely to exist than to be the product of human invention.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

It's invalid becasue it premises the question on the alleged absurdity of believing in God.

---

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passions, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence." --John Adams

No. It simply shows that belief in gods is evidentially and thus rationally identical to believing in Immaterial Pink Unicorns or etheral squirrels or whatever.Unless of course one takes the evidence in favour of human invention into account. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If the deity is beyond nature, then how can humans, operating in a reality which is natural, claim to have experienced it? But there is nothing about love that is beyond nature; even if we don't fully understand it, it's still natural and can be investigated by common methods. Yes they claim this, but that doesn't mean it's like it - by your own example, god is beyond nature and neither can be experienced naturally or investigated by any known methods.Which leads one to believe that people who claim to have "felt" god, or "spoke" to god, or "experienced" god are misinterpreting what they experienced, because god is beyond nature. But how is the question "is there a god?" a valid question?You say god is beyond nature. You agree that there is a lack of objective evidence. You also say there can't be objective evidence because he is supernatural.Well then, what in this natural reality that we experience was used to come to the conclusion that there might be a god?What natural phenomenon did humans experience to come up with the question about supernatural entities? (it doesn't make any sense)For all intent and purposes, there is no objective reason to even ask the question, right?And, if there's no reason to even ask the question, then the answer (god) is irrelevant. Until there is reason to ask the question, any answer that people come up with is just a product of their individual imaginations.- Oni