Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Probability of the existence of God
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 147 of 219 (466486)
05-15-2008 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by anglagard
05-15-2008 2:26 AM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
Thanks. I think.
Unqualified agreement is not normally a feature of EvC.....
I am intrigued to know how (or even if) Iano is going to attempt to defend his argument given that the existence and viability of non-empirical "evidence" has been the cornerstone and of his position and participation at EvC for quite some time now.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by anglagard, posted 05-15-2008 2:26 AM anglagard has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 05-15-2008 10:39 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 149 of 219 (466807)
05-17-2008 8:23 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Stile
05-15-2008 10:39 AM


Re: Ignorance is bliss?
Stile writes -
I also think iano's response would be interesting, especially if he actually has some information I've been glossing over and not realizing.
I'm not holding my breath, though.
Iano seems to have a history of ignoring posts as soon as he is unable to proceed without addressing the foundation of his position.
I think this thread will end with the same result.
Hmmm. Well so far your prediction has been borne out.
I too took part in the thread you mention above and Iano also stopped replying to me when it became obvious that the nature of evidence in an objective reality inhabited by independent beings was very different to the nature of "evidence" in a wholly subjective "reality" (i.e. "it's all a dream" or some such similar scenario).
If he ever does reply here I expect that confusing and conflating these two will again be his tactic.
I hope he does continue the discussion.
But like you I am not holding my breath.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Stile, posted 05-15-2008 10:39 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 167 of 219 (483486)
09-22-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by iano
09-22-2008 7:20 AM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
If by "evidence" you mean whatever convinces you personally then you may have a point.
However the term "evidence" is not conventionally or commonly used in this manner.
Thus by any reasonable or common definition what you have regarding God is not "evidence". By any common definition what you have is "belief".
It seems to be a feature of debating with theists, of the more sophisticated type such as yourself, for them to take commonly used terms and subtly redefine them to meet the requirements of their own argument.
Thus terms like "evidence", "good" etc. etc. are slightly altered to meet the requirements of the argument that they want to make rather than the commonly used or accepted meaning.
Why do you need your views on God to be considered as based upon "evidence" as opposed to "belief"? What difference does it make to you?
Non-empirical "evidence" can be used to support the veracity of any number of ridiculous assertions. These can be mutually exclusive and equally valid in subjective terms (e.g. Person1 "knows" that God exists and is the only God. Person2 "knows" that Vishnu exists and is one of multiple Gods). Thus such conclusions are logically and obviously worthless in terms of reliability and veracity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 7:20 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 170 by iano, posted 09-23-2008 10:45 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 168 of 219 (483488)
09-22-2008 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 165 by iano
09-22-2008 12:34 PM


Re: Claims are not evidence
With respect, this last post of yours merely repeats a philosophy regarding evidence which demands, unsurprisingly, that it be empirical in nature. Rather than have me simply state the contrary, could you deal with this specific point
Non-empirical "evidence" can be mutually exclusive (i.e wholly contradictory) but equally valid. Thus it is worthless in terms of reliability or veracity.
Empirical evidence has an objective independently verifiable measure by which it can be validated or refuted. Two contradicting statments cannot both be equally true given sufficiant empirical evidence to decide between the two.
That is the key difference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 165 by iano, posted 09-22-2008 12:34 PM iano has not replied

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


Message 172 of 219 (483603)
09-23-2008 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 170 by iano
09-23-2008 10:45 AM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
Contrary to what you say above a belief is a conclusion arrived at. How one arrives at a conclusion can either be through evidence or information.
I remain wholly unconvinced. If evidence is what allows us to distinguish between truth and falsehood then your argument just does not hold up to scrutiny.
The distinction between non-empirical "evidence" (or non empirical "information") and belief itself seems very blurry to the point of non-existent. Where does this non-empirical evidence/information end and the resulting belief begin?
If for example you believe that God exists based on the evidence/information that you have a personal relationship with God then is that not a belief based on another belief?
If the conclusions are subjective only and the "evidence" on which these conclusions are based is itself subjective only then how can you distinguish between the belief and the evidence for that belief in terms of veracity or reliability? Obviously you cannot.
Are you not just building castles made of sand. One belief stacked on top of another in a spiraling tower of self justification?
Contrary to what you say above a belief is a conclusion arrived at. How one arrives at a conclusion can either be through evidence or information.
But if the information or evidence are themselves subjective then how exactly are they any different or distinguishable from beliefs?
I'm not quite sure how a person could believe something without evidence or information undergirding that belief.
Well let’s try it. Give us an example of a belief for which you have specific subjective "evidence" or "information". Give an example of the belief and the evidence and then let us consider whether or not this "information" or "evidence" is itself distinguishable from belief in any way at all.
Depending on the example given it is my expectation that you will either have a root belief upon which all others are based, a circular set of self justifying beliefs, some sort of reference to pseudo-empirical evidence (such as the bible) or a foundation that is genuinely empirical and not relevant to any discussion regarding theistic beliefs.
It's not so much an argument as a description of the rational behind Christian belief. How could rational, logical people ever be expected "to come to faith" if they thought they had to believe in something for which they had no evid....information.
Apparently by convincing themselves that one belief is evidence for another..................?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 170 by iano, posted 09-23-2008 10:45 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 09-24-2008 6:37 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 174 of 219 (483906)
09-24-2008 7:05 PM
Reply to: Message 173 by iano
09-24-2008 6:37 PM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
Are you not just building castles made of sand. One belief stacked on top of another in a spiraling tower of self justification?
In a word? No.
Well so you claim but, yet again your argument does not hold up to scrutiny.
I believe my brakes will stop me. Why? Evidence/information that that is what brakes do.
Yes. Empirical, independently verifiable physically observable evidence. A "belief" based on genuine evidence. In fact in this particular case "belief" so established that it is "knowledge" by any common definition of the term.
Your argument shouldn't be with the word belief - belief is evidence/information based. Your argument should be with something else. That non-empirical evidence/information shouldn't lead to belief perhaps
Non-empirical evidence is itself just a euphamism, or alternative self justifying phrase for belief. In the particular case of theistic beliefs what you have are beliefs stacked on top of beliefs. The term "evidence" is just unwarranted if evidence has anything whatsoever to do with reliably differentiating between truth and falsehood. If that is not the purpose of evidence then what is?
Re-interpreting common terms to fit theistic arguments is becoming an all too common debating tactic.
Which I hold it is not. People believe things because of something else. Belief is to evidence/information as death is to gunshot. Effect/cause
Then as previously requested give us a specific example of non-empirical evidence/information and the belief that you derive from this. Given that this discussion is ultimately about theistic belief and given that you are an avowed theist a thesitic example would be most obviously relevant.
Give us an example of your non-empirical evidence and you belief derived from this "evidence" and let us see if there is anything to differentiate the two
Such arguments don't convince me that I should suppose myself a brain in a jar. So why should I suppose what you would have me suppose?
If you want to go down the 'brain in a jar' route again then I am more than prepared to do so. Frankly that whole argument smacks of desperation with regard to the idea of non-empirical "evidence" having any worth at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by iano, posted 09-24-2008 6:37 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by iano, posted 09-24-2008 7:16 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 176 of 219 (483911)
09-24-2008 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 175 by iano
09-24-2008 7:16 PM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
I ask
Give us an example of your non-empirical evidence and you belief derived from this "evidence" and let us see if there is anything to differentiate the two
You give
I believed my fiance to potentially come to occupy the position of fiance. Why? Based partily on the evidence/information of my thoughts turning frequently to her.
I have said previously
Depending on the example given it is my expectation that you will either have a root belief upon which all others are based, a circular set of self justifying beliefs, some sort of reference to pseudo-empirical evidence (such as the bible) or a foundation that is genuinely empirical and not relevant to any discussion regarding theistic beliefs.
First point: Your reluctance to consider a theistic example aptly demonstrates your own lack of faith in such an example to stand up to such scrutiny.
Second point: "Based partially" what does that mean? Does it mean that, as predicted, your feelings regarding your 'wife to be' are at root empirically derived? Also if you insist on using this example could you be more explicit as to what the non-empirical evidence is exactly and what specifically the conclusions derived from this "evidence" is.
Based partily on the evidence/information of my thoughts turning frequently to her
If I think often of Galadriel (Lord of the Rings elven queen) does that mean I have feelings for her? Does it make her real? Does it mean I want to marry her? How does your evidence specifically relate to your fiance in a way that could not be applied to a wholly fictional character?
Straggler writes
Then as previously requested give us a specific example of non-empirical evidence/information and the belief that you derive from this. Given that this discussion is ultimately about theistic belief and given that you are an avowed theist a thesitic example would be most obviously relevant.
Why are you so afraid to do this? We can continue discussing your fiance if you so wish but really would a more relevant specifically theistic example not better exemplify your points?
Or is it obvious, even to you, that your theistic beliefs are based on not evidence but yet more beliefs? One unjustifiable belief piled on top of another........
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 175 by iano, posted 09-24-2008 7:16 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 09-25-2008 5:44 AM Straggler has replied

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


Message 179 of 219 (483959)
09-25-2008 9:40 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by iano
09-25-2008 5:44 AM


Re: Iano's Folly - The Case Against Non-Empirical "Evidence"
Iano writes:
It is not possible to present a "theistic example" for the simple reason that a person with no experience of God wouldn't/couldn't get it. Whereas a person could be expected to get the example of my wife-to-be.
I still think this is a method of evading discussing non-empirical "evidence" in relation to the existence or otherwise of God (which has been the context in which you have declared non-empirical "evidence" to be valid in the past and is kind of key to the whole EvC dabate) but nevertheless..............
In so far as it goes I will accept this for now.
Straggler writes:
Depending on the example given it is my expectation that you will either have a root belief upon which all others are based, a circular set of self justifying beliefs, some sort of reference to pseudo-empirical evidence (such as the bible) or a foundation that is genuinely empirical and not relevant to any discussion regarding theistic beliefs.
The example of your wife to be would seem to be of the second variety predicted. Namely circular.
Iano writes:
As already mentioned, the non-empirical information involved my observing my thoughts frequently turning in her direction. Just the fact of their turning - not the content thereof. The conclusion drawn what that this relationship appeared to be taking on a significance hitertoe not experienced.
Are your persistent thoughts for her evidence for you thinking that you might have a significant relationship? Or are your thoughts of a significant relationship evidence for you having thought a great deal about her? It is just a merry-go-round of subjective reasoning.
Neither one is evidence of the other. Both are subjectively equivalent. The bottom line is that you like the girl and want to marry her. And good luck to you both. But lets not pretend that this is a decision based on anything other than the standard basis of human empirical experience and the subjective preferences upon which we make all such decisions.
To present subjective thoughts, feelings or personal preferences as a means by which to reliably differentiate between truth and falsehood is obviously flawed. Your preferences are not a form of evidence by any reasonable standard of the term. In fact at best they are what we use in the absence of any evidence.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by iano, posted 09-25-2008 5:44 AM iano has not replied

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


Message 194 of 219 (484971)
10-03-2008 6:39 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by iano
09-30-2008 6:34 AM


Re: "Blind" is not "Totally Nothing"
If we do not assume a world in which we are the sole dreamer of a subjective reality then, from the evidence at hand, we must conclude that we inhabit an obvjective reality inhabited by individual and independently conscious beings.
If we also accept that each individual consciousness is capable of individual and independent self deception (delusion, fantasy, call it what you will) then it stands to reason that a collective experience is a more reliable description of that objective reality than an individual subjective, and potentially delusional, version of "reality"
How can you meaningfully claim otherwise?
If a drugged out loon sees dragons as he walks down Oxford Street is that reality as real as the buses, taxis and shops experienced by the rest of us? If not why not?

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

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by Stile, posted 03-09-2009 11:29 AM Straggler 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