Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi Rrhain, Yes, that having a positive hypothesis that is supported with actual empirical evidence, with the rate of heat proportional to the electrical current and the resistance of the wire -- Ohm's law.There is also no negative evidence that shows this is NOT the case, so this is a perfectly adequate explanation of the evidence, sufficient to explain why you think that the heat is produced by current in the wire. But do you have a sufficient description of evidence? Do you have evidence comparable to the electrical current heating up a wire?You should also know that Occam's Razor does not always work: sometimes the more complicated explanation of the evidence is closer to reality. Take predictions of weather, computer models started out rather simplistic, but keep getting increasingly complicated because the simple models don't explain all the evidence. No, the simple premise is that if you think that two plus two equals four that you should be able to provide evidence for it, and equally important, that if you think that two plus two does NOT equal four that you should be able to provide evidence for it.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 again Onifre No, what you have proposed is replacing one negative hypothesis with two positive hypotheses.Your first hypothesis is explicit: that "people make things up." Curiously, this seems to be the mantra from all the atheistic people here today, the atheist answer to the "god-did-it" assertions of the (1&2) theists. Interestingly, you now need to provide evidence to support this positive hypothesis, and of course, we both understand that this evidence can't just be made up, right?Your second hypothesis is implicit rather than explicit: that this applies completely and in all cases. It may not appear that his is part of your claim above, but logic should tell you that without it, your first hypothesis fails automatically. This is called a hidden assumption in logic. This too is a positive hypothesis and needs to be supported with evidence.The problem is that this hypothesis is demonstrably false: people don't always make everything up, there is often an element of truth in what they observe. If this were not so, then science as we know it would not be possible.So we have the objective empirical evidence from science and from everyday life that there is often an element of truth in any subjective observation. This is why Straggler could not eliminate the possibility of truth of a single observation made by an aware and conscious individual in previous arguments. When we look at your video on Message 301, and the kid is asked about the telephone game we can see that each step can still contain a kernel of truth from the previous. Or when we consider the argument about eye-witness accounts in court (where I disagree that they are regarded as the highest evidence, but that's another issue), because (again as Straggler found) there can be an element of truth in those accounts. And, of course, in court they go to the primary eye-witness, rather that rely on hearsay evidence (the lowest form of evidence in court) from others. Going to the primary listener in the phone game would provide you with a version noticeably similar to the original.This argument fails to show that a kernel of truth cannot be contained in subjective experiences. Ah, so your default position is to be agnostic where no evidence pro or con exists. Fair enough, we agree on that. Oops, I slipped a disc there. Looks like you are claiming to have a (hidden?) reason to take the negative position, only you don't seem to recognize it. Really? Or did the old concept of Zeus contain a kernel of truth, and that what has been stripped away is the limited understanding from a previous time, an interpretation limited by a limited understanding? If god/s created the universe then aren't they also responsible for lightning?Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : clrty

---

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) • • •

it's past my witching hour, and I'm sure you don't want me to make up stuff because I'm tired.I'll get to the rest tomorrow.In the meantime, please consider that there is a lot of repetition going on and that I find myself making the same points to different people.Thanks.

Interestingly, providing made-up evidence to support the claim that people make things up seems poetically appropriate.

So how does god differ from the salamander?This is where your analysis of Tyson fails. He is keeping an open mind about alien life because there is positive evidence of life existing in the universe and we know that space is traversible. Ergo, it is conceivable that life from beyond earth has come here.Do you truly not see the difference between aliens and god?

quote:

---

But do you have a sufficient description of evidence?

---

Non sequitur. Please rephrase.

quote:

---

Do you have evidence comparable to the electrical current heating up a wire?

---

Yes. That's why I'm asking why you want to add chocolate sprinkles.We're back to the question nobody ever answers! Will you be the first one?Is god required for everything or is there anything that happens on its own?

quote:

---

You should also know that Occam's Razor does not always work

---

In an absolute sense, yes. But we're talking about rationality, not perfection. If you have a model that appears to be accurate, why insist upon invisible chocolate sprinkles? We didn't discard Newtonian kinematics until we had observations that indicated it was wrong.

quote:

---

sometimes the more complicated explanation of the evidence is closer to reality.

---

But why? That is a serious question. I really want to hear your explanation of this. Remember the operative word in the razor: "Unnecessarily." How might that apply?

quote:

---

Take predictions of weather, computer models started out rather simplistic, but keep getting increasingly complicated because the simple models don't explain all the evidence.

---

Keep going. Where is the missing evidence that requires the chocolate sprinkles?

quote:

---

No, the simple premise is that if you think that two plus two equals four that you should be able to provide evidence for it, and equally important, that if you think that two plus two does NOT equal four that you should be able to provide evidence for it.

---

And that's precisely what has been done.Why do you keep insisting on chocolate sprinkles? Where is your evidence that they are required? The model seems to fit, so why are you still dissatisfied?

---

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.

It is not a false dichotomy. Gods, all gods, the very concept of gods itself is either entirely a human invention or is derived from the actual detected existence of "something" godly that you point blank refuse to define.This "something" is it materially undetectable, supernatural and inherently objectively unknowable?If not then you are simply saying that there are potentially aspects of nature which we don't understand (and may indeed never know). Nobody will disagree with this and most would not call such potential unknowns 'god' anyway.If yes then all the indications are that what you are proposing is simply an extrapolated version of Zeus, Odin, Djinn, Kagutsuchi, Allah, Christ etc. etc. Extrapolated to a point of entirely irrefutable and utterly pointless ambiguity. The ultimate god of the ultimate gap.And if you are going to cite commonality of belief and experience in favour of a supernatural immaterial "something" ask yourself these questions: Is this commonality of belief and experience possibly the result of universally shared aspects of evolved human psychology? Or is this commonality of belief and experience an indication that "something" supernatural does exist in an immaterial reality that has somehow inexplicably been non-empirically detected? Which of these two possibilities is objectively evidenced? Which is not? Which, based on the objective evidence alone, is the most evidenced and rational conclusion?We can squabble over the degree of doubt that is justified until the cows come home. But the botttom line here is that my "probably human invention" atheistic position is not based on "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" as RAZD relentlessly asserts. It is based on the weighing up of the objective evidence available. The objective evidence in favour of any given god concept actually existing (i.e. absolutely none) versus the objective evidence in favour of the possibility that gods are human inventions (i.e. the indisputable fact of our ability to invent and create such concepts). My position is based on the available facts.Thus I am not a "pseudoskeptic". Are you saying that the existence of birds is not objectively evidenced? Either directly or indirectly? If so I disagree.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

So you cannot and will not deny the objectively evidenced fact that gods could just be an entirely made-up human construct. But that isn't what I said. I have never once denied that gods are possibly real. Stop lying about me.The possibility that humans have invented the very concept of supernatural gods, the capacity for human invention itself, is an objectively evidenced fact. You are unable to deny this.The possibility that any supernatural immaterial god concept at all actually exists in reality remains wholly objectively unevidenced.Based on the objective evidence alone a degree of atheistic doubt is thus inevitable. To do otherwise, to adopt a "It's 50-50 I just don't know" agnostic position, is a denial of the objective evidence available.Thus a degree of atheism is justified on the objective evidence alone and thus I am not a pseudoskeptic. Case closed. Stop being a prick RAZ. My position is that gods are more likely human inventions than real entities NOT that they could not possibly exist.

Well if RAZD is going to be a bloody minded pedant and require evidence for the possibility that god concepts could be a human invention, if he is going to insist upon evidence for the capacity for human invention, then so be it. I suggest he starts in the fiction section of his local library and work his way through that first. Then when he has finished with that evidence for the ability of humans to create concepts in general we can consider some examples of gods and other things here too.Before he embarks on his quest to establish the human capacity for invention I would ask RAZD which god concepts cited by humanity he thinks could not possibly be a human invention? Either established ones or ones that I or anyone else can come up with here? I suspect he won't answer this because her agrees that there aren't any.In the meantime here are a few concepts that I think we can all agree possibly are human inventions (let me know if not). How many do I need to cite (Vs the expected none that could NOT have been invented) before we all agree that the possibility that humans can invent gods is objectively evidenced? This could be a stupidly long thread......Arianrod Nuada Argetlam
Morrigu Tagd
Govannon Goibniu
Gunfled Odin
Dagda Ogma
Ogryvan Marzin
Dea Dia Mara
Iuno Lucina Diana of Ephesus
Saturn Robigus
Furrina Pluto
Cronos Vesta
Engurra Zer-panitu
Belus Merodach
Ubilulu Elum
U-dimmer-an-kia Marduk
U-sab-sib Nin
U-Mersi Persephone
Tammuz Istar
Venus Lagas
Beltis Nirig
Nusku En-Mersi
Aa Assur
Sin Beltu
Apsu Kuski-banda
Elali Nin-azu
Mami Qarradu
Zaraqu Ueras
Zagaga* Bao A Qu (Malay) - Entity that lives in the Tower of Victory in Chitor
* Aatxe (Basque) - Spirit that takes the form of a bull
* Abassy (Yakuts) - Demons that have teeth of iron
* Abada (African) - Small type of unicorn reported to live in the lands of the African Congo
* bd (Tatar) - Forest spirit
* Abaia (Melanesian) - Huge magical eel
* Abarimon (Medieval Bestiaries) - Savage humanoid with backward feet
* Abath (Malay) - One-horned animal
* Abatwa (Zulu) - Little people that ride ants
* Abura-bō (Japanese) - Spectral fire from Shiga Prefecture, in which the shape of a monk can often be seen
* Abura-sumashi (Japanese) - creature from a mountain pass in Kumamoto Prefecture
* Acephali (Greek) - Headless humanoids
* Acheri (Indian) - Disease-bringing ghost
* Achiyalabopa (Puebloan) - Rainbow-feathered birds
* Achlis (Roman) - Curious elk
* Adar Llwch Gwin (Welsh) - Giant birds that understand human languages
* Adaro (Solomon Islands) - Malevolent merfolk
* Adhene (Manx) - Nature spirit
* Adlet (Inuit) - Vampiric dog-human hybrid
* Adroanzi (Lugbara) - Nature spirit
* Adze (Ewe people) - African vampiric forest being
* Aerico (Macedonian) - Disease demon
* Afanc (Welsh) - Lake monster (exact lake varies by story)
* Agathodaemon (Greek) - Spirit of vinefields and grainfields
* Agloolik (Inuit) - Ice spirit that aids hunters and fishermen
* Agogwe (East Africa) - Small, ape-like humanoid
* Ahkiyyini (Inuit) - Animated skeleton that causes shipwrecks
* Ahuizotl (Aztec) - Anthropophagous dog-monkey hybrid
* Aigamuxa (Khoikhoi) - Anthropophagous humanoid with eyes in its instep
* Aigikampoi (Etruscan) - Fish-tailed goat
* Aigamuxa (Khoikhoi) - Man-eating Ogres
* Aitu (Polynesian) - Malevolent spirits or demons
* Aitvaras (Lithuanian) - Household spirit
* Ajatar (Finnish) - Dragon
* Akabeko (Japanese) - Red cow involved in the construction of Enzō-ji in Yanaizu, Fukushima
* Akamataa (Japanese) - Snake spirit from Okinawa
* Akateko (Japanese) - Tree-dwelling monster
* Akhlut (Inuit) - Orca-wolf shapeshifter
* Akka (Finnish) - Female spirits or minor goddesses
* Akki (Japanese) - Large, grotesque humanoid
* Akkorokamui (Ainu) - Sea monster
* Akuma (Japanese) - Evil spirit
* Akupara (Hindu) - Giant turtle that supports the world
* Akurojin-no-hi (Japanese) - Ghostly flame which causes disease
* Al (Armenian and Persian) - Spirit that steals unborn babies and livers from pregnant women
* Ala (Slavic) - Bad weather demon
* Alal (Chaldean) - Demon
* Alan (Philippine) - Winged humanoid that steals reproductive waste to make children
* Al Basti (Turkish) - Female night-demon
* Alce (Heraldic) - Wingless griffin
* Alicanto (Chilean) - Bird that eats gold and silver
* Alicorn - Technically a unicorn's horn. In modern times is commonly misapplied to winged unicorns
* Alkonost (Slavic) - Angelic bird with human head and breasts
* Allocamelus (Heraldic) - Ass-camel hybrid
* Allu (Akkadian and Sumerian) - Faceless demon
* Almas (Mongolian) - Savage humanoid
* Al-mi'raj (Islamic) - One-horned rabbit
* Aloja (Catalan) - Female water spirit
* Alom-bag-winno-sis (Abenaki) - Little people and tricksters
* Alp (German) - Male night-demon
* Alphyn (Heraldic) - Lion-like creature, sometimes with dragon or goat forelegs
* Alp-luachra (Irish) - Parasitic fairy
* Al Rakim (Islamic) - Guard dog of the Seven Sleepers
* Alseid (Greek) - Grove nymph
* Al (Assyrian) - Leprous demon
* Alux (Mayan) - Little people
* Amaburakosagi (Japanese) - Ritual disciplinary demon from Shikoku
* Amala (Tsimshian) - Giant who holds up the world
* Amamehagi (Japanese) - Ritual disciplinary demon from Hokuriku
* Amanojaku (Japanese) - Small demon
* Amarok (Inuit) - Giant wolf
* Amarum (Quechua) - Water boa spirit
* Amazake-babaa (Japanese) - Disease-causing hag
* Amemasu (Ainu) - Lake monster
* Amorōnagu (Japanese) - Tennyo from the island of Amami Ōshima
* Amphiptere (Heraldic) - Winged serpent
* Amphisbaena (Greek) - Serpent with a head at each end
* Anakim (Jewish) - Giant
* Androsphinx (Ancient Egyptian) - Human-headed sphinx
* Angel (Christian, Islamic, Jewish, and Zoroastrian) - Heavenly being, usually depicted as a winged humanoid.
* Angha (Persian) - Dog-lion-peacock hybrid
* Ani Hyuntikwalaski (Cherokee) - Lightning spirit
* Ankou (French) - Skeletal grave watcher with a lantern and a scythe.
* Anmo (Japanese) - Ritual disciplinary demon from Iwate Prefecture
* Antaeus (Greek) - A giant who was extremely strong as long as he remained in contact with the ground
* Antero Vipunen (Finnish) - Subterranean giant
* Ao Ao (Guaran) - Anthropophagous peccary or sheep
* Aobōzu (Japanese) - Blue monk who kidnaps children
* Apkallu (Sumerian) - Fish-human hybrid that attends the god Enki
* Apsaras (Buddhist and Hindu) - Female cloud spirit
* Aqrabuamelu (Akkadian) - Human-scorpion hybrid
* Ardat-Lili (Akkadian) - Disease demon
* Argus Panoptes (Greek) - Hundred-eyed giant
* Arikura-no-baba (Japanese) - Old woman with magical powers
* Arimaspi (Greek) - One-eyed humanoid
* Arion (Greek) - Extremely swift horse with a green mane and the power of speech
* Arkan Sonney (Manx) - Fairy hedgehog
* Asag (Sumerian) - Hideous rock demon
* Asakku (Sumerian) - Demon
* Asanbosam (West Africa) - Iron-toothed vampire
* Asena (Turkic) - Blue-maned wolf
* A-senee-ki-wakw (Abenaki) - Stone-giant
* Ashi-magari (Japanese) - Invisible tendril that impedes movement
* Asiman (Dahomey) - Vampiric possession spirit
* Askefrue (Germanic) - Female tree spirit
* Ask-wee-da-eed (Abenaki) - Fire elemental and spectral fire
* Asobibi (Japanese) - Spectral fire from Kōchi Prefecture
* Aspidochelone (Medieval Bestiaries) - Island-sized whale or sea turtle
* Asrai (English) - Water spirit
* Astomi (Hindu) - Humanoid sustained by pleasant smells instead of food
* Aswang (Philippine) - Carrion-eating humanoid
* Atomy (English) - Surprisingly small creature
* Ato-oi-kozō (Japanese) - Invisible spirit that follows people
* Atshen (Inuit) - Anthropophagous spirit
* Auloniad (Greek) - Pasture nymph
* Avalerion (Medieval Bestiary) - King of the birds
* Awa-hon-do (Abenaki) - Insect spirit
* Axex (Ancient Egyptian) - Falcon-lion hybrid
* Ayakashi (Japanese) - Sea-serpent that travels over boats in an arc while dripping oil
* Ayakashi-no-ayashibi (Japanese) - Spectral fire from Ishikawa Prefecture
* Aziza (Dahomey) - Little people that help hunters
* Azukiarai (Japanese) - Spirit that washes azuki beans along riversides
* Azukibabaa (Japanese) - Bean-grinding hag who devours people
* Azukitogi (Japanese) - Spirit that washes azuki beans along riversides
(and that's just the A's. Take a look at this long list of things)Stolen from Message 123Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Now that you have adjusted the statement to be tautological, your objective evidence no longer supports it. We don't have objective evidence that a particular god concept is entirely a human invention, not even for Apollo.Plus, an individual belief couldn't be entirely an invention unless it was unique. I don't know. Of course it's possible, but the plausibility is inversly proportional to the variety of different cultures across different times that have come to the same conclusion. Don't you think that an aboriginal australian 1,000 years ago is different enough from a 20th century Hindu to doubt that their conclusions that a god exists comes from shared aspects of their psychologies? It could be. This explanation fits better with my experiences and understanding of reality. And for this, I don't think a belief in god has to be irrational nor that it can't be supported by evidence. I don't think either are evidenced that much better than the other. Although the first one is better from a materialistic assumption. That's fine. I'll give you that. But I still don't think the argument you presented is sound because your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence unless you present a false dichotomy. No, I'm saying that my observation of that particular bird has not been objectively evidenced so the possibility of me making it up outweighs the evidence we have for me actually seeing it. I'm trying to exemplify the flaw in your argument.

No, I don't. Human beings, despite superficial differences in culture, tend to have many of the same general concerns. This is the reason behind things like murder being shunned by society despite isolation preventing the communication of the idea, and it applies equally well in the case of imagined beings. Your observation of the bird, without independent corroboration, is indeed subjective. The conclusion (Birds are outside!) is overwhelmingly objectively evidenced, so the observation isn't unexpected.The claim that the chances of you making the observation up outweighs the evidence for you actually seeing it is ridiculous, especially when applied to Straggler's point. If you had a consistent history of making up fake sightings of birds then people might doubt your new sighting, even while maintaining that the conclusion is correct. Straggler maintains that such a history exists for mankind in general with regard to supernatural beings. The only way your point would make sense is if you are suggesting that mankind has a consistent history of claiming false sightings of birds, and does so with far more regularity than accurate sightings.

What if we compare Native Americans to Imperial Britains?Very different "general concerns" imho, yet they both believe in god. Those isolated tribes in the Amazon would have no problem murdering you...I'm not so sure there is as much continuity as you're alluding to. read: not that well at all. I was comming at it more from the angle of it simply being an objectively unevidenced claim regardless of the history of the reliability of past claims.It was in reply to this:

quote:

---

It is based on the weighing up of the objective evidence available. The objective evidence in favour of any given god concept actually existing (i.e. absolutely none) versus the objective evidence in favour of the possibility that gods are human inventions (i.e. the indisputable fact of our ability to invent and create such concepts). My position is based on the available facts.

---

which doesn't take into account the history of making up fake gods.

Think so? They both die, they both have moral standards their society expects them to maintain, they both have fear of the unknown.Also, Native Americans believe in a "spirituality" that is very different from the religion of Imperial Britain; for instance, Native American spirituality does not offer anything religious for sale, compared to say paying a priest to forgive sins. A Native American spirit does *not* perform the same role as the god of an Imperial Britain. Because for them it isn't murder if it is an outsider, it is protecting the tribe. Even our society shares the conviction that soldiers performing their duty are not murderers. The Amazon tribes would still would consider it bad to kill one of their own though, right? What stunning powers of debate. Truly I have been soundly refuted. Then color me confused, because it really seems that it does take that history into account. That history would be the indisputable objective evidence referenced in the quote.

No. You misunderstand. You seem resolutely determined to consider my argument only in the most specific of terms whilst making your own arguments in the most ambiguous of terms conceivable. This seems like a debating tactic. So lets stick to generics on both sides from now on.Is it a possibility that the very concept of supernatural immaterial god(s) itself is entirely a human construct (based on misinterpretation of perfectly natural phenomenon for example) and that no such supernatural immaterial "somethings" actually exist in reality at all? Could this logically be true?Is it a possibility that immaterial supernatural god(s) actually exist? Could this logicaly be true?Are these two possibilities mutually exclusive?
Are either of these two possibilities objectively evidenced? If so which one? That is just silly. Birds are material entities empirically and objectively known to exist. Telling me you have seen a bird is just evidentially incomparable to saying you have experienced an immaterial and ambiguously undefined godly "something" that cannot actually be "seen" and that nobody can ever possibly agree upon because it is inherently unknowable What false dichotomy? The very concept of god(s) is either a human invention or it isn't. It cannot be both.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm sorry. I'm not trying to use debating tactics or anything. I'm honestly trying to discuss the issue. They're both possible.In order for them to be mutually exclusive, so that you can conclude that one is more probable than the other, we'd have to have objective evidence to suggest that the concepts are entirely human constructs. I don't think we do.We have objective evidence of the possibility of them being invention, but that doesn't exclude the possibility of them being real. Whoa, you edited that while I've been replying with the peek window open. I was all: "where the hell did those words pop up from..."The concept of god could be a combination of actuality and imagination. Something real with aspects of it invented.You're using the fact that some aspects have been shown to be invented to offer a plausibility on the actuality of the thing itself. I don't think it follows.

In your case I don't really doubt that. But conscious or otherwise the comparison of highly particular specifics on one side with the most ambiguous of generics on the other is not a fair comparison or method of debate. Yes we do. We agree. No of course it doesn't. On that we also agree.But if one possibility is objectively evidenced and the other is not which is the rational one to go with? Sorry. I tend to bang out responses and then amend after reading back. It is a very flawed methodology on my part. I acknowledge that. It could be. Or it could be wholly invented. Either way "something" supernatural and immaterial either exists or it does not. Again, no. At this point I am attempting to be 100% generic on the basis that I feel you keep misinterpreting my argument everytime I give any specific example. With that in mind:Is it an objectively evidenced fact that humans create false concepts? Is it an objectively evidenced fact that the very concept of immaterial supernatural "god(s)" (whatever it is you mean by that) could be entirely a product of the human mind?Conversely is there any objective evidence in favour of the possibility that immaterial supernatural "god(s)" (whatever you mean by that) actually exist?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.