Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi RAZD, and thanks for the responce. Right, evidence for the fact that people make things up should be presented. But I don't you're arguing that it hasn't been presented? Surely we can all agree, even in our own day-to-day lives, that people make things up; this isn't being questioned, right? Fair enough, and while I don't presume to know all the possible cases where humans have made things up, I can say with confidence that the notion of God(s) is one of the areas in which made-up concepts are known to exist.But my point isn't so much to point out that the concepts of God(s) are made-up, my point is that the premise "there could be a God) is made-up. This is where the onus false on the person making the claim, rather than on the skeptic rejecting it.You defend that by saying: Here's where I see a problem. You used the word "observation" following subjective, I don't agree with that. An "observation," by definition, is objective, the conclusion as to what was observed is the part that's subjective.So I would change your statement to say, "we have the objective empirical evidence from science and from everyday life that there is often an element of truth in any subjective conclusion."If you can agree with my change, then the following applies...While I agree that there is often an element of truth to any subjective conclusion, I also feel that your conclusion can't be a vague inference to something ambiguous and undefined, especially when the undefinable, ambiguous "something" lacks even a single shred of objectivity*.* I'm using this definition of objectivity: source

quote:

---

a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

---

So there could be an element of truth to any subjective conclusion, but an undefined, ambiguous "something" (that for some reason being called "God") is not a conclusion; therefore, there simply can't be an element of truth to it. "It" hasn't been established.At best, all I can say for sure is that there is an element of truth to you having an expereince, but that's about it. No. What I'm saying is that no position/hypothesis (negative or otherwise) is needed when the premise fails to be established. Then, quickly, let me try to understand why we both agree with that.A biological alien is not a vague, ambiguous, undefinable concept; it is defined as biological (which we know exists), it is from another planet (which we know exist), it would have evolved from natural process (which we know to occur).The premise has been established as something grounded in objective reality. We can agree because we can understand what we are both agreeing to.But an ambiguous, undefinable "something" is not something we can understand, even by the the person claiming that it exists. So if you can't understand what you are describing, how can I? Furthermore, how can I be required to hold to a position/hypothesis (negative or otherwise) for something so vague? Without getting into what that kernel of truth is, because honestly I find none, lets say there was. But you fail to establish why one of those kernels is the actual god itself? That seem like one big f'n kernel, in fact, that's the entire cob-o-corn, right?You've allowed for the premise to be possible when no shred of evidence supports that. After we allow the premise to be possible, then yea, I can agree that some kernel of truth may exist within the whole story. But before we can do that, we have to establish that the premise is true to some degree.Which brings me back to objectivity:

quote:

---

a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

---

Can you define/describe/explain what you mean by "god"? I need to know what you're talking about before I can follow the rest of your claims.- Oni

Well my current understanding (and that of Adminmooseus as well I think Message 117) of RAZD's position is that RAZD is indeed requesting evidence of this fact.If he isn't then I don't understand what evidence it is he keeps challenging me specifically to present.

I don't think so, not entirely.Now, we do have evidence that the specifics of certain concepts are indeed imaginary, but we don't have any objective evidence towards the concepts in their entirety being imaginary.Although, if your just talking about the capability of them being imaginary, then I suppose its possible, but how would that be objectively evidenced? It seems more of a logical deduction.Also, that the concept of god is so prevalent throughout most cultures across time suggests that it is not entirely a product of the human mind.

Does the fact that ethical systems are so prevalent throughout most cultures suggest that ethics are not entirely the product of the human mind?Even though those ethics systems tend to be almost completely different from one culture to the next?I think it suggests a commonality of human experience and basic thought process. I think an external factor is a possibility, but the fact that the "concept of god" differs so incredibly much from culture to culture suggests that this is not the case.

I suppose. And I think I could go two ways with this...On one hand, I do believe that morality is god-given so, well yeah...On the other hand, there seems to be some kind of unintended emergence of ethics that is outside of the human mind's productive capabilities.Also, haven't they shown that some monkeys also have a kind of ethical system? Suggesting that it evolved before we were human? Are ethics even really a product of the human mind in the first place? Yeah, that's reasonable.I see much more starking similarities that I wouldn't expect and an unexpected lack of major/categorical differences. And I don't feel that "a commonality of human experience and basic thought process" is a good enough explanation. It seems wanting, although its a good start for comming at it from a materialistic perspective.

Striking similarities? In what ways?I see nothing but immense differences.TO some, "god" is an omnipresent undefinable "force."To others, "god" is more personified and discrete, but still omnipresent and omniscient.To others, "god" is a winged serpent.To some, "god" is a singular entitiy, the "highest" being possible.To others, there are many "gods."To some, "god" is a force of nature, even the force of nature, above petty human concerns, thoughts and emotions.To others, "god" is just a being with a greater ability to manipulate his environment than humans have, and is not omniscient, not omnipotent outside of his own domain, and certainly not above human failings like lust, greed, jealousy, etc.In some cultures "god" is the personification of something, like "destruction" or "life."In others, "god" is an anthropomorphised animal spirit.To some, "god" is the personification of good.To others, "god" demands ritual human sacrifice to continue to make teh Sun rise.Should I continue? The areas of extreme similarity follow a pattern of common descent with modification (see Judeo-Christianity) and influence from neighboring cultures. Where there is no cultural or geographical overlap, the differences become more and more striking.The only universal similarity seems to be "god is something supernatural that is more powerful than we are. Also, god doesn't leave evidence behind, but rather demands faith."That's about it, and it's no more than saying that ethical systems are universal because they all proscribe against "murder," even though what constitutes "murder" differs so greatly from one culture to the next that using the same word starts to seem foolish, and everything else is so different that comparison is next to impossible.

As far as I know (please correct me if I am wrong), all cultures have a spoken language. Would you consider this to be proof that language is not a product of the human mind (or proto-human) and instead based in a fundamental quality of the universe? If so, how can you explain how they are so different in structure and use while maintaining some fundamental properties (distinction of subject, actions, speaker, etc..)?I think language and religion have some very instructive similarities in that they can be very different and develop completely independently, while still sharing some important features.

Well then, he should come to a comedy show, watch cartoons, or perhaps sit through a class on Chakras. As I understood it, he was asking for the evidence in support of the negative position. My only point is that for his vague concept of some ambiguous force (that for some reason is being refered to as God), no position (negative or otherwise) can be given.Simply put, he hasn't established what I have a negative position for. Me personally, I consider myself an atheist towards established god/s found in religion, cults, tribes, etc. However, I don't consider myself an atheist toward a vague concept of some ambiguous "force."Frankly, if someone says God is simply an unknown force that exists somewhere in the universe, then I hold no opinion on that vague new version.[abe] Btw, Spain and Venezuela kicked ass today! Good luck with Uruguay tomorrow. - OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

I'd say, the fact that even the ones claiming belief can't understand it themselves or describe it, seems to imply that its imaginary.Hate to put you on the spot bro, but in your best description, can you explain what you mean by a god? What does that word (god) mean to you?- Oni

Do you seriously doubt the capacity of the human mind to invent the entire concept of supernatural gods? Why?Why does the commonality you speak of not suggest a commonality of human psychology? A commonality of need for explanation or higher purpose? An explanation for desires, wants, needs. emotional support, etc. etc. etc. etc..........Explain to me how the possibility that the very concept of immaterial supernatural god(s) is better and more objectively evidentially explained by the actual existence of said immaterial and non-empirical entities than it is by the possibility of human misinterpretation and invention?It seems obvious to me but apparently I am missing something. What is that "something" if it is not just unevidenced faith?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

In other words, your answer to the question "does an indescribable, unfathomable god exist?" is:"I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you?"I agree that the vagueness of the assertion prevents establishing an opinion in such cases. One may as well ask "do you believe in something?"

I think this is a great analogy. And I would thus be interested to hear the views of the theist/diest contingent in this thread regarding this matter.

Onfire writes,

quote:

---

or perhaps sit through a class on Chakras.

---

May I remind you of the definition of pseudoskepticism in the OP. Such things as chakras would seem to be off topic in a debate about theism/atheism, but the point still applies: evidence is required for the negative position. Believing "this is nonsense" about something before you investigate it, and feeling no obligation to defend that belief, is not a truly skeptical position, which IMO is the main point that RAZD is making here.

RAZD's point seems to be that "50-50 I just don't know" agnosticism should be the defualt position with regard to any otherwise completely unevidenced claim. This is a ridiculous position requiring as much evidence as any alternative.My point is that in the absence of any other evidence whatsoever the evidence in favour of human invention takes precedence. Curiously the exact same evidence that you or RAZD implicitly apply when you describe the Immaterial Pink Unicorn or the god Mookoo (or any other such inherently irrefutable entity) as "obviously made-up".How many gods do I need to cite before you accept the fact that all gods, indeed the very concept of immaterial supernatural gods itself, is very possibly a human invention?

I would cite this as my reason for the default position I take being a healthy dose of atheism regarding any claim for which I have no evidence, or for which the possibility of said claim is not evidenced.