Pseudoskepticism and logic

What do they have to prove? Do they have to prove that they "cannot know for certain" or do they have to prove that they "think God is very improbable" or do they have to prove that they "live {their} life on the assumption that {a god} is not there?The first is a statement of agnosticism (without knowing, a-gnostic). The others are difficult to prove because they rely on knowing what a person is thinking.I'm sure many could give reasons as to why they think what they think. They might even supply some evidence in support of their thought - but since they admit they cannot know, I don't see how we can expect a defninitive and compelling demonstration of the truth of the matter. You might, and presumably do, think those reasons are not compelling to you.What puzzles me is your idea that somebody that begins their position with 'I cannot know for certain' would not be regarded as agnostic or as being 'too certain'.

There are more options that mutually exclusive and synonymous. Agnotisicism is a statement of an epistemological position, it describes ones attitude as to whether or not it is possible to have knowledge of the subject at hand. If you are agnostic, then you are stating that you cannot know one way or another. I cannot know if we are in the Matrix, if there are any unverifiable deities, spirits or unicorns.I am equally agnostic about all of those things.However, I do not hold the belief that there are gods so I am 'without belief in god' thus I am an atheist.I do hold the positive belief that since there are lots of possible entities which I cannot know anything about it is entirely arbitrary to pick certain ones to believe exist while not believing that others exist. I also hold that given the sheer number of possible entities, and the number of entities which are mutually exclusive, the chances of being right with any set of essentially arbitrarily picked entities is incredibly low. It sounds to me that you are defining atheism and agnosticism as 'hardnosed about divinity' and 'open minded about divinity' and then working from there.I am open minded to the possibility that Yahweh exists. I am equally open minded that the IPU exists, the FSM, a Santa whose miracle is to 'inspires' others to get gifts for each other, Ba'al, Moloch, Odin, Ra, any other god conceived of or otherwise, ghosts, goblins, gnomes, domovoi, leszi, djinn, dragons, etc etc etc. Apparently this makes me hardnosed?What strikes me as odd, is the number of people who suggest, or outright state, that atheists are closed minded while also dismissing the IPU or the FSM as 'obviously silly'. It is as if they won't open their minds to the possibility that the IPU exists and inspires skeptics (or if you prefer the term 'pseudoskeptics') to spread the word of her existence in a way which is mysterious to us mortals but will all make sense one day (presumably when we are supping from a beer volcano cursing the minions of the purple oyster or something). To me this is kind of like saying, what in your mind distinguishes red from cars.What distinguishes people that say they are agnostics versus those that say they are atheists is that agnostics tend to value the quality of 'open mindedness' and (I speculate) want to advertise that that is what they are. Most people I have spoken with who call themselves agnostics don't actually believe that there is a god or gods, I think they just fear that by saying that they don't believe there is a god or adopting the term 'atheist' will reflect poorly on them somehow.So practically, there is very little difference between the two terms as they are used. Though there are obviously some people who are geniunely unable to decide one way or another over a god entity and choose to literally remain on the fence on the decision. They may even swing regularly from belief to doubt and back again.In general though, they are commonly the same. Linguistically - one describes one attitudes towards the ability to know something and the other is a statement about whether you believe that something exists.If I express my views, people will generally label me as an atheist. So I use that term to describe myself. However, people have some unusual ideas about what atheists believe so rather than trying to convince the world to call me what I think they should call me, I'll try instead to convince people that those that are called atheists don't quite see things the way they think they do.If people think it is confusing to have an agnostic atheist, then they'll have to grow used to the funkiness of language. If you like we can have theists, atheists, and adeicisionists (those that have yet to make a decision one way about the existence of deities).In the end - it doesn't matter what the labels are, as long as everybody knows what is being talked about. So, given the possible ambiguity it might be worth making it clear which meaning of the word you are using if it might cause confusion. She's so misunderstood. It also proves, by demonstration, that many people that harp on about the closed mindedness of atheists in not holding the belief that god exists (or those that hold the belief that god probably doesn't exist) will happily make those same strong statements about some other entity that they condemned in atheists.

I'm not sure you can prove a reason. That doesn't seem to make syntactical sense to me. I can certainly provide a reason, justify that reason and explain it. I certainly ask 2's to provide their reason and may occasionally attempt to show potential problems with it, but I won't ask them for proof.If their reason is something like 'faith', I'll probably criticize it as a non-answer to the challenge in question. I'm not sure why you think they should be a 5 rather than a 6, could you do me the courtesy of explaining why, given the words I used, it follows that one should be a 5? Could you explain why someone who says, 'I cannot know for certain' is being 'too certain'? Could you explain how their concession that they do not know for certain renders them unqualified for the title, 'agnostic'?

Since I'm not sure the exact position you are looking for evidence of, I'll just guess that it is "I think God is very improbable". I am also assuming that you are not asking for evidence that this is indeed what a '6' thinks. What I guess you are asking for is evidence that leads to the thought that "God is very improbable". Is this right?The evidence in question can be summarised in my case as such:1. The fallibility of the human mind
2. There are millions of unfalsifiable and unverifiable concepts, imaginable and otherwise by the human mind.
3. The chances of any one arbitrarily picked set of such concepts actually existing are very low
4. Many of these actually proposed entities, specifically those labelled 'God', are often what I would call 'complex entities' (having personality, motivations, etc). Since it seems to me that reality has shown us that such complex entities don't just spontaneously appear and that they themselves require an explanation it strikes me as improbable that any 'God' type entity is the ultimate end of the chains of causality. Technically, of course, all reasons can be shown to exhibit the properties you outline to some extent since 'reason' is inherently a subjective process.Either way, I hold the same set of beliefs for all unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities. They may, indeed be possible, but I have no idea which ones, if any, are actually real. Is that too closed minded? What if we simply don't ignore the being an agnostic part? We don't have to emphasise it, just include it in the definition, since it is included in the definition. Is it weaseling to agree with you that we cannot know for certain? Or are you suggesting that there is no such thing as anybody that holds positions '6' because position '6' is essentially the same as position '5'?What you decide to call me, a 5 or a 6 is immaterial. The fact is that I think1. It cannot be known for certain (essentially by definition) that unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities exist or do not exist.
2. Some god concepts qualify as above.
3. It is very improbable that any specified set of such entities are actually real.In my view, that qualifies me for '6'. It suggests to me that I am agnostic (since I say that I cannot know), but that I am more than inclined towards skepticism and think that god is downright unlikely and I live my life exactly as I would if such a being did not exist. I'm not making any claims that fall foul of Truzzi's criteria. I do not claim that god does not exist, or that a specific religious experience is a delusion. I am claiming that I think god is improbable, and that we have evidence that religious experiences can be caused by cognitive hiccups/shortcuts etc and we do not have any evidence that they are caused by entities of religious adulation.Further #4 is also making a claim: That the probability that God exists or does not exist is exactly equiprobable. I suggest that this requires at least as much justification as '6' does.

No explicit calculation needed to make a judgement about probability as I explained. I explain it again later. The first one is also a reason to be agnostic. The second + third one coupled with the first are reasons to be highly sceptical about any positive claim about what unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities actually exist. There is a choice of billions upon billions of describable objects - with a billion billion more indescribable ones. I'm going to pick a small set from those objects without any particularly reliable system. So my chances of picking objects that conform to objects that actually exist is very small.The position is that I do not know which ones, if any, are real objects. By deciding to pick one or several objects and asking 'what do I think the chances of this set being real are?', I think it is safe to say 'very slim, at best'.If an English-man in the 10th century were to create a list of fantastical animals, thousands upon thousands of them. It might be the case that he accidentally drew/described a kangaroo. If we picked one of those animals using any unproven system - the chances of us happening to pick the kangaroo are very low (n to 1, with n being the number of alternatives)I wouldn't be surprised that there exists some entities which are either practically or by their very nature are unverifiable or unfalsifiable. I would be surprised if someone managed to anticipate what those entities were. You don't need to, RAZD. I'm not explaining what you are compelled to do by necessity. I am giving you my reasons for thinking the way I do. If you think that my reasons are compelling then so be it, but I don't anticipate you will. I didn't say that. I simply said that since it seems to me that reality has shown us that such complex entities don't just spontaneously appear and that they themselves require an explanation it strikes me as improbable that any 'God' type entity is the ultimate end of the chains of causality. I am unimpressed with the hypothesis 'there is no god' since there is no evidence that can suggest this if we stipulate that god is unfalsifiable - by definition.But I think the reasoning that there are potentially infinite number of unverifiable and unfalsifiable entities that can be described or imagined and that choosing ones that happen to be right is highly unlikely is sound. Yes it does. Yes, that is a possibility...indeed I've been arguing that to have been the case for some time now. Anybody who claims that the correct interpretation involves {unverifiable entity #5891447578} being an entity with actual existence is taking an essentially random shot in the dark and is very likely to have missed. I have done so. And not only that, but I have stressed the tentativity of my knowledge in this subject, by definition of the entities in question. I don't know. Maybe because you don't understand what we are saying? Maybe you are determined to misunderstand our position? Maybe we're all morons? I can't really say.I have provided my reasons, the rationale and the evidence for that rationale. You don't agree that they are good enough, and I didn't anticipate you would (as I'm sure I've said recently, otherwise you'd be saying you were a '6').But you didn't address the comment you quoted. You suggest that you are a #3. This suggests that you believe that the chances of god existing are greater than 50% but you have yourself not provided any evidence upon which to conclude any probabilities. By your own argument, every position on the seven point scale requires evidence to justify it.

Hi RAZD, Or to successfully communicate its properties through any medium (and I think we can say it is unlikely for someone to even imagine a creature, significantly different from known ones, accurately).We know that creatures exist.Therefore, it must be even less likely for someone to successfully imagine, conceive or describe an entity the likes of which are not only unknown but who is inherently unknowable. I don't consider the negative position to be true. I consider it is more likely true than the positive position. As I said, if you want to consider me a 5, go right ahead. But I'm a 5 that believes that the probability of a god existing is low and I live my life as if a god does not exist.I am making the claim because it is sometimes asked what I believe, and at other times my position is erroneously understood and I'd like to help rectify that.
I do admit the uncertainty. Which is why I agree that the position should include a phrase such as "I cannot know with complete certainty but..." I am an agnostic.
And I don't believe a god exists.
And I believe it is unlikely that a god exists. No RAZD, I conclude that the negative hypothesis is more likely than the positive hypothesis AND that "I can't know", by virtue of the entity in question having properties and actions that are 'unknowable'. The issue of the thread is about Pseudoskepticism. You seem to be of the opinion that position 6 on the Dawkins scale qualifies as Pseudoskepticism. That is to say, we are debating whether or not I am making a negative claim and whether or not I have provided evidence that supports the claim I am making.Think on it like this, person X has a religious experience which they say came from God Almighty.Person Y comes along and says, "hmm, I wonder what caused that religious experience." Person Z says "It might have been a temporal lobe seizure.""Maybe, ", says Y, "but I'm not sure that is the most likely result. It might have been a moment of temporary but dramatic elation that was interpreted by the brain in the only way it was able to make sense of it.""Hey,", says X, "Maybe it was God!""Well, of course it might have been", reply X and Z, "but we have no evidence such a creature exists. Why postulate that it does in order to explain your experience? Your hypothesis is no better than any other unverifiable and unfalsifiable hypothesis someone could come up with. It might be true, but it's not bloomin' likely, mate." Creationists often do show their calculations. The correct response is to show that they are not good calculations, and to point to how scientists have determined that certain pathways happen with a high probability etc etc.So, having provided the assumptions of my calculation you have the information you need. It is up to you to decide how many possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities there are that are not 'god' and then we can determine what the chances are that if one such concept exists, that it is god that is the one.It seems to me, that the number of things which would not qualify as a 'god' but are univerifiable and unfalsifiable is rather high. I wasn't trying to refute you RAZD. Just pointing it out. You didn't seem so worried about all the other probability statements in the scale, but according to your own argument you should have taken issue with all of them. I'm glad to see you agree. I don't feel an entirely subjective explanation is sufficient. However, whether one feels compelled to accept an argument or proposition by any set of evidence and reasons is ultimately a subjective judgement on their behalf.However, we are dealing with philosophy here - so a bit of care about exactly what is being claimed, and the argument in favour of that claim is needed.Here is my claim:For any given phenomenon, there exist many hypothesis that might explain it. Some hypotheses can be whittled down (somewhat, but not entirely) by falsification (of course, the falsifying evidence might itself turn out to be erroneous so we can never technically 100% reject a hypothesis). Then there are some hypotheses for which no evidence exists and an attempt is made to gather such evidence (one way or another).Then there are those hypotheses that cannot be verified or falsified. There are countless such hypotheses. The one that you (or someone else) propose might be true, but then it might be any of the other countless possibilities. The probability of drawing into that sea of possibilities and drawing out the one(s) that happen to be true is very low.If you want evidence that the number of unfalsifiable or unverifiable entities is high, I can try to provide some evidence and an argument as to why that is sufficient.If you want evidence that satisfies other hypotheses for the phenomena that people associate with a god, I can try to do that, though some has been presented already.So - what is it you want, if it has not been provided already? Or - what is lacking in the reasoning behind the evidence?

If God exists, then he is a natural process of reality. And if it happens as part of the natural processes or reality, that doesn't necessarily imply 'chance'. No, by this logic we get a 100% chance that the universe happened by the processes that are 'natural' to reality. The question then becomes 'what processes specifically?'If you propose some entity or process for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way, the chances are you've proposed wrongly. It is possible you are right, but not likely. I wouldn't rule it out, but I would find it unlikely that the memory she has of her visual experience was as a result of actually experiencing an actual fairy entity if that fairy entity was unverifiable independently of human vision. (If by 'fairy' she meant 'a picture of a fairy' or the like, then we have a different claim altogether).

Hi RAZD,
I appreciate there's lots of posts going on with some overlap on the manner of points being raised, so I'll try and be as brief as I can (!), and to the point.I think we agree that it is unlikely for someone to draw a creature they could not have encountered or had experience with. I think we also agree that some such creatures could possibly exist - that is we can't rule them out purely on the basis that someone has never verified their existence.You think that my probability analysis might be entirely subjective and opinion. I'm not sure that is entirely true. If you can find fault with the evidence and reason, I'd be keen to hear it. If you just want to dismiss it as subjective opinion then we have nothing further to discuss.You suggest that It is my view that anything which is proposed to explain a phenomena but is itself impossible to verify is both unknowable, unknown and unlikely to be true. This is not true.We find a fossil. Here are two possible claims:1) It is from a previously existing animal
2) An unverifiable and unfalsifiable process or entity (God/Satan/Djinn/the Modulous Lithofication process) created something that for some reason happens to look exactly like the fossil of a previously existing animal.We have evidence that fossils can occur through the processes described by taphonomy. We don't have (can't have!) any evidence that it is the latter entity/process.So, it might be 1), or it might be 2) or it might be3) Some other explanation which is verifiable/falsifiable.I think the most likely is 1), then 3) then 2).Now you think we do not have evidence for the counter claims? I think we do. We have evidence that religious experiences can be induced by various neural based events such as temporal lobe epilepsy. There are various cognitive effects that help foster religious beliefs for which we have evidence.Like the fossil, it is possible that it came about through some unfalsifiable/unverifiable means. Like the fossil, I don't regard this as likely. I would continue my life/my investigations on the assumption that it isn't the case.If I am ill - I don't assume demons or evils spirits. I think that explanation is highly unlikely and the actions I take to resolve it assume that it is not demons or evil spirits.If you think that is somehow unreasonable of me, I'd like to hear why. I'm not asking you to do the work. I've done that part. I'm asking you for an agreement on a variable. What do you think x is, where x is the number of possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses that can explain any given phenomena that is sometimes attributed to 'god'. If x is higher than two, then I submit that it is unlikely that any given person that has picked one such unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses has picked the right one, even if we assume that one such hypothesis is the right one. Granted, if it was as low as three, then I'd expect some people to have picked correctly if there were three or more guessers.Personally, I feel there are essentially an infinite number of such hypotheses which would leave us with a very low probability of picking the right one. If you feel that x is quite low - and you can explain why you feel that way, then maybe the discussion can advance. No such evidence exists for any claim. We simply have to apply inductive reasoning and 'flavour it' with the principle of fallibilism and the usual disclaimers one makes when engaged in inductive reasoning.I can however, show that there are some hypotheses for religious experiences that have evidence.
I can show that there are many hypotheses which are unfalsifiable and unverifiable.
I can explain that when you have a pool of many possibilities with no method for discriminate between them, and you pick one such possibility, the chances of you being right are low, even if the correct answer is in the pool. Let's put it like this: I am completely agnostic to the point of not commenting when it comes to discussing the possibility of a general unverifiable/unfalsifiable entity or process being responsible for a phenomena. If you asked me if I believed that there was such a thing responsible I'd say, "No.", but that isn't me saying that I believe that such a thing is not responsible.If you want to tell me that you think you have a good idea which unverifiable/unfalsifiable hypothesis is correct, then I will point out that you can't have any defensible method for making that determination and that the chances of you having chosen correctly is therefore rather low. I'm fairly sure I have provided the following:(1)Unfalsifiable/unverfiable entities and processes are many
(2)There is no way, by definition, to sort through the many such entities/processes to see which are more likely than othersBecause (2) therefore all of them have an equal probability of being true.
Because (1) the probability of any given hypothesis being true is low (by low I mean many to 1 against).I went further: There is evidence for other hypotheses that explain the phenomena in question. I am more inclined to think that these other hypotheses, and maybe some others as yet undiscovered, are to be preferred over arbitrarily picking one hypothesis from a sea of hypothetical possibilities.If you want to remain neutral to these other possibilities, then go right ahead.
If you want to concede it is irrational to believe that one of these possibilities is true due to the lack of evidence, that's fine.
If you want to think my reasons for my position are insufficient or insubstantial, that's ok too.If you want to debate them, that's great! Some of your objections are fine, but they don't seem to be objections to any position I am advocating. That is probably why there is a lot of repeated points, as people are trying to think of many different ways of essentially saying the same thing because it looks as though you are arguing against a different (though similar looking) position.

Probably a wise choice. Speaking of which, I think we are nearing the end here since I'm not sure we're marching forwards. We'll see, I have faith And how would we know if confirmation bias is in play? If it supports your argument rather then mine? If you want to criticise the argument please don't just absent mindedly say skeptical sounding catch phrases. No, that is not my default response. It is my view that anything which is proposed to explain a phenomena but is itself impossible to verify is both unknowable, unknown and unlikely to be true.That is not even close to being 'necessarily false'.If we don't currently have the technology to detect it, then it isn't unverifiable in principle, only in practice.If you will excuse the anticipatory counter-pun: I will leave the branch of thought about things which are only currently unverifiable in practice until later. Agreed. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable hypothesis are not testable. I agree. Which is why I keep repeating that the god claim has not been disproved, and nor is it my position that it has or can be. In fact my entire argument is focussed on the fact that it cannot be disproved so my claiming that it has been disproved would undermine myself!You keep bringing up that it is not logical, or rational or 'truly skeptical' to say that the claim has been 'disproven' without evidence. And I keep saying that I'm not saying that claim has been disproven. Can you acknowledge that we both agree that the god hypothesis has not been disproved? Agreed. But I am not talking about things that could be tested, but haven't. I'm talking about something which has been defined as untestable. Hence my repeated references to it being unverifiable and unfalsifiable. You'll need to explain what the difference is and why it is relevant. As I explained in my previous post I need do no such thing anymore than any scientist needs to show that his hypothesis applies to every single instance. I just point out that there is evidence for religious experiences being purely neural events caused by the vagaries of the brain, and there is no evidence for any unverifiable and unfalsifiable external process or entity being the cause of religious experiences. Since there are many such possible processes/entities, that any given one of them is true is unlikely. And it is. Wow, I guess I picked the wrong day to quit amphetamines. There is empirical study as to the causes of religious experiences. But it's like studying the causes of schizophrenia - you can't definitively say that every single individual's schizophrenia was caused by drugs/genetics/whatever. It could be the case that the feelings are representative of reality and that a malicious external force (eg the CIA) are secretely trying to poison them in some kind of handily untestable or unfalsifiable fashion. If you think the rational course of action is to shrug and say 'maybe they are', then you go right ahead.Personally, I think it is far more rational to say 'It is unlikely the CIA are trying to poison you and more likely that you should take this medication because the evidence suggests you are likely having an abnormal brain event that is causing you distress'. Yep. I can induce personal religious experiences too. So? X is an integer. I defined it as 'the number of possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses that can explain any given phenomena that is sometimes attributed to 'god'.' If you want the given phenomena to be 'religious or spiritual experience' then that's fine. What number do you think x is? We could do that, but why and what relevantce is it to the topic at hand?Now - what might comparable is if a two blind men walk into the forest and one picks a random leaf and declares "Upon this leaf is written 'RAZD was right, after all'"Now - we both agree that he might be right. However, he is making his claim based on no evidence, and even if one leaf in the forest did contain such a leaf the chances of the blind man picking it are very slim.This is similar to what I am trying to express here.But, in this case, at least the blind man is making a claim that is in principle, testable. He could go to a sighted person and ask them, or he could use other instruments that record visual information and have it translated into a medium that a blind person could experience.Which leads me to things that could be verified but have not yet been so. A classic example to date being the Higgs Boson.Now it seems to me that there is good reason to think that a Higgs Boson could exist, but it is not necessarily the case. When it comes to the Higgs Boson, using Dawkins' terminology, I am TAP (temporarily agnostic in practice) and I simply refer the argument to the experts as to whether there is a strong case either way. I hear there are good reasons to think there is such a thing. The Higgs Boson is a well defined entity with potentially testable properties.If you think we are discussing such an entity when we are talking about a god, then I am eager to hear the strict definition about its proposed properties.I feel, however, you don't have such a vision. If what you are talking is about a vague thing the properties of which which you won't comment on it becomes impossible to say what the probabilities are for obvious reasons. If it is well defined as something that is unfalsifiable and untestable then my argument so far provided applies. If it is well defined in some other way that is testable (but not practically or presently so), then I'd like to hear about it. If it is not defined well enough to say if it is testable or not or anything about it really specifically at all...then I have no belief in it nor do I assign any probability because I have no idea what you are talking about to have an opinion either way (ie., 'truly' agnostic). I am sure that unverifiable/unfalsifiable concepts are necessarily unverifiable/unfalsifiable. As above, if you are talking about something else, let me know. eh?
If it is verifiable in principle then that is part of the description of the hypothesis. Do you even know what the hypothesis is, exactly? No. It means that it is falsifiable. I asserted it that unfalsifiable/unverfiable entities and processes are many AND offered to demonstrate that this is true if you wanted. I would have though it was self-evident, but I can do it if you like.I asserted that with a collection of objects, where one of the objects is the 'winner' - and there is no evidence whatsoever as to which object is the right one, any method of picking has as much chance as any other. It is essentially a lucky dip.If you have any issue with this argument, speak up. If you think the probabilities of all unfalsifiable entities is not equiprobable or there are only a small number of them - then make your argument. Don't just dismiss it as an assertion no better than a creationist calculation. I don't dismiss creationist calculations as merely creationist calculations. I can actually show the problems. So do that. Then the debate might move forward. The kernels of commonality do not indicate a possibility at all. They are possible with or without those commonality. The commonality of experiences is evidence of a commonality of causes. I have evidence that some causes are common to human physiology. Do you have any evidence that an entity you term 'god' is such a cause? If not, why is it more likely that it is 'god' than it is that it is undetectable rays being beamed from the moon, secret CIA poison, malicious time travelling scientists setting up (undetectable) interference patterns that interfere with a quantum gravimetric matrix causing a theta wave cascade resulting in a religious experience, etc etc etc etc ad infinitumIf the 'god did it' hypothesis is more likely than CIA agents or moon beams then explain how you have made this determination.As it stands, the way I see it, the evidence available to us would suggest they are all share the same likelihood of being true. And there are many many many of them. And the chances of picking one correctly, assuming one of them is true, is low. Agreed - but at this time we can also say that not only do we not know, but that the chances of it being a moon ray causing religious experiences are very low. The chances of it being CIA toxins or communist plots to sap and impurify our bodily fluids are also low. I see no reason to suppose that 'god did it' is any more likely. Do you?

Exactly! You've encapsulated the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument perfectly and many atheists and a few others have been trying to drive this point home for so long its nice to see it sinking in.It is impossible to say that 'x' is more likely than 'y'. It is impossible to say that 'a god exists' is more likely than 'an IPU exists'. And yet theists and deists and agnostics and more have been arguing for some time that this is not the case - that a god is more likely. I'd go further than that. I'd insist that I'm not sure with complete honesty.

You don't think that the IPU is equally likely to have caused the universe (or have existed 'before' it) than any other similarly specific proposed unverifiable entity? I'm confused. What did you mean by x and y when you said 'if...anything existed at all, then it's impossible to say that "x" is more likely than "y"'You seem to be saying that 'y' is less likely than 'x' which is also saying that 'x' is more likely than 'y' which you just said was an impossible thing to say. I wasn't being sneaky, honestly.I didn't ask you to try equating the divine with nature. I just said that if divinity exists then it is a natural part of reality. I then went on to say

quote:

---

If you propose some entity or process for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way, the chances are you've proposed wrongly.

---

So no sneaking it in there, it was there all along, under the set of all entities that can be proposed and for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way. You agreed that looking at this way '...it's impossible to say that "x" is more likely than "y"'.Is it impossible (by which I assume essentially mean 'rational' or 'logical' or the like, because obviously it is possible to write or verbalize the words)? Or is it possible?If it is possible, you've found a way to undermine my argument. If it is impossible you need to work out whether to eat or have the cake.

I understand this. We agree that there is a commonality of religion and spirituality. You propose that this commonality is because of some kernal of truth. I propose that there is no evidence for this, you might as well say that the commonality of beliefs is caused by strange undetectable moon rays, or secret CIA poison. They are all equally evidenced and there is therefore no reason to prefer one to another.Now - had this thread been about evidence for god like the last one was, the 'brain is hardwired for religion' would be a perfect subtopic. It is exactly what I was saying in the first place. I would point out that you are being a little bit like the puddle who finds itself awe struck by how perfectly the hole it is in seems to have been shaped 'as if to fit it'.Religion is as it is because of its appeal to human brains, it has evolved to whatever mental conditions it finds itself in. That doesn't mean necessarily that the brain has been put together so that we would believe, but that we believe because of how the brain is put together.That might an interesting discussion as we try and describe which way around the cart and horse should go in that equation. And my point is that there are still more unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities that are not 'divine'.It isn't that Yahweh is a distraction, he is just a specific example. In this case he is as likely to be the cause as the IPU, if we assume they are equally specific (which I don't think they are).You can continuously generalise until all you are saying is nothing.First let us suppose we accept that the universe was created - what was the culprit?Chance of it being YHWH is very low because YHWH is a very specific entity being described (brushing aside difficulties in bringing conflicting ideas in the bible to one side).
There is a higher chance that it is an invisible pink unicorn (which has less stated properties as YHWH)
There is a higher chance that it is at least one invisible pink unicorn (since that includes one and many IPUs which contains more members than pure monounicornism)
Higher still that it is at least one invisible unicorn (all colours of invisible unicorn permitted),

Higher still that it is at least one invisible equine being
Higher that it is at least one intangible equine being
Higher that it is at least one unverifiable equine being
Higher that it is at least one unverifiable mammal-like being
""                          "" unverifiable divine being.
""                          ""      ""      entity.
""                          "" entity.

But what about the universe being created by scientists from our own future? Or scientists in another universe? Or that the universe is actually a Matrix and we are all aliens? Or...There are thousands more options than 'divine being' so on what grounds does divine being get to take a whole 50% of the probability? Just because nobody believes it, does not mean it is not true though. In fact, not believing in it has no affect on its truth status at all. Which is why the things we know are true today, but which were not believed centuries ago were true then too. Also why things that were believed true, are believed false today.Just because you know the motivations of one, or even many people, in discussing the IPU does not alter the IPU's truth standing. At all. How could it? Your beliefs are irrelevant and I am not dissecting them.I am explaining to you why I hold the position that it is unlikely that god exists. If that infringes upon your beliefs I cannot help that. I was hoping to elicit your agreement about certain propositions.If there are two equally specific entities with identical amounts of evidence in support of them and you pick one of them - what are the chances you picked the one that is real assuming that one of them is?That's what I'm asking - your beliefs about one entity or another are not relevant.If you want to say that by god you means some generic divinity thing, then I will contrast it to some kind of vague scientific conspiracy from another realm thing. If we assume that one of them is real, and you pick one - what are your odds of getting it right?

So you are a pseudoskeptic, then? Unless you have evidence that the IPU is 100% immaterial false concept, then that is what I believe RAZD would be calling you.

This is my point in a brief nutshell. The god hypothesis might be right, of course it might be right. I've never said otherwise. But there are so many possibilities on an equal evidential footing that it is just improbable that it is the right possibility.Of course if its the right one, its the right one. Just like a lottery ticket. It doesn't stop it from being unlikely that any given lottery ticket is a jackpot winner. Nope, bang on topic. I wasn't asking you to choose which one was true. If you have 52 face down cards, then you have access to no evidence with which to decide which one was the Ace of Spades. So you pick one of them. What are the chances it is the Ace of Spades. I know we don't know which one is the Ace of Spades, and I'm not asking you to pick one that you believe is the Ace of Spades. In fact - I suggest you should lack belief that the card you hold is the Ace of Spades. I also suggest it is improbable that you picked the Ace of Spades. For all we know, all the cards are the Ace of Spades in which case the real probability was 1, but from our non-evidenced position we have to consider all 52 possible cards as equally likely to be the one we have picked out.My position, in simple terms, is1) We can't know that god exists.
2) Given the large number of possibilities on the same evidential footing it is improbable that any given specified possibility is right.
3) So, when we are talking about a specific possibility (such as a god), my reaction is'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.'And apparently this might qualify me as a pseudoskeptic, which I dispute.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

According to RAZD's OP you need to have evidence of non-existence if you assert something doesn't exist. Or else you are a pseudo-skeptic. I'm not redefining it, here is a quote

quote:

---

if you claim a negative position, the burden of proof is on you to show evidence for it.

---

No. If you think that is what is being argued it's no wonder you have a problem with it I propose things, and ask why you dismiss them as silly without accidentally dismissing your own beliefs. That's all. I have proposed things that people have believed in (and still do), and had them dismissed as 'silly'. I can't win. But it is perfectly rational to say that if there are 5,000 people with the same amount of evidence against them: It is unlikely that the one you essentially arbitrarily pick out is the real murderer. Beats me, you claimed the IPU didn't exist, not me. I have mentioned Yahweh about once in this thread. Most of my efforts have been talking about the "Philosopher's God". It's just that you see the word 'god' and you think I mean 'God' by which you think I mean 'Yahweh'.I have not attempted to disprove any god in this thread. Very few people have. And they also use that belief as a basis for deciding social policy, which means it affects others. So it might be important to be clear about the likelihood of that specific deity. I don't doubt you had a religious experience. But I think the probability that it was Yahweh is low. I appreciate that you are as convinced it was Yahweh as I once was that I had discourse with mystic elders, my spirit guide, a leszi, or that I engaged in astral travelling etc etc. But that doesn't mean that the mystic elders are real beings. Maybe. But this is just an argument from consequences. I have had several encounters with several deities which left me with no doubt about their reality. Over the centuries, many have done good deeds after having a profound encounter with a religious icon. None of those religious entities are any more real because of it.Religious experiences are profound.
It is almost impossible to not have them affect your life and your behaviour especially when they happen unexpectedly.But what you believe was behind the experience isn't necessarily the same thing as what was behind the experience. Otherwise all experienced entities would be considered real. Take care Mike, and enjoy the journey -at least we both agree we only get one chance at an earthly life like this Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.