Pseudoskepticism and logic

Right. You've got the gist. We don't know the origins of the universe and exactly what it is, so that's all there is to believe in that area at this point in time. So it would appear, but that might be a false dichotomy, because we know that nature can produce "conscious powers" like ourselves, so it could be a bizzare mixture of the two (our particular universe was created by beings in white coats in another universe, who evolved naturally). You're fond of the singular "God", which, as I pointed out in the last post, is as remote a possibility as a billion gods working together. In the last post, all the possibilities I mentioned were teleological (gods, goddesses, elves, fairies etc). However, such things bear the character of human invention, so "natural" is always the observation based default, but doesn't exclude "natural teleology".Every time we find out how something came into being, like our solar system, for example, it turns out to happen without teleology. There's no reason to believe that this will change as we discover more about the universe. So far, we have no evidence for "extra-universal intelligence", but as an atheist/agnostic, of course I believe it's possible (outside the universe, pretty much everything we could think of might be possible, but also pretty much everything we could think of is probably improbable, because it's probably as weird as the sub-atomic world outside space-time, if there is such an area).Here's a good new religion to bring both sides together on this thread. What about a multi-verse created by a pantheon of gods and goddesses who, like some particles, can be said to both exist and not to exist at the same time, therefore offending no-one? What's wrong with this thread is that it's an effort to claim that one has to present evidence in order not to believe in an evidenceless proposition, like wood-elves, or ogres with green hair, when actually it's the norm not to believe in things until there's positive evidence for them. Remember my calculations. "Purely agnostic" actually means 6 out of 7 on the Dawkins scale for any specific god propositions made. RAZD hates the six position, which is why he tries to lump it in with the 7, an irrational thing to do. Sixes do not claim to know that any gods do not exist, but have worked out that all individual god propositions will be highly unlikely.So long as everyone who is inclined to believe in these things called gods agrees that my pantheon of existent/non-existent gods described above is just as likely as any other god suggestion, I'm happy.

Actually, my scenario had nothing to do with gods in the first place. For a single isolated experience (the scenario I brought up), yes.

Oh OK. But it is gods that we are being challenged to somehow disprove here is it not? Can you explain why?It seems obvious to me that dogs, backyards and the ability to hear noises associated with these very real and concretely evidenced concepts are so mundanely known to be true as to make the two claims literally worlds apart.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotes

NO! not necessarily. The challenge is to disporve anything you hold a negetive claim for.You were the first person to mention god in this thread. They're both none. As in, we don't have objective evidence for me hearing either one of those things.

---

Heh, if you were in a full church then god's existing would be mundane as well

Well materially refutable things are relatively easily refuted. No? The interesting question arises when we consider the defualt position with regard to concepts that are irrefutable and objectively unevidenced by their very nature. It would be a very short discussion (I hope) if all we had to do was establish that grass is not red. For example. Well RAZD made it pretty obvious which atheist he was talking about and he, you and LL have all at various points in this thread requested that the evidence against gods specifically be presented. That is kinda silly. The two possibilities are not equally (un)evidenced at all. Blatantly so. We have a wealth of evidence for the possibility of one (the dog in the backyard - just to be clear) and absolutely no objective evidence for the possibility of the second claim. It is all about evidenced possibilities here CS. Ah yes the power of indoctrination................

Check your card again; you're missing B65 for Bingo. Boy that On(fire) follows me everywhere. So am I supposed to give validity to your premise (taking a negative or positive position on it), even before you establish the evidence for your premise?How can anyone be an atheist to nothing? Again - please give me the method for investigating such a claim, the same method that I presume YOU used to establish it - or, did you just make up the premise without any evidence?Am I supposed to take your subjective experience as evidence? Is that what you're saying?Can a brotha get a clear answer, please? You keep saying this, but I don't see how anyone can be a pseudoskeptic when nothing has been established to the contrary, other than personal feelings, speculation, and baseless assertions.I am not skeptical of the existance of god, because I don't yet know what god means. The onus falls on those who introduced the premise, to establish what defines god. Unknowable, nondescript, ambiguous forces, that may be off doing other things, doesn't help me one bit in knowing what on earth it is anyone means by god.Perhaps this is considered by RAZD Off-Topic. Fine. I'll take my ball and go home. But I submit that it's still a red-herring in this thread, and as long as no one can describe/define/explain what they mean by "god," then neither pseudoskepticism, or atheism, or agnosticism are relevant positions to require anyone to hold. I am neither; no one has any clue what they mean by god, so no position is required. It's all irrelevant until some describes what they mean by god.RAZD said, unknowable, undetectable, perhaps off doing other things; if this satisfies you, then cool. To me, it is nothing more than a collection of words that describes nothing. I thought deist. What do you mean by "god"...?- Oni

That's what I've been say'n.If that sounds like agnosticism then whatever. To me, it sounds like nothing at all. But you had a method for investigating it had you wanted to. Go see what it is; listen for the noise again; walk out into your backyard and observe - these are all great methods to investigate strange noises; what similar method do you have or can suggest to investigate subjective experiences of god?Do you suggest, like Linda does, that I should meditate? Or perhaps wish upon a star and hope it comes to me? Should I go see a guru? I'm hurt'n bro, just let me in on the secret, please. Wait, if there is no assumption either way, then why am I being asked the question? Dude, I don't know what the fuck I'm arguing at this point. All I'm saying, if I can make a single point on the issue, is that no one has defined what "god" is, therefore no one has a negaitve position toward the existance of god. Perhaps I'm skeptical of someones claim, that goes without question since people bullshit a lot, but certainly not skeptical toward a nondescript entity that can't be defined even by those claiming to believe; it seems pointless to be skeptical, the best thing to do is ignore such claims.I'll repeat the matra of those arguing against RAZD, how can one hold a negative position towards nothing?PS: Sweet Boba Fett hat!- OniEdited by onifre, : No reason given.

So then it follows that the OP assumes the premise is true before establishing evidence in support of it.You can't have a negative hypothesis towards nothing. If the word "god" means something (other than a subjective, personal, speculation of the existance of some unknown force) then perhaps a clear definition can be given?Till then, I'll just assume it's made up by the person claiming it.This doesn't mean "god" doesn't exist. It just means that I can't deal with the validity of the claim until I know what the hell it is people are talking about.If I'm told that the OP establishes god to be whatever you want it to be, then this discussion is bogus.- Oni

For the record - I agree with this entirely. I, and I think most others (except Oni) on the atheist side of the debate here, are assuming at least some vague concept of god as implicit. As vague and ambiguous as this "something" may be it is still a definite concept on which one can pass judgement.However if we are simply being asked "Do you believe in X?" where X is a non-concept. A concept whose only property is a complete absence of any definition then the question doesn't even make sense. We are effectively being asked "Do you believe in ___________?".I am not atheistic towards "____________" because there is nothing to be atheistic about. But equally I don't see how anyone can claim to be agnostic about "it" either.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I simply stop right before the word "god."I am assuming a vague concept is implicit. Why give anyone a pass on such a meaningless word as "god"...? Define it, or forever hold your peace. I agree, and that's why I continue to say that a negative hypothesis doesn't exist. Well said, Straggler. The whole thing seems pointless.- Oni

If there is literally no relevant evidence, how can a God - or whatever we are talking about - be anything other than made up ?Where else could the idea of any purely hypothetical entity come from but from the human imagination ?

I agree.The problem is, that that almost everyone agrees. I'm sure CS, LL, RAZD and probably everyone else also think this seems pointless... just from the other side.Why is it that you, me, Straggler and others find this so simple/pointless/basic/the-way-things-are on one side, but those like CS, LL, RAZD and the similarlily-minded can find it so simple/pointless/basic/the-way-things-are on the other side?It doesn't make sense, really.This is by far the most popular thread. And one of the fastest growing I've ever seen at EvC. Why is that? There has to be "something" for it to be such a hotly-debated topic. What is this pointless thing that's at the heart of all these descrepencies?Is it (as Larni says) nothing more than how different people deal with varying levels of doubt-acceptance?Is it possible to identify the specific "something" that's at the centre of this debate and have someone change their stance in understanding it? Or is it something that's subjectively-hardwired (like a favourite taste or colour), and we just have to deal with however we are?I've seen people change their stance regarding beliefs in God or beliefs in other things... but that's more from gaining understanding about what they actually believed in rather than actually identifying the "something" that causes them to believe the way they do.I agree, it's pointless. I just wish it wasn't also indescribable

Not always. Well that's where we get to the point that people take a negetive claim towards those things in the absense of sufficient evidence. I'm just playin' Like the position that a lack of objective evidence means that the thing is made-up. And that when we lack sufficient information to assign possibilities then the default position should be that of not knowing over tkaing the negetive claim.

Hey, combing posts here.From Message 307: Alrighty then. Oh come on, you know about that woo-woo. You should know:

quote:

---

Heaven is in a cow's ass.

---

Why does being asked a question necessitate an assumption?Does schwag exist?What have I assumed there? If people aren't taking a negetive position, then there's no issue with the OP. To that question I would answer: "I don't know."I would not answer: "No." because I lack sufficient information make a claim. That's the point of the topic.From Message 308What premise? That people who hold a negetive claim without sufficient evidence are pseudoskeptics? Its not like it isn't in the dictionary Why? And not dealing with the claim would be being agnostic towards it.I get your point though. I'm just saying that its not out of line with the OP. I don't think the OP needs god to be defined to remain sound.

That is a simplistic misrepresentation. I cannot be bothered to go through why again. But we don't lack sufficiant information at all. We have masses of information. Masses of information about dogs and the likelhood of one being in your back yard. Masses of information about the human proclivity to erroneously attribute things and experiences that they don't understand to the supernatural.Look your argument on this is just blatantly silly. You are pitting the very real and objectively evidenced possibility of a dog being heard in your back yard against the possibility that an internal voice of god experience was actually due to god and calling them completely equal.In the crazy situation that you are advocating, where each claim lives in isolation to all other objective knowledge, dogs and gods are equally evidenced. Go figure.There is no such thing as a vacuum of all objective evidence.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.