Pseudoskepticism and logic

Ladies & Gentlemen!I have laboriously traced my way through all these posts and I must say:KEEP THE THREAD OPEN PAST ITS 300 POST LIMIT, infact this thread should continue until the gasoline runs out in the desert miles away from gas with out water or radio or *anything*....Anyway.Hrrrmph!we have a Failure to Communicate, as Strother Martin would put it in Cool Hand Luke.Perhaps I should rephrase the issue thusly:Before we divide all Gaul into 2 (not 3) parts, lets consider the OP.
It's all about taking a negative THESIS about something and then making arguments to support your view.Here's the deal in a nutshell (since we cant seem to AVOID the big issue of god(s) - what evidence can atheists, such as me, come up with to support our view? Ok - call me a 6. What - wait, maybe we should rephrase this as "What would, in your own words, be an example of evidence that would confirm the NEGATIVE - there are ZERO supernatural occurrences in the history of the universe?"Fascinating.Indeed.Looking at the other side, what would it take to have Evidence of supernatural occurrences?Take God: "Well...if God suddenly shows up in Washington DC in the Sky so big as we can all see and booms out over every possible way of getting the message across that he/she/it is here to check up on things, landing in the Whitehouse lawn so to speak on Live TV."Dig?So, what would it take to have Evidence Of No Supernatural?There in lies the rub, because a single example to the contrary would falsify it. Nevermind - on to the Test - what would this test look like. This is not demonstrating the Absence of Evidence, so all of Straggler's push to get "Every story of God or Gods has been shown to be made up by man" has ZERO value here. Besides using the risky Inductive Reasoning, meaning that all his argument needs is 1 counterexample to kill it, he still is using Evidence of Things Not Seen. And then Bluegenes, with his finite size of possibilities, as if this was a math problem, and the sum of all possibilities cannot exceed 1.0000, and so his wonderful expounding upon tallying up what percentage of what you have already used up already, as deadly as it is, HAS NO RELEVANCE to the OP. His argument is similar to the argument that there are no uninteresting numbers. Well, no. But it was close.Again - let's get to the nitty gritty.What would a test for a prediction that there is 0.00000000000000 supernaturality in the universe look like?We can think of chemistry tests and translate them up into this?
Maybe Statistics can lay the blow cold and determine once and for all?Let's get to the nitty gritty.I'm thinking "indistinguishable for random occurrence" first, as measured from scientific testing. i mean, hello, here, we have to have a scientific test.So I make a test for that - does that do it? No.NOT EVEN IF EVERYTHING IS RANDOM does it mean that no spiritual, or supernatural, forces are at sway here. But it is looking pretty damn good.Experiment result: It's Not Random.huh?
what do I mean?The relative strengths of the physical constants, e.g. 1/137 and the like, work out to be just right to create atoms & molecules & whatever that lead to the wonderful world we have.Does anyone here (other than cavediver) have any have experience with the concept of Evolutionary Cosmology?The idea here is that universes have been born again & again with random values for these physical constants. We just happen to be in one that had them set just right to last long enough for us to be here (which is an extension of the Anthropomorphic Principle).So NO , the universe is Random under this scenario. What an arrogant waving of hands! No - what I was shooting down was the notion that the physical constants are magically just right to make us. The Force of Evolution is bigger than the Force of Cosmology.Evidence of supernatural things will have to come up with something else, methinks - BUT this is not Absence of Evidence means Evidence of Absence!This is about positive evidence that accidental, unintelligent, random (or biased but natural) happenings is sufficient to explain everything - from evolution to cosmology. We have the Evolution Theory for planet Earth (which will probably work out pretty well anywhere else, but that's another story).What would this evidence look like?
What predictions would a theory so assembled make?
What kind of test can we devise to pursue this?Rather than tote out all the Absence of Evidence evidence, what can we come up with to test Presence of Evidence! What is Present?Fascinating. I think we can mull some more over this.

---

- xongsmith

I mean, think of it: even convincingly demonstrating that the Universe is INDISTINGUISHABLE from a Universe with ZERO supernatural presence - and I mean flat out to the zillionth decimal point - is still Absence Of Evidence and therefore not Evidence of Absence.Let's put our heads together and come up with something! Challenge!

---

- xongsmith

Oh come on. What I was saying was that if all scientific investigation supports what this Universe would look & behave like if there were ZERO supernatural action in it, then it still wouldnt address your question. It would be a grand version of the Absence of Evidence. I certainly was not saying there was another universe. Although that is possible for another topic. We are talking about this universe, correct?Is it not about searching for the presence of Evidence to support the notion that this Universe is completely devoid of the supernatural?That is, the Presence of Evidence.Consider 4 boxes:on the Theist side we haveBox 1: Evidence that supernatural things exist
Box 2: Absence of Evidence that supernatural things do NOT existon the Atheist side we haveBox 3: Evidence that supernatural things do NOT exist.
Box 4: Absence of Evidence that supernatural things exist.Now, in this EvC group Boxes 1, 2 and 4 have been populated with various posts from the group.I thought you were curious why Box 3 hadnt been populated yet.Isnt that it?Note: Box 2 may be low on count as well. But Box 3 is still empty?

That's not exactly what I had in mind, but that can work here, provisionally. Sure - why not, makes a good consistency of soup here. That is not what I claim. What I am saying is that in the 466 posts in this thread no one has put anything in Box 3. Instead it's all about Box 4 or Box 1. And I think there may have been something placed in Box 2, but I cannot recall. Yes. And Box 4 is off topic. Even Box 2 is off topic.
As far as I know, Box 3 is the OP subject and not one post here has dealt with it.What I wanted to do was to rally the troops here and come up with something we could put in Box 3. Not whether it has been done, but what kind of thing would it be? For example, I suggested that a huge God-like face landing on the White House lawn and allowing scientists to prod & poke away and demonstrating supernatural powers on live TV would be something you would place in Box 1. That would demonstrate the Presence of Evidence for supernatural things. I'm not suggesting that we go out now and start waiting with a team of scientists on the White House lawn or anything.What kind of test can we think up for Presence of Evidence for no supernatural things?There is the nub.Anything that tests for the Absence of something, like "Everything we have observed up to date is consistent with no supernatural things" falls in Box 4. Like *all* of Straggler's arguments about God-entities being made up by mankind. "Every one that has been properly investigated in depth turns out to have been made up, so, by Inductive Reasoning, all God-entities are most extremely likely to have been made up" is an Absence of Evidence argument.

---

- xongsmith

...well some might regard that as Absence of Evidence for chocolate sprinkles..."it isn't there" So says you. This maybe should be fleshed out a little more, like a Michealson-Morley Experiment to detect Aether. I think Einstein was said to have remarked "Well - I guess aether cannot be detected." - which was different at the time then saying it didn't exist. Later on, of course, it becomes retroactive confirmation of the constancy of the Speed of Light, the Big Lynch Pin of Relativity. Here we see one result, the Absence of Evidence for one thing (aether) becoming the Presence of Evidence for something else (the Big Speed Limit). (emphasis mine)In other words, the model, as it currently is known, without any chocolate sprinkles (needing of the supernatural), works everywhere we have looked. This is evidence that supernatural things (so far) are not needed, and are thus equivalent to mere chocolate sprinkles. This is Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural things, as opposed to Absence of Evidence for Supernatural things (such as the fact that no scientific study has discovered even a smear of chocolate anywhere from those sprinkles).Fascinating. It feels very close to Box 3.A List of every item in the current scientific model of this observed universe (noting parenthetically that no item in this list needs any supernatural thing about it) would be an immense document way too big to fit in this forum. But it is a List of Evidence.I'm voting a Box 3 entry here.What does the rest of the audience think?

---

- xongsmith

Yes - I was sloppy there, I meant it was a huge Absence of Evidence and, just looking at that singular result, it was not Presence of Evidence of a Universe with NO supernatural things in it. But then...well, you see my reply to your reply to LindaLou...the model working is Presence of Evidence in and of itself. The scientific method works. Everytime an experiment is demonstrated elsewhere and shown to be repeatable, it is evidence the model works.The fact that it works is also True for various Deist models. But they don't have sole possession of the evidence, do they?We would probably agree here that the YEC model does not work. Until it is detected, there is no difference. Does the Aether exist?

---

- xongsmith

I have another issue. I think I want to move the goalposts.I have just concluded that Rrhain's evidence does fit into my Box 3 (Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural). But it also is evidence for various Deist models (among them I would expect to find yours)....that is: the scientific method of modeling this currently observed universe works. Now - that it has been working perfect well without needing to resort to some supernatural clause anywhere in it's mountains of data may be true, but that notion would be a Box 4 item (Absence of Evidence for the supernatural).Here's where I want to move the goalposts:What Box 3 item can we think of that will not work with Deism?There, I'm afraid, we'll find nothing in that category. It'd would be like trying to describe what was going on "before" the Big Bang.

---

- xongsmith

Argh - we agree, but then we are unclear to each other.The model works: Presence of Evidence for a correct model of NO supernatural thingsThe model doesnt need
chocolate sprinkles: Occam's Razor, parsimonyThe model has never even
observed chocolate sprinkles: Absence of Evidence for a correct model with supernatural things.When I said INDISTINGUISHABLE I was referring to the total lack of something supernatural being observed - the Absence of Evidence for a correct model with supernatural things. What I had not seen, which was something you did see, was that the scientific explanation, as far as we can tell to date, has worked - and that is the Presence of Evidence for a model with NO supernatural things in it.

Yes - they use the same evidence.Think of an analogy between Abiogenesis and Evolution.The only question is supernatural Big Bang or not. Everything afterwards is identical as far as we have been able to measure up to now, meaning that what the scientific method has done supports both positions. It's that "before" the Big Bang difference. And possibly Straggler's "something" or your "chocolate sprinkles" still hanging around undetected that you or I dont need. I'm still trying to figure out how my brother came to his position. I've known him for over 60 years now. On his scale he says he's a 3 and I think I throw in at a 6. But I might be willing to back off to a 5.6 if my Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural Box 3 comes up empty of Evidence that Deism cannot absorb. The parsimony argument is strong, the Absence of Evidence for something supernatural is strong.

This thread is not about detecting "god". This thread is about providing evidence for negative hypotheses. The credibility issue you refer to is off topic. Exactly - no connection - all of the scientific evidence is independent of how the universe began, whether by God's Big Bang or by a natural Big Bang, just like all of the scientific evidence for evolution is independent of a "goddidit" abiogenesis or a naturally occurring abiogenesis.The scientific model works equally well for both - until the Theists start wavering and saying that the supernatural is still here. Then the model doesn't work so well for them, depending on their additional claims. But there are some Deists who have effectively claimed that the Big Bang was the last supernatural event. And thus the scientific model works for them and is supporting Presence of Evidence. I'm not sure that was his position. Can you cite that?

---

- xongsmith

hi back to you. I suppose it is, but it's not my problem - and anyway, the second you allow something like "God" into the argument, you have abandoned logical action. Let them wrangle with that. How do we know natural processes are capable? Because we are here, right? I didn't want to get to the details of that kind here, but rather set up the way we can formulate what to look for to support a Universe with NO supernatural things. What kind of evidence can we find that would support that but at the same time not support a supernatural beginning that then turned things over to natural processes. Actually, hold that thought - let's forget about that, because I doubt that such a test can be devised. However, we may be able to think of a test to show no supernatural meddlings after the BB. But again, that is a search for Evidence supporting supernatural things and hoping the result is Empty, an Absence of Evidence. What would a 100% natural process universe have that the other one would not? What would be Present?Suppose we look at an alluvial fan of some river. Upstream, someone has built a dock, disrupting the natural flow of the river. Can our scientists, downstream and unable to otherwise detect the dock, find anything in the grains of sand and clay and stuff that would reveal the dock? Maybe a paint chip? Okay, now remove the dock from ever having been there and examine the fan again. Can they find evidence in the grains of NO dock? There is now no unnatural disruption, but there are still disruptions from natural causes, such as an old tree partially falling into the river and sticking into it like a dock pier. Just we cannot find any paint chips doesn't prove a thing - maybe the guy didn't paint the dock. We may find no remnant traces of interference patterns in the grains from regularly spaced dock piers. But there didn't have to be that kind of a dock. So I think we're up a falling riverside tree on that.What kind of evidence would be Present that would rule out ALL possible supernatural events? Yikes. Well, right away, it should be pretty obvious that no mere man can be a God. Now what about a woman? Oh yeah. I've caught glimpses of many.

No no no...nothing about the test he is running. It's about the body of evidence the scientific method has collected up to now regarding this universe. There is nothing in it that contradicts the claim that there are NO supernatural things whatsoever. All of the evidence gathered thus far supports the claim. The model works, as he is fond of putting it. It is also true that there is nothing in it that contradicts certain Deist positions. All of the evidence thus far also supports those claims. Every time an experiment is repeated around the scientific world, it supports both claims. The YEC people, along with probably most OEC people, however, have run into troubles a-plenty with their claims and the evidence gathered thus far - evidence that may be slightly reinterpreted with new evidence leading to a better understanding, but still, too far off their model to ever get back into it. So we have all the scientific evidence to date supporting the claim that there are NO supernatural things. Yes, I got evidence...but...Since it also supports other claims, it is not as useful as it could be. The search continues....

---

- xongsmith

Yeah. Fair question. This is just a word I'm using to cover all of the things people in this thread and elsewhere in this forum having been talking about. Rrhain calls them chocolate sprinkles. Straggler calls them "LindaLou's something". Certainly God & deities of a lessor nature, psychic experiences, paranormal things, things like that. I could have been flippant and said "whatever the scientific method cannot explain", but that is a definition by talking about what it is NOT. Sasquatch & Nessie are probably best left out, since their existence is posited in a way that the scientific method could explain and in a way that would not disprove the model. ETs too. Those things are in a different category for me. But it doesn't have to be for you. I want to leave that vague at this time.There is a thread consensus developing, I think. On the whiteboards we used to diagram such things as "clouds". They will be filled in later, but we can go ahead and proceed to examine the diagrammed graph. There may be a lot of stuff we can do before we have to go back and fill in the clouds with real stuff. Sorry - just being flippant that time...couldn't resist.I suppose in some other meta-universerve there might be some equivalent of Joe The Plumber, finishing of a 6-pack and peeing in a toilet some meta-where. The toilet bowl is frothing up with bubbles. Some of the bubbles are expanding, some popping, some just drifting around with the others. We might happen to be on one of those expanding bubbles and think we're in a Big Bang. You can almost imagine the meta-Joe hitching up and zipping his pants and reaching for the meta-lever right about...........now....But anyway, it's a cloud, what difference would it make to the idea of the OP? The Presence of Evidence for a negative position. Not the Absence of Evidence for the positive position.

---

- xongsmith

Showing that every god concept thus far, under careful scientific scrutiny, is made up is a Box 4 argument and off topic. Logical proof is not on topic. As on the bathroom wall:
Descartes: To be is to do!
Sartre: To do is to be!
Sinatra: Do be do be do!This is not a Thought Experiment.It's Physical Evidence, the Presence of it, for a Universe with NO supernatural things. That is the OP.You and I are '6's. We have a tough challenge here. What fits in Box 3 that supports a '6' but not a '3'? Something Present. Not something of the other guy's position that's Absent.

---

- xongsmith

It's even worse than that. I'd be happy now to even have a pre-concepted biased view. That would at least be something. Take my alluvial fan example I was trying to verbalize to Onifre. All I can see are the grains of sands and minerals and clay and muck and crud from the river nicely spread out before me. What can I look for in there for Evidence that there is no dock of some fashion up around the bend of the river where I cannot see? Something to distinguish it from a branch of tree fallen into the river?

---

- xongsmith