Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 325 of 562 (526950)
09-29-2009 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by Straggler
09-29-2009 6:26 PM


Re: Evidential Ballpark
Oni writes:
You made it up. The reason I know is because you don't have any objective evidence for it. There is no other logical conclusion other than, you pulled it out your, as the brits would say, arse.
Straggler writes:
But I didn't say that!!!! Oni did. Take it up with him. But don't attribute it to me.
So then let me explain, because context is very important, and we need to know in what context what I said took place.
I asked for a specific description from RAZD, we all remember that, even you Straggler seemed astonished to see him actually give one.
RAZD said this:
quote:
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
So here's where logic follows. If it is unknowable, outside our universe (whatever that means), outside of our percetion, or, off doing other things (whatever that is), then how on earth could this description have been evidenced and known by RAZD? Where did he get that description?
And, here's where the assumtion comes in, when he actually gave me a description! Meaning, he thought about what god may look like or be, without evidence that there even is one!
How could he do that without making it up?
How could he describe something that is, by his own description, unknown?
Remember, I'm not talking about God being made up, I'm talking about the concept put forth by people being made up. I think here is where we are having trouble understanding each other.
How could these concepts be anything other than made up, if god itself is an unknown?
Any concept, anyone gives you, unless they have objective evidence to support it, comes from their mind (even for things that we know exist) - it still comes from your mind if you didn't reference any objective evidence. I don't see how it can be referenced any other way, and no one has stepped up to show how it could be referenced another way.
In fact, no one has even given the method for investigating that they used to establish that concept. At this point, even just a method would suffice, IMO.
[abe] Thought about this some more, frankly this thread is consuming a lot of my brain functioning time. Luckily, I have medicine for that.
After I re-read this, this is where the above line of reasoning takes me: If no one can give a method to investigate; if no one can describe what they mean by god; if people make things up; if subjective experience is all you can cite as evidence - then, it follows that, while the possibility that "something exists that is unknown to us" is very possibly true, why are we refering to that as a "god" when the only concepts we have of this word "god" can't be objectively evidenced?
To me this means "god," the word, means absolutely nothing. However, the concepts that people have may still be describing something yet unknown, some unknown force/energy/thingy, perhaps. Who knows at that point.
Also to note, because it is subjective in nature (even if you think that constitutes as evidence) you are then basically saying that god can be anything you subjectively think it is. It is anything and everything, and oddly enough, nothing at all as well.
It has lost all meaning. It means nothing or everything, or whatever you subjectively think it means. Then what the hell are we really talking about at that point?
Anyone's mental image? Then we are gods if we can create gods.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by Straggler, posted 09-29-2009 6:26 PM Straggler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 337 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 11:59 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 355 of 562 (527147)
09-30-2009 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 350 by greyseal
09-30-2009 10:02 AM


Re: Absence of evidence is......
Hi greyseal, haven't talked to yet since you joined, so welcome EvC. It looks like you're right in the battle with good logical points. Something that took me a while to get the hang of without just debating on emotion alone. I thank CS and Rrhain for that.
With that out of the way...
greyseal writes:
If all the world apparently works as well as it does without divine interference, why would you still put a god high on the list of things you believe in without evidence?
Good point, I think many of us debating against RAZD's OP are claiming this very thing.
As Rrhain said in Message 191, which I think is the most simple to understand of all our attempts to debate this point:
quote:
Exactly backwards. What is needed is evidence that any concept of any kind isn't simply made up.
The null hypothesis is always assumed to be true unless there is evidence to deny it. If you're going to claim something exists, then you're the one that needs to show it. It is not up to the one denying it to demonstrate such.
The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence of something missing?
If you can't even define what it is that is missing, how do you know that there might be something missing in the first place?
(emPHasis done by me)
*Note: Rrhain i was going to nominate this for PotM but honestly I was too busy... and you're a bit of a douche sometimes. LOL - j/k
greyseal writes:
It makes more sense to assume there is not until such time as there is evidence. there's lots of things you can't disprove - santa claus, fairies, unicorns, elves, bogey monsters, demons, witches, spirits, ghosts, clairvoyance...are you really, really sure you want to seriously entertain their existence?
This always strikes me as odd, that for some reason, when talks get philosophical, all of a sudden the laws of physics and the natural order of reality get ignored? It's no wonder philosophy is a dying art. We're starting to understand existance more and more every day, and positing supernatural entities for the cause this existance is becoming less and less relevant. People seek objective evidence, and require it for explanations more and more everyday; no longer are they satisfied with god-did-it.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by greyseal, posted 09-30-2009 10:02 AM greyseal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 360 by greyseal, posted 09-30-2009 12:33 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 422 of 562 (527525)
10-01-2009 4:47 PM
Reply to: Message 336 by RAZD
09-29-2009 11:35 PM


Re: how can you have any atheists then
If you don't know what you don't believe in, then how can there be atheists?
Because I am an atheist in regards to all of the proposed concepts of god by religions, tribes, cults, etc... Not to individual, subjective concepts.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 336 by RAZD, posted 09-29-2009 11:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 424 of 562 (527536)
10-01-2009 5:18 PM
Reply to: Message 385 by Kitsune
10-01-2009 4:30 AM


Re: Agnosticism vs. pseudoskepticism
Hi Linda,
Oni writes:
Boy that On(fire) follows me everywhere.
Linda writes:
My mistake.
It's cool, I'm very used to it.
Mind you, it seems a suitable monicker for a debate forum. It's also what your avatar will be if he's not careful with his cigarettes.
I'll make sure he's cautious.
Oni writes:
How can anyone be an atheist to nothing?
Linda writes:
The fact that you're still asking the question above means that you're sort of getting what RAZD, CS and I are saying here. Think about it.
From what I can understand, you, RAZD and CS are saying that if I consider it "nothing" then I should be agnostic. Right?
Here's my consistent issue with that:
If I say I'm agnostic, then that means I consider the concepts that people have put forth to describe god as possible, I just don't yet have enough evidence, or, I don't know enough to draw a conclusion. Which would be fine, I believe this is your position?
BUT - My problem is this: I don't think ANY of the concepts put forth by people are possible because no one has any idea what they actually have a concept for. (I hope I said that in a way you can understand it?)
If god is unknown, unevidenced, undetectable, outside of our universe, then those claiming that (god is unknown, unevidenced, undetectable, outside of our universe) would need something to base that conclusion on. If you have nothing, other than subjective speculation, then the only place that "god" exists is in the individuals mind.
IOW, people are creating a concept (of god) to describe something that is in their minds (and has not been defined).
To put it even more layman: people are inventing a thing (concept) to describe a thing (god) that they invented to explain another thing (phenomenon) that they can't understand.
Though perhaps some of the frustration I'm sensing is due to the fact that the scientific method just isn't very suitable for such an investigation
I've read your points on using the scientific method and I think it's a cop out excuse. It takes us back to the dark ages. The scietific method is the only way to investigate reality, if your "something" isn't part of our reality, then you're making it up and giving it that "supernatural" quality to get out of having to provide evidence.
RAZD and I have been defining G(g)od(s) as deism or spirituality, or the kernel of possible truth within all such beliefs.
Since god/s have been used to explain phenomena (including existance, something instead of nothing, or our universe) then to me, the only "kernal of truth" is that people haven't fully understood nature yet. God is used as an answer to a question, he has always been a gap filler.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 385 by Kitsune, posted 10-01-2009 4:30 AM Kitsune has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 426 of 562 (527556)
10-01-2009 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 338 by RAZD
09-30-2009 12:56 AM


Re: Re: finally, a description
Hi RAZD,
Oni writes:
it's just the place where one stand until there is evidence to make you consider moving from there.
RAZD writes:
That's the definition of agnosticism. Glad you agree that to move away from a neutral position without having evidence to make you go there is unreasonable. Now all we need to do is agree on where that center is.
So it seems like just semantics (sort of) that we are debating. Fair enough. I feel atheism (there is no god/s) is the logical position because I feel that the word "god" is only defining individual concepts of god. Since these individual concepts are purely subjective (as per your link), the concept is describing something that only means something when there is a concept for it.
It's circular.
The word "god" means nothing until there is a concept for it. The concepts are draw up from purely subjective speculation (as per your link).
So, outside of this purely subjective concept the word "god" doesn't describe anything. But, within this purely subjective concept the word "god" describes whatever you want it to.
My conclusion: God is a meaningless word until we give it a purely subjective concept. And to that subjective concept I am an atheist because there is no other evidence to substanciate the concept. Your concept is basically describing nothing at all.
Some concepts are vague, nondescript concepts of an "unkown force." Ok, fine. Perhaps some unknown force exists, but so? Is that what god is? A force?
How could I reasonably be asked to say "I don't know," IOW be agnostic, to a word that has no meaning and to a concept that describes absolutely nothing?
To me atheism is the true position of the skeptic, because I did the leg work to understand the nature of what it is you/theist/diest are trying to describe. And I have come to the conclusion that when people use the word "god" they are describing absolutely nothing other than their own subjective speculation of what "god" (the word) actually means.
No evidence? Do we need the merry-go-round of subjective experience/s again? Do we need to re-investigate the numerous experiences of a religious nature that are certainly evidence of something, what is not conclusive.
It could be evidence of anything; I don't see what your point is?
The subjective experience creates the concpet of god, not the other way around, RAZD.
Even if it's trying to describe something, the nature of that "something" is created by the person having the experience. So yes, it's certainly evidence of something, but when you describe that "something," know full well that your description is purely imaginative.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 338 by RAZD, posted 09-30-2009 12:56 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(3)
Message 431 of 562 (527632)
10-01-2009 11:42 PM
Reply to: Message 428 by Straggler
10-01-2009 7:54 PM


Re: Yawn...The Denial Goes On.
Dude you are in denial.
Straggler, I'm with you on this, bro.
All RAZD is doing is trying to philosophically shift the focus from his "belief" to how we view evidence. It's bullshit.
No one lives their life with "maybe's," at least not to the extent RAZD wants us to. He believes some "unknown, vague, ambiguous entity" is responsible for creating the universe. If that wasn't one of the biggest cop outs, I don't know what is. This whole thread seems like a semantical arguement that lacks any evidence or support. Even if RAZD established what HE meant by god, how many people would he have that supports his imagined entity?
Objective evidence is needed to establish the truth. RAZD's unkown entity lacks that...therefore, one can conclude that RAZD is full of shit when he describes his enity.
RAZD you know you never saw anything, you know you can't reference any objective evidence, you know no evidence supports your claim...why do you continue to claim agnosticism for something that is unevidenced and unknown?
It's bogus! I call out any and all believers! Do any of you have evidence for what you believe in outside of subjective speculation?
Let me answer that: Fuck no! You don't!
Apply faith, cuz nothing else will help you...
- Oni (super drunk)... But in no way apologetic...
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 428 by Straggler, posted 10-01-2009 7:54 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 443 by Straggler, posted 10-02-2009 3:29 PM onifre has not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 492 of 562 (528575)
10-06-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 11:36 AM


Hi xongsmith,
all of the scientific evidence is independent of how the universe began, whether by God's Big Bang
Doesn't this assume that (1) God is a possible entity, (2) it is capable of such an act, (3) humans were able to know this via subjective experiences...?
Isn't that assuming the premise, and is a logical fallacy?
The scientific model works equally well for both
Not necessarily, at least IMO. The first model (God caused BB) assumes God is capable of such an act. If we don't know what a God is, can't describe it, lack evidence for it, then how can anyone assume what God is capable of?
Given RAZD's definition of deism (it comes from subjective speculation) couldn't I or anyone else on this planet technically be God? Why is an "unknown, undetectable, ambiguous force" a better description than "I am God"...? - if both descriptions are derived from subjective experiences and speculated on as to their meaning...?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 11:36 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 4:00 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 500 of 562 (528708)
10-06-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 4:00 PM


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.
Fair enough.
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.
But how can anyone assume that "god" is in fact supernatural, if god is unknown, undetectable, etc.?
IOW, how do we know that we're supposed to look for supernatural things?
What kind of evidence would be Present that would rule out ALL possible supernatural events? Yikes.
First I'd have to ask, what is a "supernatural event"...?
Is something considered supernatural because humans can't explain it?
How do we know that god must be supernatural, if god concepts are merely the subjective speculation of humans?
If we value these subjective concepts of god, then any and all concepts put forth are equally good concepts. Why deny those concepts that make god natural for an even less evidenced supernatural concept?
Well, right away, it should be pretty obvious that no mere man can be a God.
By man I also include woman.
But why can't a mere mortal be god?
We don't know what god means (it could be anything), we lack a description and if we give value to subjective speculations and their ability to derive a plausable concept - then why can't that concept (given by someone who had a subjective experience) derive a natural, human being as their version of god?
What limits do the "god concepts" have when they are purely subjective?
My point is this, if any concept is possible, then anything can be conceptually called god...right? If anything can be conceptually called god, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything until someone ascribes it a concept that they believe in. So it becomes circular.
God exists as a possiblity because people give it a concept that they subjectively created in their minds.
Now what about a woman? Oh yeah. I've caught glimpses of many.
I've seen many that have subjectively made me believe in god!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 4:00 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 6:11 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 519 of 562 (528790)
10-06-2009 11:52 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 6:11 PM


High xongsmith, (kinda liked that greeting RAZD gave you )
There may be a lot of stuff we can do before we have to go back and fill in the clouds with real stuff.
I believe, if I'm not misunderstanding what you're writing, that this proves my point in regards to the OP.
If nothing is inside the "cloud" -if no description is given- then how can anyone hold a negative position? What, at that point, do we hold a negative hypothesis for?
If you're saying that the "cloud" will eventually, or is tenetively, filled with possible ideas for unknown "things that can exist," then how is atheism relevant to the discussion?
Now, if you're saying that the "cloud" is God and what gets filled in it are the possible concepts for God, then this assumes the premise (cloud/god) is true without evidence for it yet. And this is a logical fallacy. However, showing how that is a logical fallacy (which I believe I have done) is not what I would call a negative hypothesis.
I may be wrong though but I would like it explained if I am, because I feel this is still an issue with the OP.
Sorry - just being flippant that time...couldn't resist.
LOL, oh I know, I just didn't want my point (if I even have one) to have been lost.
But anyway, it's a cloud, what difference would it make to the idea of the OP?
First, I'd like to say that I really enjoy your analogies. They're funny and actually make sense.
Anyway, to your question.
IMO, god, the word the OP assumes we have a negative hypothesis toward, doesn't mean anything until you give it a description. So the word "god" is meaningless until that point. Man created the word to describe a specific "something," refined many times over to now, at the most knowledgable times in our existance, describe a "vague, ambiguous force" that is unknowable.
IOW, man has now described this original "something" to be something that is unknown to man.
To defend this description, man introduces terms like "supernatural" to describe something that, by it's very definition, man describes as unknowable. So then you have to ask yourself, if man claims that god is unknowable, how can man at the same time claim that god has a characteristic such as "supernatural"...? - or in fact any other characteristic at all?
(One of those being that god is a mortal human being, which is a valid concept because of the infinite possibilities that exist for god. So know not only are supernatural concepts valid, but natural concepts of god are valid too.)
So then I would have to ask, if ANY concept is valid as a possibility, then how can anyone reasonably be asked to provide evidence against that?
Not only can god be natural, avoiding the "unknowable" quality about god (getting us past the BB issue), which gives us no need for atheism (avoiding the negative position). God can also be an endless possibility of "unknowable" things. So do we even know what we are looking for as evidence?
If any concept is possible, then god is anything, god is everything, and equally, god is nothing at all. Then what is anyone holding a negative position aganist?
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 6:11 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 523 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 11:14 AM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 526 of 562 (528964)
10-07-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 523 by xongsmith
10-07-2009 11:14 AM


One of the reasons I want to leave this as a cloud is exactly to address people trying to stuff it with nonsense.
Like a supernatural, unknown entity that made the universe and then left it alone?
When are the description not considered nonsense?
Clearly the group isn't ready to make a consensus definition of the supernatural.
Then the word supernatural tentatively means nothing... so no one really holds a negative position, right?
The purpose of putting stuff in there is to get it out of the way of the other issue, which is finding a way to formulate how one would devise a scientific test to demonstrate the Presence of Evidence for a Universe with NO Supernatural things.
It seems like we're trying to find evidence to disprove the existance of an undefined term (supernatural).
We don't even know what supernatural means, how can we begin to devise a method to investigate it?
This was my issue with the OP. Tuzzi said people reject things without investigating it. Well that would be fine, but when no method exists to investigate it, and no one can even come to a consensus on what "it" is, then no one is really rejecting anything and Tuzzi's point is moot.
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 523 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 11:14 AM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by xongsmith, posted 10-07-2009 8:40 PM onifre has not replied
 Message 541 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:35 PM onifre has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 547 of 562 (529301)
10-08-2009 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 541 by RAZD
10-08-2009 6:35 PM


Summation
Hi Onifre, I've decided that the time is past to close down this thread, as no new debate points are being made.
All debate points in this thread were said to be Off-Topic, so why continue in that direction......
Please provide your summary of how you have answered the OP.
The OP says that people hold to a negative position even though they haven't investigated something. However, musings about vague, nondescript forces are uninvestigatable, and the OP falls apart in regards to supernatural claims.
If the question were, do you believe in vibrating strings? And I said no. Then that would be a negative position, because the method to investigate, no matter how hard it may be, is available. I am agnostic in regards to strings.
But supernatural concepts lack even the most basic of methods to investigate it; our senses. And an unknown, undetectable force is beyond investigating, therefore the OP does not apply to supernatural claims.
It should then follow that atheism is not a negative claim, the kind that the OP is talking about. Can't investigate it, don't even know what it is, how can anyone be required to provide evidence to support not believing in nonsense like that?
Final conclusion:
The OP applies to things for which a method to investigate exists.
It is commented on even in the OP: "They appear not to be interested in weighing alternatives, investigating strange claims..."
We'd love to investigate the claim, if anyone could just point to the proper method. If you can't point to ANY method at all, then your claim is not relevant. We are all interested in "weighing alternatives and investigating strange claims," but how an earth can that be done to things that can't even be define?
IMO, atheism is not a negative claim, the OP and RAZD's entire thread never explain why it is.
- Oni
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
Edited by onifre, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 541 by RAZD, posted 10-08-2009 6:35 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


(1)
Message 559 of 562 (531395)
10-17-2009 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 557 by petrophysics1
10-17-2009 2:32 PM


Hidden
Content hidden.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Hiding member drool.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 557 by petrophysics1, posted 10-17-2009 2:32 PM petrophysics1 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 560 by Straggler, posted 10-17-2009 3:21 PM onifre has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024