|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,909 Year: 4,166/9,624 Month: 1,037/974 Week: 364/286 Day: 7/13 Hour: 2/2 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4838 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist, nice safety helmet ...
Instead of dragging this thread off topic, we could discuss the issue where it is the topic:
Message 1 That's The definition of atheism OR we could ask that Fundamental Atheism and the Conflicting Ideas Problem. be reopened (especially now that contracycle is no longer posting). Note how this compares to my posts recently ... and I started that one in 04*17*2005 (my second year here). The arguments are sooo familiar eh? I think this shows that there is no conclusive evidence that atheism or theism is correct in their portrayal of reality, and thus all we have are opinions. Opinions fortified by confirmation bias and defended by conflict avoidance (an effect of cognitive dissonance). Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Straggler, been a while?
In which case you must agree with me that gods, if such things really do exist, are genuinely unknowable? That is one possibility, yes, as I pointed out a while ago this is a common deist position ("outside the universe"). Some definitions mention this: Deism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: Now I think that "abandoned" is a little harse, compared to "left to it's own resources" but you should get the idea.
And don't even get me started on the contradiction of knowing enough about something unknowable to know that it is unknowable.... But we can make some arguments for why this may be so. First we would have to consider what can create a universe and start the ticking clock, complete with a complete set of directions for what we see as "natural laws" (not knowing their source). Certainly I would agree that it is highly unlikely -- if god/s are possibly knowable but on their "time" (what is "time" to the creator of it?) -- that the human brain could encompass enough of that being to have anything more than an extremely scanty, rough, and highly incomplete impression, and that two such experiences would be highly likely to be different: not just because of the size of the perception problem, but the people worldviews affecting their experience. We could compare this to the commonality of experience of people seeing a doctor, and note that there would be necessary variations, but that everyone would think they saw a doctor (even if this is not true). Lots of maybes and whatifs, agreed, but that's what opinion accomplishes, rather than evidence based conclusions.
No we don't know with 100% absolute certainty. Oh, I don't have any problem with the admission of tentativity, what I have problems with are the claims of evidence for the atheist position: they don't address the central issue -- is there any evidence to show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
1) We know that there is a long history of supernatural answers being overturned by naturalistic ones thanks to the application of the scientific method. We know that no supernatural answer has ever yet stood up to scrutiny. In short we know that the "god of the gaps" is a flawed argument. Even if the gap here is belief in god himself. Which is just another version of the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. The above concept of the creator god/s is that is accomplished by putting the natural laws in place, and thus all you are evaluating is how the system works, not why it works.
2) We know that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced. And yet I know of no such evidence, and none of it was posted on the previous thread. We do know that people make up explanations for experiences and beliefs, and we can see that this is also an application of that process: conclusion first, explanation second. We also know that this alone is not evidence -- if true -- to show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, OR that the problem is that it is the explanation of something difficult to comprehend that is made up while the source of the experience is real.
3) We know that the possibility that gods exist is not objectively evidenced. And we know that the possibility that god/s do not, or cannot, exist is not objectively evidenced.
None of which makes any given god concept a logical impossibility. It just makes it relatively unlikely to be true. No, it makes it indeterminate how likely or unlikely it is to be true. Let me quote you:
And don't even get me started on the contradiction of knowing enough about something unknowable to know that it is unknowable.... Thus logically you are necessarily left with the agnostic position. Practically you can incorporate your beliefs and opinions from your world view of how the universe operates to decide that one is more likely than the other, but this is just opinion and belief, not a conclusion supported by empirical objective evidence.
This is circular. Then test your argument to make sure that it is not a straw man or incorporating your personal preconceptions in a way that begs the question. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: 1) We know that there is a long history of supernatural answers being overturned by naturalistic ones thanks to the application of the scientific method. We know that no supernatural answer has ever yet stood up to scrutiny. In short we know that the "god of the gaps" is a flawed argument. Even if the gap here is belief in god himself. Which is just another version of the absence of evidence is evidence of absence. Absence of evidence? Your cognitive blindspot regarding evidenced and unevidenced possibilities manifesting itself again. In how many previous gaps where the supernatural has been invoked as an explanation has the supernatural answer been borne out? How many times has the supernatural answer been overturned (i.e. been shown to be a product of human invention)? Can you see a trend here at all? And yet you consider the supernatural answer to current gaps no more or less viable, no more or less likely, than the naturalistic one. A one way 100% record of failure Vs success and you see no evidence to suggest any inclination either way. Incredible.
RAZD writes: The above concept of the creator god/s is that is accomplished by putting the natural laws in place, and thus all you are evaluating is how the system works, not why it works. You are assuming there must be a "why". On what basis do you make that assumption?
Straggler writes: We know that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced. And yet I know of no such evidence, and none of it was posted on the previous thread. You know of no objective evidence that suggests that humans are able to imagine and invent concepts regardless of truth? Are you sure?
Straggler writes: 3)We know that the possibility that gods exist is not objectively evidenced. And we know that the possibility that god/s do not, or cannot, exist is not objectively evidenced. Back to your "do not", "cannot" strawman again huh? The statements "cannot exist" or "do not exist" do not even come into it so please stop bringing them up in various guises. We have the possibility of human invention. We know for an absolute fact that humans can invent gods. We have the possibility that gods actually exist. But this possibility is based on no objective evidence whatsoever. Thus we have: Possibility derived from fact Vs Possibility derived from........? What? Belief? In which case we are back to the circularity of belief as evidential justification upon which to claim the validity of belief. Are you really going to tell me that the possibility of human invention is no more evidenced than the possibility that gods actually exist? That there is no evidential basis to make any sort of judgement of relative likelihood between these two mutually exclusive alternatives?
RAZD writes: Practically you can incorporate your beliefs and opinions from your world view of how the universe operates to decide that one is more likely than the other, but this is just opinion and belief, not a conclusion supported by empirical objective evidence. Thus logically you are necessarily left with the agnostic position. Only if you are suffering from an inability to differentiate evidenced possibilities from unevidenced ones. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Straggler writes: Can you seperate the belief from the reasons for belief? That is the question. Or are you going to insist on the circular argument that belief itself somehow evidences that which is believed? Message 105 The prevelence of the belief in god is an objectively evidenced reason to think that gods might exist. Why? Why is prevalence of belief in gods not objective evidence in favour of a human psychological need to invoke the unknowable to explain the unknown? Or evidence in favour of telepthic dogs inducing religious belief in humans? Or fluctuations in the matrix used to control rebellious minds? Or indeed any other conceivable explanation. Why is the actual existence of gods given preferential treatment (i.e. special pleaded) as an answer to the question "Why do people believe in gods"? Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given. Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2980 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
My problem (one of many ) is this:
First we would have to consider what can create a universe and start the ticking clock, complete with a complete set of directions for what we see as "natural laws" (not knowing their source). How can anyone even postulate this, if "create" and "ticking clock" are human, subjective concepts that have no bearing on the universe itself? What evidence are people using to suppose that the universe might need a creator?
(what is "time" to the creator of it?) How about first, what is time? How can anyone even postulate this, if "time" is a human, subjective concepts that have no bearing on the universe itself?
The above concept of the creator god/s is that is accomplished by putting the natural laws in place, and thus all you are evaluating is how the system works, not why it works. If all you are evaluating is how the system works, then for what reason does anyone see fit to introduce a creator to that system? - Arguments for complexity? I've asked the question a few times: What question does god(s) answer that cannot be answered naturally? Why is anyone postulating a concept of a creator to a system that has never shown evidence of needing creation? - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Modulus, sorry for the delay, but my energy level is low.
I explicitly accepted that there are no fossil specimens with a pelvic girdle. But there is still evidence that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle. Unless you think evolution is bunk or something? I mean - it's possible that Tiktaalik's ancestors and close relatives had one, as did its descendants and Tiktaalik didn't have one. But that would be very unusual. The evidence therefore suggests that it did. The point of the analogy is not that Tiktaalik may or may not have had a pelvis, the point was that the arguments used were of the same logical form as those presented against the existence of god/s. In logic, the form of the argument can be valid or invalid, and the validity of an argument is dependent on the structure, not the argument/s per se. Thus this procedure tests the validity of the arguments presented, independent of the actual argument.
Message 120: Without evidence one way or the other, any claim about the pelvic girdle of Tiktaalik is not justified by the evidence. One could claim that the lack of evidence of a pelvic girdle in Tiktaalik is evidence that there was no pelvic girdle. One could claim that people make things up (an argument creationists like to use, btw) and thus any claim that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle is likely made up. One could claim that any number of millions of different pelvic girdles could be proposed for Tiktaalik, and the probability of them being true is highly unlikely, so therefore it is highly unlikely that Tiktaalik had a pelvic girdle. Pseudoskepticism and logicMessage 562: The evidence presented by various people on this thread falls into these three basic forms:
...In addition to the (invalid) claims of having actual empirical evidence to support the atheist position, various arguments have been put forward to rationalize this position:
Let's expand this to include all the "evidence" and all the arguments proposed on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread, then draw a little "box" around them, formulate similar arguments regarding the existence of the Tiktaalik pelvis, and then compare them to see if they have any merit in this context:
vs
The astute observer will note that NONE of these items are convincing in the context of the Tiktaalik pelvis, and in fact are extremely negatively correlated with what we postulate from the evidence when we expand the box to include the ancestors and descendants for Tiktaalik. This potential for extreme negative correlation means that these arguments are structurally invalid and not capable of predicting reality.
However, I'm using my experience of your honesty as evidence that you, for whatever reason, are not understanding the argument. Why else would you get it wrong when you try and describe it in your own terms? The logical fallacy of implied consequences? If I don't cave to your argument then I'm lying? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : , by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Perdition,
That is exactly what atheists say. They just go the next step and say that understanding that, it would be quite a leap to then say, "I believe." If they can't say that phrase, they must be atheists, or lacking belief. Then (A) it is NOT exactly what atheists say, and {B} that is where you go wrong. It is also just as much of a leap to say "I don't believe" and thus you are necessarily in between, if you pursue the logic. If they can't say that phrase, then they are pseudoskeptics, no matter what their opinion is. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : is is by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Iano, Nice wedding shot ... how's the fuel problem these days? I put another 500 miles on my Giant Innova.
You appear to have had a reasonable amount of time to form some kind of tentitive conclusion. What kind of god do you envisage based on the above approach? All I have are some personal opinions, based on my worldview, and not anything that I am ready to share at this point. Sorry.
Supposing for a moment the 'collected works' of creation as presented to you were analogous to a sagging-on-it's-springs, rusted old BMW: a remarkable work - but clearly flawed. And you'd never seen a new BMW. How does your approach circumvent the natural tendency to conclude the BMW's designer somewhat incapable? Let's throw that BMW into orbit and then have some intelligent iron based life evolve on it, intelligent enough to develop science and technology at a nano-scale. What's to prevent them from deducting that all the various parts and pieces could form by natural processes, with various comets and asteroids being compiled over time until the existing structure was made, and that the postulation of a designer is not necessary? Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Modulus, sorry for the delay, but my energy level is low. Don't worry 'bout that. I'm in no hurry!
The point of the analogy is not that Tiktaalik may or may not have had a pelvis, the point was that the arguments used were of the same logical form as those presented against the existence of god/s. I know what the point of the analogy was. And my counter-point, was to explain how your translation of the argument was faulty. Take your 'point 13' which is an attempt to characterise my argument. In the religious form:
quote: Which translated into something more accurate (after all, I've never disputed the existence of religious experiences!) becomes
quote: This is how you have translated this argument to Tiktaalik:
quote: Which is nothing like it (possibly as a result of the grammar in your original characterisation which implied that I was originally denying religious experiences). As my counter-argument went, a much better translation would be something like
quote: However, I'm using my experience of your honesty as evidence that you, for whatever reason, are not understanding the argument. Why else would you get it wrong when you try and describe it in your own terms?
The logical fallacy of implied consequences? If I don't cave to your argument then I'm lying?
You have just provided further evidence that you are having some kind of critical comprehension problem. I am not implying you are lying if you don't "cave". I explicitly cited your record of honesty as evidence against this hypothesis and nothing in my comment said you had to accept my argument, just employ it correctly. Therefore, it seems reasonable to me to conclude that the reason you have failed in attempting to utilize my argument in a novel circumstance in an accurate fashion is because you have failed to understand the argument. Edited by Modulous, : "your are" corrected to "you are"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to me:
quote: And yet, you continue to bring it up knowing full well that it is going to derail any actual discussion. You'll bring your same argument up, we'll respond with the same rebuttal, and then we'll hijack the entire discussion watching you avoid responding to it. Are you saying that every argument of yours comes down to the claim that subjectivity is equal to objectivity?
quote: Excuse me? I don't recall ever mentioning my personal opinion regarding the existence of god. Is there a particular reason that you simply assumed that I was? I've been extremely careful to keep my personal opinion about god out of it precisely because of your reaction: You assume that I hold a certain position and then respond to what you wish I would have said rather than what I actually did. "Of course you'd say that, you're an X."
quote: Showing you clearly didn't read anything I wrote. Instead, you responded to your preconceived notion of my theological position which I have never presented here.
quote: Huh? What part of "the model works" isn't evidence? And on top of that, you're still missing the point: Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The null hypothesis is always considered to be true until evidence is presented that shows it to be false. Therefore, the atheistic position is the default position because the burden of proof is on the one wishing to claim that there is a god. Of course, if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.
quote: This coming from the man who just a few sentences ago was smearing me. Wah, wah, wah. Hint: Pointing out that you don't understand your own argument isn't ad hominem. If I am making an argument that hinges upon my repeated insistence that 2 + 2 = 5, it is not ad hominem to point out that I have made an error and don't understand the foundations of my own argument.
quote: Read: I can't defend my own argument and I am shocked (shocked!) that anybody would insist that I justify it when I keep bringing it up.
quote: Except that it has been. The model works. Why do you demand chocoalte sprinkles? Where is your evidence that they are required?
quote: But the null hypothesis, which is always considered to be true until proven otherwise, is that they don't. It is up to the people who claim that they do to show that they do, not the people who have a working model without them to show that they don't. After all, that's the entire point: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: But your argument is that subjective evidence is valid. Now you're demanding objective evidence? The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: But you were presented with evidence. You just ignored it. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required? That said, it isn't my burden to do so. The null hypothesis, which is always considered true until shown otherwise, is that god doesn't exist. It is the burden of those who claim god does exist to show why.
quote: What was that you were saying about ad hominem? Oh, I get it! It's OK if you do it.
quote: Huh? What makes you think we don't know? The null hypothesis, which is always considered true until shown otherwise, is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the person claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: Except that it was presented. You have simply ignored it. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: Maybe. Where is your evidence for their existence? The default position is they don't and we have a working model that doesn't include them. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: This coming from the man who just a few sentences ago was smearing me and will do so again three sentences later. Wah, wah, wah.
quote: Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required? Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence. And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.
quote: But the default position is that the claim isn't shown. It is always the burden of the one making the claim to provide the evidence. Especially when we have a model that works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: What part of the model working isn't evidence?
quote: Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required? Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence. And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.
quote: What was that you were saying about ad hominem commentary? Oh, I get it! It's OK if you do it.
quote: Because you keep refusing to respond to it. The questions I am asking you are not rhetorical. When you answer them, I'll stop asking them. Until then, I'll keep on keeping on. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: Read: He actually called me out on my arguments and since I cannot defend them, I'll pretend that he's the one with the problem. "Incredulity." That's just precious.
quote: Huh? Where did I appeal to any authority? Be specific.
quote: Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required? Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence. And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.
quote: Then why do you keep bringing up an argument that you know is going to derail the thread? Nobody else ever brings it up, RAZD.
quote: Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required? Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence. And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody. This is why we say you're avoiding the evidence presented to you: You keep not answering my question. It's very simple. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
quote: What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required? Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence. And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
Catholic Scientist writes:
quote: Non-existent. Atheism isn't belief of lack but rather lack of belief.
quote: Incorrect. The original concept of "atheism" was anybody who questioned the moral authority of those who used gods to assert their position of privilege. It isn't until recently that it has been safe for people to actually come forward and state that there is no god and discuss the philosophical implications of such a statement. Which is why the current conceptualization of atheists is that it is the lack of belief. Theists do not get to tell atheists what they really think. Atheists get to be the ones who do that and when you listen to them, you'll find that they describe their position as a lack of belief, not a belief of lack. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 95 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Hey Oni
I've asked the question a few times: What question does god(s) answer that cannot be answered naturally? Well any of the remaining significant gaps in human knowledge I suppose. The "beginning" of the universe, the beginning of life, the question of why people all around the world independently come to believe in gods in one guise or another...........etc. RAZD has declared himself a deist of the gaps with regard to abiogenesis (Message 493). In this thread he appears to be extending this desitic gap filler thinking to the creation of the universe. Also in this thread Catholic Scientist is claiming that the answer to the question of why people believe in gods requires that we consider the actual existence of gods as the preferred answer (for reasons as yet unstated).
Why is anyone postulating a concept of a creator to a system that has never shown evidence of needing creation? Apparently there is a complete absence of evidence. Each claim operates in a vacuum of all other evidence and thus there is no evidential differentiation that can be applied to assuming any one unproven answer over any other. Thus there is no more evidence to suggest a non-supernatural answer to any given gap than there is a supernatural one. In the case of "creation" there is no more evidence to think a creator isn't needed than there is to think that a creator is needed. Thus complete agnosticism regarding a creator is the rational conclusion. Anything else either way is just your subjective "opinion". Apparently. No doubt if I have got any of that wrong RAZD will be happy to point out my "misrepresentations" without actually detailing what his position actually is. No doubt if I have got that right and the flaws in this thinking can be shown any discussion will be unilaterally deemed "off-topic". Anyway I think Bluegenes got it right in Message 551 Bluegenes writes: Another point is that any proposition about an area in which we have no knowledge, the ultimate origin of the phenomenon that we call the universe for example, would have to be considered very improbable as it competes with an effectively infinite field of equally evidenceless propositions. The universe was formed by a universe making machine, or by the farts of celestial cows, for example. The natural default position for any specific proposition on the ultimate origins of the universe would be a six: "I cannot know for certain, but I think "x" is very improbable." A third point is the general one that whenever we have confirmed causes for anything, those causes have been natural, and human experience of this means that we can safely consider the "natural" as a cause of any phenomenon much more likely than the supernatural. "Natural" is the evidence supported default, with infinitely more evidence for its existence than "supernatural". Edited by Straggler, : Add Bluegenes quote and link Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3267 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It is also just as much of a leap to say "I don't believe" and thus you are necessarily in between, if you pursue the logic. But there are only two, mutually exclusive options, either you believe in X or you don't believe in X. If you think there is not enough knowledge to make a decision, then you are, by default, on the not believing side. If you can't say "I believe X," then you would have to be able to say "I don't believe X." There are no other options. {AbE} Note, saying "I don't believe X" is NOT the same as saying "I believe not-X." Edited by Perdition, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Perdition, this is the basic problem: it's a false dichotomy.
But there are only two, mutually exclusive options, either you believe in X or you don't believe in X. False. The third option is that you don't know.
If you can't say "I believe X," then you would have to be able to say "I don't believe X." There are no other options. What I can say is that there is not enough positive evidence for me to believe "X" and there is not enough negative evidence for me to not believe "X" and therefore I don't know. The interesting thing (to me) is that there seem to be people who cannot live with indecision, and this seems to force them into making decisions on inadequate information. Fundies do this. Enjoy. by our ability to understand Rebel American Zen Deist ... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share. • • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Teapots&unicorns Member (Idle past 4917 days) Posts: 178 Joined: |
Hi everyone, sorry if I'm butting in.
RAZD writes: But there are only two, mutually exclusive options, either you believe in X or you don't believe in X. False. The third option is that you don't know.
If you can't say "I believe X," then you would have to be able to say "I don't believe X." There are no other options. What I can say is that there is not enough positive evidence for me to believe "X" and there is not enough negative evidence for me to not believe "X" and therefore I don't know. The interesting thing (to me) is that there seem to be people who cannot live with indecision, and this seems to force them into making decisions on inadequate information. Fundies do this. Hi RAZD. This is how I'm seeing this: Perdition and the others are saying that either you believe X or you don't; you are saying there is a third option: that you don't know. However, this is not a false dichotomy for this one reason: belief is not a gradient value. Belief is consciously choosing to believe in something; nonbelief is the base value, the one that everyone starts out as. Atheism is how everyone starts out; it's only as we get older that we start hearing about Sky-god Joe and his son Bob. Furthermore, because belief is a consciousness decision, there is no in-between. Reserving judgement is specifically not taking a stand on an issue and can be a respectable position; however in a have-or-have-not issue, there is no middle ground. Believing is not a slow process; either you do or you don't. An apt analogy may be life: you're either dead or alive; no "half life" is possible (unless you're a zombie ) Sorry if I'm rambling. T&U Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : No reason given. I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours. - Stephen Roberts I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in- Dan Foutes "In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."- Douglas Adams
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024