What you are arguing is that just because there is no evidence for something that does not mean that is is nonexistant, right?
What Rrhain and the others are arguing is that nonbelief is the defaul and rational position for claims unsupported by evidence.
I just want to say I agree with both of you. Here's why:
Let's use a commonly cited claim as an example: "There is a teapot orbiting the Earth between the surface and the Moon."
Ok, I've looked, but cannot find it. What now?
"It is too small to be detected by your instruments."
Here is where you guys diverge. Rrhain is saying that because there is no evidence, we should not believe that it exists. You are saying that we should completely withhold judgment.
When a new claim is made, it is just, as you say, a "type I" claim. It has no evidence for or against it. When we look for it, and don't find it, then we move to a level II assertion. It would be rational to conclude that it is more likely than not that the teapot does not exist; however, ignorance does not absolutely prove anything and thus you should reserve your complete judgement.
When the claim resorts to the idea that we can never find it with what we know, that is, whether prudent or not, when we move to level III. The crux of the matter, as I see it, is not always the conscious assertion that the object does not and can not exist; simply put, it is just the resolution that the claim will not affect the way we look at reality. To quote mine Carl Sagan: "What is the difference between a floating, heatless, incorpereal dragon and no dragon at all?"
In addition, you are saying that we cannot know. Rrhain is saying that our "instruments" (from the example above) will eventually be able to prove one side or the other correct. I personally believe that, although we will never run out of new ideas and possibilities, we will always be able to solve them eventually (unless we all blow ourselves up ).
Yeah, I'm optimistic.
T&U
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
Let's use a commonly cited claim as an example: "There is a teapot orbiting the Earth between the surface and the Moon."
Ok, I've looked, but cannot find it. What now? "It is too small to be detected by your instruments."
When a new claim is made, it is just, as you say, a "type I" claim. It has no evidence for or against it. When we look for it, and don't find it, then we move to a level II assertion.
Nope. You don't have evidence that it doesn't exist, you don't have evidence that it exists, and because the instruments cannot detect that detail information the absence of evidence could be the result of the absence of detection of the evidence, not of it's absence.
It would be rational to conclude that it is more likely than not that the teapot does not exist; ...
Nope. You can have an opinion, but to claim it is rational is to claim that your assumptions are more valid than someone elses.
... however, ignorance does not absolutely prove anything and thus you should reserve your complete judgement.
You can base an opinion on your worldview of the possibilities involved, however THIS is a subjective process that only elevates you to level II and not further.
When the claim resorts to the idea that we can never find it with what we know, that is, whether prudent or not, when we move to level III.
Only if you are a pseudoskeptic, rather than someone who uses actual objective empirical evidence to base conclusions at that level.
The question is why do you feel that you must end up at level III on concepts like this? Why is level II not sufficient? Why is such a decision necessary?
The crux of the matter, as I see it, is not always the conscious assertion that the object does not and can not exist; simply put, it is just the resolution that the claim will not affect the way we look at reality.
So why the need to reach a decision? What's so bad about saying "I don't know and I don't care" or "I don't know, so I can wait for more information" instead of rushing to an unnecessary conclusion?
God is equal to magic. Placing god at any point is no better than saying "and poof, the universe began to exist" or "poof, now there is biological life." The god hypothesis is not a model that represents reality, its simply a default position when a model doesn't exist, or doesn't accurately give an answer yet.
It doesn't have to be that way. Consider Theistic Evolution.
So you wouldn't say that god created the universe? - (Keeping in mind, that no theoretical models requires that the universe needs a creator)
I don't see why me saying that god created the universe despite no theoretical models requiring it means that I'm looking for gaps to put god in. Again, consider Theistic Evolution... the ToE doesn't require god. How is putting god behind it looking for a gap?
Its not impossible for our knowledge of nature to add specifics to the concept of god.
Can you provide one example where it has?
Like when Thomas put his finger in Jesus' side...
An objective explantation of a phenomenon can't preclude a supernatural cause.
I can't agree with this, because for one, supernatural causes has NEVER explained a phenomenon, therefore it has already been ruled out (unless you apply faith).
But it can offer a possible and plausible explanation. Say you saw a tranparent man float across a room and dissappear. Explaining that phenomenon as being a ghost could give you a starting point for further investigation.
If one single phenomenon proved to be the work of supernatural causes, then you might have reason to doubt that natural explanations can't preclude the supernatural cause - but for now, its the same as saying explaining what rainbows are doesn't preclude that there isn't a pot of gold at the end of it ... IMO, it sure does.
Describing how water scatters the frequencies of light into a colorful pattern doesn't say anything about a pot of gold.
Too, explaining all the "how's" doesn't explain any of the "why's".
This seems like a human notion, that there should be a "why" to anything in reality. I see no relevance in that notion of why, and I see no reason to think there should be a why.
To each his own.
You haven't actaully removed gods, you've just made them redundant and unnecessary.
I think you're looking at it differently from how I'm looking at it.
We're not trying to remove "god(s)" - we are eliminating the subjective god concepts that people have claimed to have existed - through the use of objective scientific evidence that shows how these concepts violate certain laws of nature.
For all intents and purposes, there is no "god," there are only possible god concepts, that may or may not exist.
I don't get it. Please expound.
It is my contention that if you narrow down the specific descriptions, to a point where only a vague, ambiguous force is possible, you have lost sight of what is being described.
These god(s) exist due to the concepts about them, remove the concepts and what are we even talking about then? An ambgiuous force that is unknown?
I don't think we've lost the possibility of a god that is more than a vague ambiguous force.
The thing is though, god has to have a purpose. I mean, why else would people think it exists?
Someone could simply be convinced by the anthropic argument... without the need for a purpose.
If, through objective evidence, we explain (hypothetically) every sinlge question about reality, whats left for god to do? More so, where else would someone place god in regards to existence?
For what purpose then would anyone believe in god?
The possible concepts exist for a purpose, if we remove that purpose, we take with it the need for god concepts.
Man, your charicaterizations of theism aren't even close to my beliefs on god. I don't really agree with any of the descriptions from up above. This is getting too long and I've pretty much lost interest, sorry.
This is why I can only be an atheist to god concepts - and more so, to specific, descriptive concepts - because, I can find objective evidence against the concepts themselves.
Wasn't this my point before? That, rationally, you can only be an atheist to a god whose description is specific enough to have evidence against.
Namely the question of why there is widespread human belief in gods.
I will ask again on what factual basis do you special plead the possible existence of god as an answer for this question over all of the infinite array of other equally unevidenced possible answers?
CS writes:
I'm not. I'm just saying it is one of the possibilities.
Well then we agree. It is indeed one of the possibilities. That is exactly why I cited it as one of the possibilities. Obviously. But it is one of the unevidenced possibilities. Along with telepathic dogs, fluctuations in the matrix, magic moonbeams, thetan plots to take over the Earth and every single one of the other conceivable possible answers to this question that has absolutely no factual basis whatsoever. Do you agree that these are all equally unevidenced? And thus equally unlikely? Or are you special pleading the possibility of gods as superior in any way as an answer to the question of why humans believe in gods? If so on what grounds?
As you didn't answer I will ask again. Do you accept that the existence of gods is no more or less evidenced than any of the other possible unevidenced explanations?
Hmmmmmm. So how much more evidenced is it? Is the possibility of human invention and the commonality of human psychology equally as unevidenced as an answer to the question? Or is it evidentially superior to gods, dogs, the matrix and all those other unevidenced possibilities? Are you quibbling over how much more evidenced this is? Or are you denying that human invention is an evidentially superior conclusion period?
CS writes:
Finally.
I was exposing that you never actually weighed the likelyhood.
So now you are claiming that evidenced answers are no more likely to be true than unevidenced ones. Incredible.
Re: Re: Dawkins Scale Now try the Levels of COnfidence
What's you level of confidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?
I dispute the validity of your scale because it simply demonstrates your cognitive blindspot regarding the difference between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities. The same cognitive blindspot that means you are unable to answer the question I asked in my last post to you.
Given that you have treated my "more likely human invention" arguments with utter derision and given that you presumably consider your own scale of belief and evidence to be valid you should at least be able to consider the two possibilities in question and come up with a conclusion that contradicts mine on your own scale. So I challenge you to do so:
Is the possibility of gods as human inventions better evidenced, worse evidenced or equally evidenced as the possibility that gods exist? Is there any objective evidence relevant to this question in existence at all? Or are you still claiming that there is a complete absence of all objective evidence applicable to this question?
As you didn't answer I will ask again. Do you accept that the existence of gods is no more or less evidenced than any of the other possible unevidenced explanations?
Irrelevant.
So now you are claiming that evidenced answers are no more likely to be true than unevidenced ones. Incredible.
No...
I'm claiming that the possibility that god is a human invention is not infinitely more evidenced than the possibility that god exists.
I can't believe my poor judgement for getting even tangentally involved in this discussion, but here we go -
T&U writes:
Rrhain is saying that because there is no evidence, we should not believe that it exists. You are saying that we should completely withhold judgment.
I don't think those two positions are contradictory, or even on the same axis. I can certainly withhold judgement on the existance of the orbiting teapot, while at the same time lack a belief in it. I can even reach the conclusion that the existance of the teapot is likely, say 65% chance in favor, for example, and still lack a belief in it.
As you didn't answer I will ask again. Do you accept that the existence of gods is no more or less evidenced than any of the other possible unevidenced explanations?
Irrelevant.
Well that is one way to avoid an uncomfortable answer to the question. I expected better from you.
I'm claiming that the possibility that god is a human invention is not infinitely more evidenced than the possibility that god exists.
0 evidence for the possible existence of gods versus a plethora of evidence demonstrating the human ability to create such concepts. An unevidenced possibility Vs a highly evidenced posibility.
Infinity times 0 is still less than a "plethora"
But c'mon this nitpicking over the use of the term "infinitely" is just a debating tactic to avoid finally conceding that the possibility of human invention is significantly more evidenced than the supernatural and ethereal unevidenced alternatives.
Its still not a model that represents reality; god guided evolution ... how does that help? How does adding god help the model?
Like when Thomas put his finger in Jesus' side...
I don't know what that's supposed to mean.
But it can offer a possible and plausible explanation.
It would be an end of the road answer, because it would offer no explanation at all. All of our work would still be ahead of us to show how it works.
Say you saw a tranparent man float across a room and dissappear. Explaining that phenomenon as being a ghost could give you a starting point for further investigation.
Dude, sorry, but I completely disagree. The first thing I'd think is that I went crazy, or someone slipped me some shrooms. "It might be a ghost" has never lead to an answer for anything.
Oni writes:
I think you're looking at it differently from how I'm looking at it.
We're not trying to remove "god(s)" - we are eliminating the subjective god concepts that people have claimed to have existed - through the use of objective scientific evidence that shows how these concepts violate certain laws of nature.
For all intents and purposes, there is no "god," there are only possible god concepts, that may or may not exist.
CS writes:
I don't get it. Please expound.
For all of human history, god has been described by humans with specific characteristics for the purpose of answering questions about nature/reality/universe/etc. No one has seen a god, he is just represented by the many, many cultural concepts that exist.
These concepts are the only thing we can explore, not god(s) themselves. So we aren't trying to say god doesn't exist, we are saying these concepts are bogus - given the objective evidence we have to go on. No god needed for the sun, eclipses, fire, etc.
We do what you do, narrow down the specific descriptions. We just include all known concepts because at no point do we apply faith to any single concept - as you do with Jesus, for example.
Man, your charicaterizations of theism aren't even close to my beliefs on god. I don't really agree with any of the descriptions from up above. This is getting too long and I've pretty much lost interest, sorry.
Come on, we were gonna do Jager shots as soon as you conceded that I won the debate.
If you've lost interest its cool.
Wasn't this my point before? That, rationally, you can only be an atheist to a god whose description is specific enough to have evidence against.
And I believe I agreed, which I said the only concept that doesn't have evidence that shows how it contradicts reality is the ambiguous, unknown force.
Re: Re: Dawkins Scale Now try the Levels of Confidence
Hi Straggler,
I dispute the validity of your scale because it simply demonstrates your cognitive blindspot regarding the difference between evidenced and unevidenced possibilities.
Of course you do, as putting your claim about atheism on Level II is distasteful to your opinion of your opinion, and putting it on Level III would show the world that you are indeed a pseudoskeptic, because you don't have the evidence to support that level.
That's okay, as I understand that your cognitive dissonance makes it difficult for you to comprehend my argument/s, and this coupled with confirmation bias for your absolute conviction that I am wrong no matter what I say, this does not surprise me.
Evidence of this is your recent behavior of sitting in the side-lines and making snide comments but refusing to engage with the issue. You sat out the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread. You'd rather maintain your conception of reality than confront the issues that are contrary to your beliefs.
For instance you could easily place all your concepts about "evidenced and unevidenced possibilities" on the different levels - perhaps to see if they sort themselves out:
I find it amusing that you are having trouble dealing with this simple little scale, as most of it was covered in previous discussions and incorporates things we agreed on.
I also find it hysterical that you can't seem to deal with the issue of pseudoskepticism and the need to provide objective empirical evidence to assert a level III claim, even though you are one that insisted on the use of empirical objective evidence.
Of course, part of the problem is that you ARE a pseudoskeptic.
Given that you have treated my "more likely human invention" arguments with utter derision ...
No Straggler, not derision, but with a certain contempt for an argument that does not deal with the actual issue - evidence that gods do not, or cannot exist, but rather tries to reformulate it to "safe ground" for you. This is what FUNDIEs do, it's called moving the goalposts.
Is the possibility of gods as human inventions better evidenced, worse evidenced or equally evidenced as the possibility that gods exist?
It's irrelevant because it can be true AND god/s can still exist: thus it has no predictive value, and adds nothing to the debate.
Will you answer these questions or not? I am guessing not...........
You have been answered, you just refuse to believe\understand\comprehend the answer/s because they don't fit with your worldview.
Why haven't you apologised for your false accusation that I was contradicting myself?
I don't have to, you have been shown that your position was contradictory if you used the same definition in all places, you have since demonstrated that you do not make that mistake in practice, and thus you were guilty of equivocation on the definitions.
Your lack of English comprehension does not mean that I'm contradicting myself, and equivocating is one of a number of mistakes that you're making. Have you found out what "equivalent" means? How long will it take you to realize that if something is described by an adjective, you cannot substitute that adjective for the thing in question? I've given you examples that a child should understand.
Charlie is white. Charlie is tall.
Making up sentences substituting "white" for Charlie, and "tall" for Charlie, and "white" and "tall" for each other is silly, and that's what you've been doing with this:
The "6" position is agnostic. The "6" position is atheistic.
Do you know the difference between the verbs "to know" and "to believe", and are you capable of understanding why I'm asking you this?
RAZD writes:
This is what I did in Message 150, and this resulted the silly versions of your comments:
Message 111: If you don't eliminate supernatural propositions with a "6" on the Dawkins scale, then there are no "2"s and "6"s in science for you.
Becomes "If you don't eliminate supernatural propositions with a {"6" is agnostic} on the Dawkins scale, then there are no "2"s and {"6" is agnostic}s in science for you." This is a silly contradictory comment when you use the same meaning in both places, ergo at least ONE usage is equivocation.
No it doesn't. "6 is agnostic" doesn't mean "6" is the equivalent of agnostic. Learn your language. White isn't a substitute for Charlie because it is one adjective that describes him. Substitute the description of "6" for the number, and you get something like this:
"If you don't eliminate the supernatural propositions with {the position that you cannot know, but you think them very unlikely} then there are no "2"s and {positions that you cannot know for sure but think very unlikely} in science for you."
It means that if the fairies are manipulating atoms, the devil is manipulating your mind, and omphalist type gods are messing around all over the place, you cannot say that anything is very likely or very unlikely in science. You can have no science. You would be a permanent, confused "4" on everything.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Message 125: Your problem is that, if you are a "4" on omphalism, you are also a "4" (or greater) on the proposition that the age of the earth is ~4.5 billion years. If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a "6", you cannot be a "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth.
Do you understand what omphalism is? Being a "4" on omphalism means that you take the position that you are uncommitted either way, or, as you like to put it, no evidence pro or con. What omphalism claims is that the age of the earth cannot be determined by scientific observations, because the Omphalists' god has created it ~6,500 years ago with built in maturity, so that all appearances are an illusion. If you are uncommited on omphalism, you cannot make a commitment on the age of the earth other than describing ages other than ~6,500 years with 4's, 5's or 6's (as likely as omphalism or less). You would be abdicating your neutrality on omphalism if you did otherwise.
Don't confuse yourself about "positive" and "negative" claims, as those are relative, and you're already in enough difficulties.
A claim that the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old is incompatible with neutrality on omphalism.
RAZD writes:
(RAZD Message 174): Your problem of self contradiction (Message 150), is multiplied by your assertion that taking an agnostic position on Omphalism means I cannot take a strong position on the age of the earth.
Once again, I did not claim that you cannot take an agnostic position on omphalism and take a strong position on the age of the earth, I claimed that you could not take a "4" position (completely neutral). I pointed out that you could take an atheist/agnostic "6" position towards the omphalist god, and take a "2" position on the age of the earth. You could also take a "6" position that the earth being younger than 400,000 years is very unlikely, while also taking a "6" on omphalism being very unlikely.
I've explained several times that it is impossible to believe that a ~4.5 billion year old earth is very likely without believing that a 6,500 year old earth is very unlikely.
The next part of your post is all "white = charlie" stuff, and a bizzare insertion of a phrase into one of my paragraphs, followed by a claim that I'm equivocating which is based entirely on your own dismal English comprehension. You really are out of your depth.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
That said, I'm a level III.
Color me surprised. Now the fun part: Where's your objective empirical evidence that supports this position. Without such supporting evidence you are a pseudoskeptic when you claim to be level III. You cannot be a proper level III without objective empirical evidence.
It'll certainly be fun. I'll look forward to your attempts to falsify this theory:
Based on observation and evidence, natural explanations of any phenomena are nearly infinitely more likely than supernatural explanations.
We'll be comparing the evidence supported natural explanations of numerous phenomena with the complete absence of evidence supported supernatural explanations of any phenomena, and particularly bearing in mind that beliefs in gods, god experiences and the universe are all phenomena.
RAZD writes:
Enjoy
I certainly will. Are you still frightened of answering all the direct questions in my last few posts?
"You can't prove my god doesn't exist so nah nah nah nah"
So even on your own terms and on your own flawed scale you are unable to compare the evidential basis for gods existing with gods as human inventions to get the answer you want. This tells us everything we need to know about the paucity of your arguments. Your position in opposition to skepticism as the most evidenced and rational conclusion with regard to the sueprnatural is simply untenable.
Did I? I thought I was the second most prolific poster in that thread. I did wonder why you so woefully misrepresented my position in your summation post. You obviously failed to see anything I had written. It also explains why you didn't answer any of the questions I put to you in that thread.
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
Is the possibility of gods as human inventions better evidenced, worse evidenced or equally evidenced as the possibility that gods exist?
It's irrelevant because it can be true AND god/s can still exist: thus it has no predictive value, and adds nothing to the debate.
Of course "it can be true AND god/s can still exist". Such is the nature of evidenced possibilities rather than proven actualities. Likelihood not certainty and not proof. This is what I have been telling you for months.
But irrelevant? So this thread (and presumably all previous related threads) are no longer about whether or not skepticism towards the supernatural as unlikely is evidentially and rationally justified. Instead you have unilateraly decided that only if the undisprovable can be disproved is the atheistic position of doubt based on evidence justified. Well this is exactly what I predicted you would do. Because ultimately all theistic arguments necessarily boil down to "You can't prove my god doesn't exist so nah nah nah nah"
Straggler 8 months ago writes:
The normal theistic arguments go something like this:
1) Your position requires just as much faith and reliance on subjective interpretation as does mine. 2) My evidence is just as valid as yours. 3) Whatever evidence does or does not exist you cannot prove that my god does not exist so I win anyway.
RAZD's "world view" assertion is a relatively sophisticated version of 1) above. I guess it remains to be seen if any of the other strategies from the theists standard playbook will be employed. Message 207
Well done for following the standard theistic playbook so religiously. Pun intended. But having exhausted the standard arguments now where do you go? You have all but conceded that human invention is the most evidenced possibility which is all I was ever arguing with regard to gods, Immaterial Pink Unicorns, fairies, ethereal turtles and all those other examples I know you enjoy so much.
RAZD writes:
I find it amusing that you are having trouble dealing with this simple little scale, as most of it was covered in previous discussions and incorporates things we agreed on.
I find it amusing that subjective evidence is so pivotal to your flawed little scale. Not surprising. But amusing given the current context and given that such "evidence" is the only sort that can superficially counter the objective evidence in favour of gods as the product of human invention. I find it particularly amusing given your previous assertions and your ubiquitous campaign to label me a "liar" for having the temerity to suggest that your subjective evidence arguments and your anti-atheism arguments might be related: Message 402
RAZD writes:
NEWS FLASH:
Are you still making this claim? If so your silly scale would seem to be very much "Off Topic".
And while we are on the subject of subjective evidence and it's validity with regard to supernatural entities I feel compelled to point out that you have never confronted the problems spelt out here: Immaterial "Evidence"
So even on your own terms and on your own flawed scale you are unable to compare the evidential basis for gods existing with gods as human inventions to get the answer you want.
Once again we see that you are unable to comprehend my arguments. There is no "answer" that I want to force into being.
RAZD writes:
NEWS FLASH:
Yes, the value of subjective evidence has to do with the value of experiences of reality as perceived by a conscious and aware individual.
At best it can suggest possibilities. Because the existence of gods is already a logical possibility due to the absence of contrary evidence, so subjective evidence adds NOTHING to the argument about the possible existence of god/s.
We've been over this.
Did I? I thought I was the second most prolific poster in that thread. I did wonder why you so woefully misrepresented my position in your summation post. You obviously failed to see anything I had written. It also explains why you didn't answer any of the questions I put to you in that thread.
Yes you were prolific at not addressing the issue, hence you sat it out, while making snide comments that did not address the issue.
But irrelevant?
Yes - the issue was, and is, presenting objective empirical evidence to support a negative position, and seeing as your argument does not address this, it is irrelevent, AS YOU ADMIT:
Of course "it can be true AND god/s can still exist".
Which means going on ad nauseum about it is not addressing the issue and sitting out the TOPIC while making snide comments about an unrelated issue.
What a surprise, seeing as this seems to be your MO in most debates.
I find it amusing that subjective evidence is so pivotal to your flawed little scale.
Curiously, what I consider pivotal is the need to provide empirical objective evidence in order to get to level III.
This is also why you don't like the scale - you can't get there for your claim that you are 6.9999 on the Dawkins scale.
Pseudoskeptics are like that.
Re: "You can't prove my god doesn't exist so nah nah nah nah"
In other words, you readily admit that there is no objective empirical evidence that shows that gods do not, or cannot, exist, and thus your claim of being a 6.9999 is an unevidenced claim based on your subjective opinion. Thus it is not a logical conclusion, but wishful thinking and confirmation bias.
Straggler 8 months ago writes:
The normal theistic arguments go something like this:
1) Your position requires just as much faith and reliance on subjective interpretation as does mine. 2) My evidence is just as valid as yours. 3) Whatever evidence does or does not exist you cannot prove that my god does not exist so I win anyway.
RAZD's "world view" assertion is a relatively sophisticated version of 1) above. I guess it remains to be seen if any of the other strategies from the theists standard playbook will be employed. Message 207
I have no objective empirical evidence, just possibilities.
I am agnostic on whether god/s exist or not. My personal opinion is that they may be possible.
Just for reference I am a "3" on the Dawkins scale:
quote:3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
With level II confidence in my beliefs on my scale:
Unconfirmed, not invalidated, Low confidence. I'm on level II without subjective evidence, so subjective evidence doesn't add anything.
Curiously, you have made a claim that bears a burden of support and you have failed to provide that support. That kind of makes my lack of evidence better than your failure of evidence: my position is logically better than yours, because it does not involve an unevidenced level III claim.
Straggler 8 months ago writes: 2) My evidence is just as valid as yours.
Curiously, what you have absolutely failed to do, is to establish that your evidence is any good at all. All you have is your subjective opinion and confirmation bias, and a non-sequitur argument that does not show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
I'll keep it short so you can get back to the longer posts.
At best it can suggest possibilities. Because the existence of gods is already a logical possibility due to the absence of contrary evidence, so subjective evidence adds NOTHING to the argument about the possible existence of god/s.
Then how do you conclude what is considered contrary evidence against the possibility of god/s, if not because of subjective experiences?
This seems to be Catholic Sci's entire reason for not considering ALL known god concepts to be invalid. He considers most invalid, but not all. And its (according to him - If I'm not mistaken) for subjective reasons.
quote:I am new here, so don't kill me on my first try...
(*chuckle*) I'll be gentle.
quote:As far as I have understood RAZDs position, the point is that a position of no consequence is not believed or unbelieved until evidence displays itself.
But there are multiple things here that RAZD is overlooking. The first is that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If it truly is of no consequence, then what possible justification is there for claiming that it is present? The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise and if we have a model that works without it, why on earth would anybody claim that there are chocolate sprinkles on top of it?
And this leads directly into the second thing he is overlooking: Where does this idea come from that it is of "no consequence"? RAZD's continued insistence that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind anywhere simply doesn't pan out: We have a model. It works. So unless we have some indication that there is a problem with it, where is the justification in saying, "I don't know"? The model may very well be wrong. In fact, it probably is. But until we find out where and how, we cannot ignore all the evidence that indicates that this object doesn't exist.
And that brings us to the third problem: This object is so poorly defined that we can't even claim "I don't know" as a response because you can't even form the opinion of "I don't know" without knowing what it is you don't know about (gads, I sound like Rumsfeld.) This goes to the example I brought up earlier:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity.
What can you tell me about those terms? I know, you don't know. You've never heard of them until just now. But notice, you couldn't even have an opinion of "I don't know" regarding them until I brought them up. The more I tell you about them, the more information you have. You might still have a conclusion of "I don't know," but the act of defining something creates information. It allows you to place the object in relation to all the other objects and evidence you have so that you can form an opinion.
If I were to say that they were cards in a standard deck of cards, you'd definitely have an opinion: No, they're not. Cards in a standard deck of cards have a rank and a suit. So unless one has redefined the way in which cards in a deck are named, then we very much have an opinion about them.
All because we defined what we were talking about. We were then able to place that information in context with regard to all the other evidence we have which allowed us to form an opinion.
This is the problem of RAZD's argument: The object he is referring to cannot be detected. And beyond that, he refuses to define it in any way. And by ignoring all of the evidence we have that this undetectable, undefined object isn't required to have the world work, he gets to maintain his insistence that everybody else is just as "pseudoskeptic" and only he has a handle on the Truth.
quote:Some say it is unscientific, others (string theorists f.eks.) feel the need to theoretizise the possibility even though there is no evidence one way or the other.
Ah, but why are string theorists even bothering? Because they have evidence. It may not be the best evidence, but there is something there: The mathematics. We can clearly see that there is an effect at very small scales and another effect at very large scales and the mathematics of string theory seems to point to a bridge between them. We don't really have any way of testing this directly right now, but it isn't like they're wandering around in a vacuum of no information of any kind, anywhere.
quote:If there is a god that can't change anything in "our Universe", there would be no possibility to find out if or if not this god exists (per definition of our Universe being the thing we interact with physicly), and we would have to be in a 50/50 believing position.
Not at all. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. And if this god is incapable of acting with the universe in any way, shape, or form, then it doesn't exist. The reason that we are able to determine what went on in the past is because they left an impression that has moved on to us in the future. We are capable of analyzing it and coming to a conclusion about it.
F'rinstance, we have no idea how life got started on this planet. However, the fact that there is life on this planet is evidence that it got started somehow. After all, the earth has not always existed so life had to get started at some point or we wouldn't be here.
Now, the fact that we don't know all the details doesn't mean we don't know any of them. This, however, is RAZD's claim: We don't know anything and thus the only thing we can say is "I don't know." But that isn't true. We know lots of things. Not enough to definitively answer the question, true, but we are not in this vacuum RAZD insists we are. There is evidence.
quote:ps: English being my second language, please feel free to ask for clarification where my language gets in the way of thinking. Being german in norway tends to confuse the english part of my brain...
Your English is just fine.
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.
).
No...
Are you still frightened of answering all the direct questions in my last few posts?
™ Version 4.2
(1)