|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4809 days) Posts: 400 From: Colorado, USA Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Phage0070, sorry I missed this last time:
Message 335: D and E both appear to be logical. I consider it appropriate to consider the possibility of anything to be true. Thanks for answering this, and I apologize for missing it. Now perhaps we can clear up the trouble between A and B positions with the more nuanced D and E positions. Because of the way logic works, if a statement is logically true it is absolutely true, thus when A and B conclude that their belief is true, it is an absolute belief, not a nuanced one. If A is true it does not allow B to be true, and if B is true it does not allow A to be true. The problems you have had, as I see it (from my totally unbiased position (/sarcasm)), were due to cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias, and your preconceptions and biases: (1) the portrayal of B as an absolute atheist This conflicts with your opinion that atheists are agnostic, and thus you rejected the B position as being absolute. Your preconceptions and biases interfered with being able to treat B as an absolute atheist. This was your first round with cognitive dissonance, as demonstrated by the emotion in your reply. (2) you felt that the A position was not logical This was likely due to your preconceptions about theist beliefs being wrong, and so you did not need to give much thought to why this position was wrong. This is using confirmation bias rather than analysis. (3) you felt that the B position was logical Again, this was likely due to your preconceptions about atheist non beliefs being true, and so you did not need to give much thought to why this position seemed right. This too is using confirmation bias rather than analysis. (4) the logical analysis showed that A was just as logical as B and that they contradict each other, and both were logically flawed for the same reason (part for the whole fallacy) This sets off your second round of cognitive dissonance. You saw B as a nuanced atheist position, and considered that such nuanced atheist positions are logical, so having evidence that the B position was not logical was a problem. You have difficulty rejecting B as a logical position, so therefore the logic must be wrong. It isn't. So you get angry instead of trying to figure out where the problem is. The logical form of the A argument is the same as the logical form of the B argument.
A is an absolute, not a nuanced theist position Both are equally invalid.A involves a logical fallacy, the part for the whole A is therefore invalid B is an absolute, not a nuanced atheist positionB involves a logical fallacy, the part for the whole B is therefore invalid I apologize for putting you through the wringer on this, but the logic does not equivocate. You can take comfort, perhaps, in that you are not the only one here with this blind spot.
D and E both appear to be logical. I consider it appropriate to consider the possibility of anything to be true. Indeed, let's compare the A, B, C, D and E positions with the notorious (and flawed) Dawkins scale:
quote: A = 1: it is logical to believe god/s exist Very few people here will argue that the A=1 absolute position is logical or that the B=7 position is logical.B = 7: it is logical to believe god/s do not exist C = 4: it is logical to say that we do not know D = 3: it is logical to consider the possibility that god/s exist E = 5: it is logical to consider the possibility that god/s do not exist Now if we can agree that the absolute positions are indeed not logical, that A and B are indeed absolute positions, and that they are both invalid arguments, if we can agree that these do not represent the nuanced positions that admit some agnostic portion with either theist or atheist positions, then we can move on.
D and E both appear to be logical. I consider it appropriate to consider the possibility of anything to be true. Indeed, but you should be able to do better than just have an opinion that they appear logical if we are discussing the logic in the form of the statements and the logical validity of the premises. We should be able to show that these two arguments have the same logical form but are not mutually exclusive or contradictory.
I don't think you will ever move on, due to the impenetrable callous between your ears. I'm tired of your squirming and attempts to push your assumptions. It has nothing to do with assumptions or squirming if you follow the logic and analyze the statements for valid form and valid conclusions.
Now we substitute Y for X where Y == notX, as before:
Ending up with the same position as person E. Likewise, when we substitute Y for X where Y == notX, we get:
Ending up with the same position as person D, once again. Here, however, we do not have a conflict with both D and E being logical at the same time, because the possibility of one allows the possibility of the other. D(Y) == E(X) and E(Y) == D(X) and the logic of the D position is as valid as the logic for the E position. This now gives us:
A = 1: logically invalid B = 7: logically invalid C = 4: logically valid D = 3: logically valid E = 5: logically valid Do you agree with this? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clarity, added to end we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Modulus,
Seems to me that there is good evidence that increases the likelihood of the Ivory billed woodpecker being a currently existing species from total skepticism up the ladder of confidence. There is definitely not an absense of evidence in this case. I'm fairly sure that all of this has been mentioned before. And the significant point here, is that the evidence we now have for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker being a currently existing species is due to dedicated people not accepting that the absence of evidence was evidence of absence. These are people that felt there was no objective empirical evidence that showed continued existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was not true, and therefore concluded that it was logical to consider the possibility that continued existence of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was true, and they acted on that possibility. And yes, this has been mentioned before. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Modulus
And the significant point here, is that the evidence we now have for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker being a currently existing species is due to dedicated people not accepting that the absence of evidence was evidence of absence. And would you care to actually address the part where I pointed out that there was not an absence of evidence? I thought I had "And the significant point here, is that the evidence we now have for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker being a currently existing species " The evidence (that you have pointed out) is due to people looking for evidence and not assuming that, because it appeared that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker was extinct, that the evidence would not exist. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Stile,
The significant point here, is that those people who went looking for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker did so irrationally and illogically. They used a very poor system for discovering the truth about this world, and they happened to be right. This isn't about identifying a methodology that works every time and is never, ever wrong. This is about identifying a methodology that is rational, consistent, logical... and works the best. Correct, it is not about a methodology, it is about whether or not there is a possibility. The methodology you use to determine if a possibility is true (or not) is independent of what is being looked for. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Meldinoor, nice to see you back on your thread.
Imagine I have a fishtank. It's large, filled with water, plants, rocks and little decorative underwater ruins. Suppose I gave you the tank and told you that it contained a goldfish. Seeing as how I'm a trust-inspiring fellow you at first believe me and set out observing the fishtank in hopes of spotting the fish. However, despite looking from all angles, tempting it with fish food etc. you don't catch sight of the fish. Now skeptical inquiry enters the picture. Why can't you see the goldfish? What you have is empirical objective evidence of absence, not absence of evidence. You also have evidence of normal behavior of living goldfish, including feeding times, patrolling their environment and schooling with other goldfish. You have looked in the reasonable places for a long enough time that a normally behaving living goldfish would be observed. Next you need to rule out less normal behavior.
Is it because it's not there? Possible. (The tank contains enough rocks and plants to conceal a hiding fish). Hiding is not normal goldfish behavior unless there is a predator in the tank: one can check to see if there is a predator. One possibility is that the goldfish is dead, that it was living when you had the tank but has since died. Dead fish normally float, but you have rocks with nooks and crannies that could trap a dead fish in a place that would be virtually impossible to observe from outside the tank. Another possibility is that the goldfish in question are eggs: Goldfish - Wikipedia
quote: Thus observation would need to extend over a week and to look for extremely small and hard to see fry.
But because I told you that the tank contains a fish you must accept both possibilities as equally probable in the absense of evidence. So you take a "4" position on the existence of the goldfish. Hearsay is not empirical objective evidence, so the position for the existence of the goldfish is nothing more than assertion, opinion. If the tank was observed continuously (by video camera say) for a period of a week, and at the end of that time observation focused on looking for small "eyelashes with eyeballs" and still came up empty, the objective empirical evidence of absence of any goldfish from all normal goldfish areas of the would be sufficient for a level III claim, especially if several people are involved in looking in the tank and studying the video footage at an enlarged scale. See IIIa.
Whether this is a "Dawkins" 5 or 6 position would depend on how you define those when evidence is involved (as they are originally defined, evidence is not a part of the definitions, just opinions).
Now, the fact that the goldfish never shows itself is certainly not proof of its non-existence. It might come out and nibble the fish-food when you're not looking, and perhaps it has an unusual aversion to being observed. But could the fact that the fish remains hidden suggest that it isn't there? Again, this is not normal living goldfish behavior, especially when food is provided. If the period of observation is long enough that any eggs should have hatched, and the observations have been keen enough to observe "eyelashes with eyeballs" in all the possible visible locations, and still no goldfish has been sighted, you have evidence of absence in all those places and in all those times.
Could the absense of evidence be evidence of absense in this case? Again, this is not an absence of any evidence, only of positive evidence. The evidence of absence, however, is sufficient to theorize (tentatively) that there are no living goldfish present in the observed confines of the tank.
I think your reference to the coelacanth and the ivory-billed woodpecker is missing an important point. As far as I can tell, nobody is claiming that the absence of evidence is ever proof of absense. What these two are, is proof that the absence of evidence is not proof of absence. That is all that is required of them. Curiously, when it comes to the possibilities of deities, there are people that claim it is proof of absence.
Would it be pseudo-skepticism if you eventually came to the conclusion that the fishtank was very unlikely to contain a goldfish? No, because you have a reasonable amount empirical and objective evidence of absence when a normal living goldfish should have been observed, if a living goldfish existed within the tank. This is similar to the empirical objective evidence that shows that a plesiosaur does not exist in Loch Ness. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Rrhain, I thought your read my posts
RAZD wants people to proclaim their opinion without knowing what they're claiming an opinion about. Nope. As Catholic Scientist and Straggler have demonstrated, and as Onifre has argured, it is impossible to know what your opinion will be without knowing the concept. Thus the default position is necessarily an agnostic one - don't know one way or the other - because you can't know (unless you are psychic).
So what makes you think you are capable of saying you "don't know" if you don't even know what is being talked about? Rather self-evident that you can say you don't know what is being talked about, and therefore cannot know if it is true false or indifferent. To claim that it is true or false would be to make an assumption completely unsupported by any evidence at all, and thus be an invalid claim. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : , Edited by RAZD, : ... we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Briterican, thanks for the reply.
I would expand on your definition of atheist, at least in the sense that I consider myself an atheist, as follows. My modification is italicised.
Curiously, this is not about how atheist, theist and agnostic positions are defined, but the logic of the arguments presented.
quote: What you are being asked to defend is your claim that one argument is more logical than the other. For reference on definitions, we can use the (flawed) "Dawkins scale" as a reference to some general positions:
quote: Ignoring the inherent mathematical problem/s of calculating probabilities when the number of possibilities is unknown, we can refer to this scale as a reference of relative atheistic, agnostic and theistic beliefs. In this regard, the "A" position is modeled on the "1" category, concluding that god/s are true because there is no evidence contradicting this claim (whether this is actually true or not is irrelevant to the logical validity of the form of the argument). Likewise, the "B" position is modeled on the "7" category, concluding that god/s are not true because there is no evidence contradicting this claim, and the "C" position is modeled on the "4" category, concluding that there is insufficient evidence to conclude whether god/s are true or not true.
If I had to put those three definitions in order of "logic", I would place them in this order:
I would expand on your definition of atheist, at least in the sense that I consider myself an atheist, as follows. My modification is italicised. You have fallen into the trap of letting your preexisting opinion and bias about the subject (atheist\agnostic\theist) interfere with your analysis of the logic validity of the argument, just as Phage0070 did. See my reply in Message 289:
quote: By your argument (like Phage0070) B and C are logical, and A is not - we don't need to worry about the relative value of B and C at this point - being only concerned with the validity, or invalidity, of the form of the arguments). Note that the validity\invalidity of an argument does not address whether the argument is true or not, just that the conclusion follows from the premises in valid arguments (and is true iff* the premises are true) but that the conclusion does not follow from the premises for the invalid arguments (and can be true or false irrespective of the invalid argument). Now let Y = notX to see if the same conclusions are reached:
How say you now? By your previous argument B and C are logical and A is not. Curiously, A(X) = B(Y) = theistic position, B(X) = A(Y) = atheistic position, and C(X) = C(Y) = agnostic position. So you have said that one form of argument is logical in one case and not logical in the other, which is a contradiction: either A or B is false (and we don't know which from the form of the argument). By comparing the form of the arguments, either "A" and "B" must either both be true or both be false. Fairly obviously, god/s cannot logically both be true and false at the same time, and therefore both "A" and "B" arguments must be invalid arguments because they result in false conclusions. This problem does not exist for "C" and therefore it is a logically valid form of argument, and it results in valid conclusions when the premises are true.
"A" = "1" = logically invalid argument "B" = "7" = logically invalid argument "C" = "4" = logically valid argument With regard to things being on "equal footing", we need to be talking about probabilities here. Now, let's expand the list and look at possibilities first, and see if we can agree on the logical form of these arguments:
quote: In these cases, "D" is modeled on the "3" category of theistic agnostic ("Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'), claiming that god/s may possible be true due to the lack of contradicting evidence, and "E" is modeled on the "5" category of atheistic agnostic ("Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.') claiming that god/s may possible be not-true. How do you rate these arguments now:
Remember, that because we are looking at the validity of the form of the argument, that "X" can be replaced by "Y" == not"X" and the argument will be just as valid.
With regard to things being on "equal footing", we need to be talking about probabilities here. We can talk about this in the next round, once we have sorted out the logical validity of the A(~1), B(~7), C(~4), D(~3) and E(~5) arguments, noting that only in Dawkins scale categories "2" and "6" are the positions dependent on "probabilities" to distinguish them from the other positions. Enjoy. * in logic and math "iff" is used as an abbreviation for "if and only if" Edited by RAZD, : englss we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
Do you know what they are talking about with not being able to not know if a concept exists or not if you don't know what the concept is? Help. I can't make any sense of it Honestly. I'm baffled as to why its even being discussed. Simple: what you are seeing is the effect of cognitive dissonance of people unwilling to admit that the agnostic position is logically valid, and that the agnostic is the natural default position. Thus you see conflation of "total lack of evidence" with the inability to know on a position that is not described, and arguments about the "total lack of evidence" for cases where, instead, the position is that the evidence available in not sufficient to form a logical conclusion. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist,
But I don't think they're honestly feeling uncomfortable about this. Well, we see that Rrhain is uncomfortable with the use of the term cognitive dissonance to describe the apparent inability of people to deal with certain arguments, especially when they are uncomfortable with apparent indecision or failure to take a stand on a position other than "I don't know, the available evidence is inconclusive" ... and we see that Straggler is uncomfortable with the concept of not having sufficient objective empirical evidence to make a logical conclusion. We take Straggler's example of concept X -- without describing what he means by X you have no evidence on which to base a decision, and thus the natural default position is "I don't know, the available evidence is inconclusive" ... you could then add a piece of information: X is yellow, and we would still have insufficient evidence on which to base a decision. He could be talking about cheese or he could be talking about the yellow brick road in the Wizard of Oz. The only point at which a decision is logically possible is when there is sufficient objective and empirical evidence presented for us to conclude, however poorly, whether X is something that exists or not. Until then, the agnostic position is the natural default. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Curiously, most people have no problem understanding what the concept god means
Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't?
quote: So what we see is that you are avoiding the issue of providing evidence that you say exists by playing word games. Enjoy we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Catholic Scientist
How Straggler takes this honest approach as being a way to trick people into agnosticism, I have no idea. Perhaps because that is the way he thinks. It has been fairly obvious from the start that he is engaging in "gotcha" games, with his frequent (and always premature) claims of winning a point. Agnostic Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
quote: When discussing god/s, then definition (1) (a or b) would apply, when discussing topics in general, then definition (2) would apply, and indeed this is the usage most common when discussing things like "concept X".
Hey neat, its says there that you have 11111 number of posts Yep, rolled the old odometer over. Just wait till it gets to 66666 ... Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Yes Straggler, word games.
I am playing word games? Wow. ... With regard to this non-concept "god" that we are currently being confronted with - Well I am not agnostic towards that either. I consider the question "Do you believe god exists?" to be utterly meaningless if there is no concept to even consider. With regard to such a "god" I am very much ignostic. And by ignostic I mean the following: Curiously, I contrast that with the statement:
Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist? thread, Message 332:
quote: There was no equivocating on the definition of god/s in that earlier claim, nor did he need any definition from any poster to reach his conclusion at that time (whether it was logical or not). In addition, we have Straggler's first post on this forum:
Logically speaking: God is knowable thread, Message 34 quote: Leaving aside the certainty implied by 1x10^-9 less than 7, there was no equivocating on the definition of god/s in that earliest claim, nor did he need any definition from any poster to reach his conclusion at that time (whether it was logical or not). Either Straggler's position has changed (substantially?), or he is playing word games. If he is now ignostic, does that mean that he is not now a 6.999999999 atheist on the Dawkin's (flawed) scale, as he can no longer rule out all the concepts he is not aware of, with the same pseudo-assurance exhibited in the above quote? Is he now a 5? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : first post evidence we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith,
However, personally - and this is where I differ from RAZD and CS, while agreeing with Straggler, Onifre, Stile and others well-known here - I think it's very UNLIKELY. Why? If you know the concept of probability and mean time between failure calculations, ... Perhaps this is the time to discuss the logical basis of the final group of positions on the Dawkins Scale. I had hoped that Briterican would reply to Message 409, so that we could discuss the logical basis behind the probability claims. It is rather amusing that nobody is discussing the actual logic of these positions, but are more interested in just claiming that their position is logical. For review, here is the state of logical analysis so far:
quote: So, once again we substitute Y = notX into these statements:
The possibility that X is true = the possibility that X is not true. Thus there is no contradiction between "D" and "E" positions, as one does not rule out the other, and we end up with:
"A" = "1" = logically invalid argument "B" = "7" = logically invalid argument "C" = "4" = logically valid argument "D" = "3" = logically valid argument "E" = "5" = logically valid argument This leads us to the final pair:
In these cases, "F" is modeled on the "2" category of theistic agnostic (Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there'), claiming that god/s are highly probable to be true due to the lack of contradicting evidence, and "G" is modeled on the "6" category of atheistic agnostic (Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.') claiming that god/s are highly probable to be not-true. Going through the little exercise of analyzing the logical structure of the argument should bring us to a final conclusion regarding what positions are logical, and what positions are not logical, based on an absence of contradictory empirical or objective evidence. The astute observer will have already figured out that there is a contradiction between "F" and "G" positions, as one rules out the other in the same way that "A" rules out "B" and vice versa: A high probability that X is true ≠ a high probability that X is not true. Thus we end up with:
"A" = "1" = logically invalid argument "B" = "7" = logically invalid argument "C" = "4" = logically valid argument "D" = "3" = logically valid argument "E" = "5" = logically valid argument "F" = "2" = logically invalid argument "G" = "6" = logically invalid argument The only way around this problem, is to show that there is objective empirical evidence that shows one position or the other is invalid, evidence that contradicts the opposing position. For the theist, this means providing actual evidence that god/s in fact exist, contradicting the atheist "5" premise that there is no evidence contradicting the atheist position -- or realizing that a "3" position is all that can be supported by the logic and available evidence. Likewise, for the atheist, this means providing actual evidence that god/s do not in fact exist, contradicting the theist "3" premise that there is no evidence contradicting the theist position -- or realizing that a "5" position is all that can be supported by the logic and available evidence. As Jon demonstrated in Message 138, and as most people realize, proving a negative is not logically possible, and thus we are left with the conclusion that a "6" or higher position is logically indefensible. It may be true, but it cannot be defended by logic. This is why people trying to defend a "6" position are stuck with logical fallacies rather than valid logic: the position is logically invalid.
I'm a 5.7 on that strange scale. My evidence, albeit not so heavily required as a 6.0 or 6.9999, is the Mean Time Between Coelacanthic Aces probability. I freely admit I could be wrong about that. And that possibility is ... logically still a possibility. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : clrty Edited by RAZD, : clrty we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again, Briterican,
But "possibility" carries with it an element of probability. No, for the simple reason that it does not judge the relative possibility as probability does. When you do probability calculations they are based on all the possibilities: when you throw a di the numbers 1 through 6 are all possible, and when you throw only one, equally probable. When you throw two di the numbers 2 through 12 are all possible, with several combinations making different numbers, as in there are 6 possibilities of getting a 7 total but only one possibility of getting a 2 or a 12 total, and this means that the probability of getting a 7 is greater than getting a 2 or a 12, even though each possible combination has the same possibility. Probability is based on possibilities and makes a judgment on likelihood, possibility makes no judgment of likelihood. If something is possibly true, then it is also possibly false, with no means to judge which is more likely. A coin in the air is possibly heads and possibly tails, and no way to judge which is more likely until it actually lands.
In the same vein of thought, I consider the probability that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe as being infinitesimally small, though I have no basis on which I can flatly announce that probability to be zero. Therefore, I find it unrealistic to come to the conclusion that there is a 50% probabillty that he exists and a 50% probability that he doesn't - i.e. the two possiblities (FSM exists / FSM does not exist) are NOT on equal footing. I consider the probability that the FSM does NOT exist to be dramatically greater than the probability that he does exist. In other words you have used your personal opinion to judge the probability of one possibility relative to another. This is the inevitable position of claiming something not supported by logic. As pointed out in Message 462 making a judgment of "infinitesimally small" probability results in a contradictory position from the structure of the argument:
quote: The form of your argument is invalid, so the conclusion does not follow from the premises. It may be true, but it is not shown to be a logical conclusion. The only way around this problem, is to show that there is objective empirical evidence that shows one position or the other is invalid, evidence that contradicts the opposing position. This would involve showing that one of the premises is false. For the theist, this means providing actual evidence that god/s in fact exist, contradicting the atheist "5" premise that there is no evidence contradicting the atheist position -- or realizing that a "3" position is all that can be supported by the logic and available evidence. Likewise, for the atheist, this means providing actual evidence that god/s do not in fact exist, contradicting the theist "3" premise that there is no evidence contradicting the theist position -- or realizing that a "5" position is all that can be supported by the logic and available evidence. This is why anyone claiming a "6" position or higher needs to provide evidence substantiating their opinion, or they fall into the pseudoskeptic category of claiming a negative without logical support or empirical objective evidence.
Replace FSM in the above argument with whatever flavour of God you like, and (in my opinion) the argument still holds true. All this is doing is saying "the names have been changed to protect the innocent" -- and playing the name changing game, does not alter the fact that you are talking about a single god, or set of gods, that created the universe, and thus this part is mundanely true for any name chosen, however we are still left with possibility (A) god/s created the universe, and possibility (2) god/s did not create the universe. Now in the original post that caught my eye in How do I deal with a creationist family member?, your Message 65, you claimed:
I tried to explain why this was a fallacy, why these two conclusions are not on equal footing, and in the process I (ill-advisedly) put forward the idea that my "disbelief" was more firmly founded in logic and reason than their "belief". If you are arguing a "6G" or a "7B" atheist position against a "1A" or a "2F" theistic position, then you both have equally bad logical foundations. If you are arguing a "5E" atheistic agnostic position against a "1A" or a "2F" theistic position, then you are correct. If you are arguing a "5E" atheistic agnostic position against a "3D" theistic agnostic position, then you both have equally solid logical foundations. If you are arguing a "6G" or a "7B" atheist position against a "3D" theistic agnostic position, then you both have a worse logical foundation. For the record, I'm a "3D" - deistic agnostic. Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : added end Edited by RAZD, : No reason given. Edited by RAZD, : coin in the air Edited by RAZD, : 3D we are limited in our ability to understand
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 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi xongsmith, thanks for trying to sort Rrhain out.
If we will find evidence of the supernatural...an Ace in the deck, so to speak. And the "coelacanth ace" in the whole of time is still the deist god that clapped the universe into existence in the time before time, said "surprise me," and left it to develop all on its lone. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024