Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 362 of 533 (535957)
11-18-2009 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 339 by Phage0070
11-17-2009 11:27 AM


Some Progress Made?
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
A involves a logical fallacy, the part for the whole
A is therefore invalid
B is an absolute, not a nuanced atheist position
B involves a logical fallacy, the part for the whole
B is therefore invalid
Both are equally 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:
1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: 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
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.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: 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.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
A = 1: it is logical to believe god/s exist
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
Very few people here will argue that the A=1 absolute position is logical or that the B=7 position is logical.
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.
  • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
  • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,
Now we substitute Y for X where Y == notX, as before:
  • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is true,
    If the form of the logic is correct then D(Y) should be just as logical as D(X). This now becomes:
  • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is true,
    and
  • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,
Ending up with the same position as person E. Likewise, when we substitute Y for X where Y == notX, we get:
  • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is not true,
    If the form of the logic is correct then E(Y) should be just as logical as E(X). This now becomes:
  • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is not true,
    and
  • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true,
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 339 by Phage0070, posted 11-17-2009 11:27 AM Phage0070 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 363 of 533 (535958)
11-18-2009 10:09 PM
Reply to: Message 359 by Modulous
11-18-2009 12:51 PM


Re: Subjective Perceptions of Reality
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 359 by Modulous, posted 11-18-2009 12:51 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 367 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2009 7:55 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 369 by Stile, posted 11-19-2009 8:32 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 368 of 533 (536000)
11-19-2009 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 367 by Modulous
11-19-2009 7:55 AM


Re: Subjective Perceptions of Reality
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 367 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2009 7:55 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 376 by Modulous, posted 11-19-2009 12:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 380 of 533 (536090)
11-19-2009 7:14 PM
Reply to: Message 369 by Stile
11-19-2009 8:32 AM


Not Methodology.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 369 by Stile, posted 11-19-2009 8:32 AM Stile has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 381 of 533 (536096)
11-19-2009 8:14 PM
Reply to: Message 379 by Meldinoor
11-19-2009 6:55 PM


Objective empirical evidence of absence is evidence of absence
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:
Goldfish, like all cyprinids, are egg-layers. They produce adhesive eggs that attach to aquatic vegetation. The eggs hatch within 48 to 72 hours, releasing fry large enough to be described as appearing like "an eyelash with two eyeballs".
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.
RAZD's Concept Scale
  1. Zero Confidence Concepts
    1. No evidence, subjective or objective,
    2. No logical conclusions possible, but opinion possible
  2. Low Confidence Concepts
    1. Unconfirmed or subjective supporting evidence, opinion also involved, but no known contradictory evidence, nothing shows the concept per se to be invalid
    2. Conclusions regarding possibilities for further investigation, and opinions can be based on this level of evidence,
  3. High Confidence Concepts
    1. Validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, and no known contradictory evidence
    2. Conclusions regarding probable reality can be made, repeated attempts to falsify such concepts can lead to high confidence in their being true.
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Meldinoor, posted 11-19-2009 6:55 PM Meldinoor has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 406 of 533 (536540)
11-23-2009 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 399 by Rrhain
11-23-2009 1:56 AM


False representation?
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 399 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2009 1:56 AM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 407 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-23-2009 4:59 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 412 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2009 10:44 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 409 of 533 (536548)
11-23-2009 6:42 PM
Reply to: Message 402 by Briterican
11-23-2009 3:20 PM


Possibilities - the next step on the logic of the argument/s
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.
  • (atheist): there is no objective empirical evidence that shows god/s exist and in fact there is a substantial amount of empirical evidence that points towards a universe that moves forward on fixed laws that do not require a controlling agency, therefore it is logical to disbelieve in the existence of god/s
  • Defined in that fashion, I would rank atheism above agnosticism in logical terms.
    Curiously, this is not about how atheist, theist and agnostic positions are defined, but the logic of the arguments presented.
    quote:
    This is for Briterican, from How do I deal with a creationist family member?, Message 65 We have this claim:
    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".

    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:
    1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
    2.00: 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
    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.'
    4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
    5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
    6.00: 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.'
    7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
    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:
    • Logical: Agnostic - although in my personal opinion, a part of this definition is not accurate (the part stating that there is no evidence that God/s do not exist). I appreciate that many people feel this way and I think there is logic in the opinion.
    • Logical: Athiest - (see below)*
    • Not logical: Theist - I disagree with the first part (there is no evidence God/s do not exist), and I believe the second part is an amazingly ill-informed leap. (i.e. lets just go believe in some gods why don't we! If we don't like the ones we have to choose from, we can make some more up!).
    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:
    Can you tell me which of these statements is more logical than the others:
    • person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
    • person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
    • person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.

    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:
    • person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is true,
    • person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to believe that Y is not true, or
    • person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true or that Y is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
    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:
    Message 307: Now see if you can determine which of these positions is logically valid and which is not:
    • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
    • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

    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:
    • person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
    • person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
    • person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
    • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
    • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 402 by Briterican, posted 11-23-2009 3:20 PM Briterican has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 413 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2009 10:55 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 416 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2009 4:55 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 410 of 533 (536549)
    11-23-2009 7:22 PM
    Reply to: Message 407 by New Cat's Eye
    11-23-2009 4:59 PM


    Re: False representation?
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 407 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-23-2009 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 414 by Rrhain, posted 11-23-2009 10:56 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 417 by Straggler, posted 11-24-2009 5:10 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 420 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2009 11:03 AM RAZD has replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 441 of 533 (536731)
    11-24-2009 6:11 PM
    Reply to: Message 420 by New Cat's Eye
    11-24-2009 11:03 AM


    lack of sufficient information ≠ total lack of evidence
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 420 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-24-2009 11:03 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 443 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2009 6:44 AM RAZD has replied
     Message 449 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-25-2009 10:34 AM RAZD has replied
     Message 457 by Rrhain, posted 11-26-2009 4:10 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 445 of 533 (536812)
    11-25-2009 7:52 AM
    Reply to: Message 443 by Straggler
    11-25-2009 6:44 AM


    Re: lack of sufficient information ≠ total lack of evidence
    Curiously, most people have no problem understanding what the concept god means
    Who Believes in God and Who Doesn't?
    quote:
    In several recent Gallup Polls, adult Americans have been asked about God using this more complex format involving five alternative beliefs:
    Which comes closest to describing you -- [ROTATED: you are convinced that God exists, you think God probably exists, but you have a little doubt, you think God probably exists, but you have a lot of doubt, you think God probably does not exist, but you are not sure, (or) you are convinced that God does not exist]?
    • Convinced God exists
    • Probably exists, have a little doubt
    • Probably exists, have a lot of doubt
    • Probably does not exist, but not sure
    • Convinced God does not exist
    • No opinion
    The latest responses to this question, obtained in a May Gallup Poll, lead to several conclusions:
    * Seventy-three percent of Americans are classic true believers, convinced that God exists beyond a doubt.
    * Eighty-seven percent of Americans are basic believers in the existence of God, saying either that they are convinced that God exists or that God probably exists and they have only a little doubt that this is the case.
    * A slightly larger group of 92% of Americans can be classified in a group that tilts toward the existence of God, stating that at the least they think God probably exists, even though some have a lot of doubt about it.
    * Only 3% of Americans can be considered to be hard-core atheists, convinced that God does not exist.
    * Another 4% are agnostics of a sort, leaning toward a belief that God does not exist, but not sure that this is the case beyond a doubt.
    Of interest is the distribution of these beliefs across subgroups in the U.S. population. Just who is it that is most likely to believe in God, and who is least likely to believe in God?
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 443 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2009 6:44 AM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 447 by onifre, posted 11-25-2009 9:13 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 453 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2009 7:27 PM RAZD has replied
     Message 458 by Rrhain, posted 11-26-2009 4:19 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 459 of 533 (537084)
    11-26-2009 4:49 PM
    Reply to: Message 449 by New Cat's Eye
    11-25-2009 10:34 AM


    Re: lack of sufficient information total lack of evidence
    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:
    agnostic (āg-nŏs'tĭk) n.
    1.a. One who believes that it is impossible to know whether there is a God.
    . .b One who is skeptical about the existence of God but does not profess true atheism.
    2. One who is doubtful or noncommittal about something.

    The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 449 by New Cat's Eye, posted 11-25-2009 10:34 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 460 of 533 (537086)
    11-26-2009 5:05 PM
    Reply to: Message 453 by Straggler
    11-25-2009 7:27 PM


    Re: Ignosticism - and playing word games
    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 is no evidence of gods. Nor is there any evidence to suggest the possibility of gods. If there was such evidence gods would be evidentially viable concepts. If there was such evidence faith would be redundant.
    ...
    I am an atheist because I consistently do not believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible.
    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:
    Anyone who claims to be at 1 or 7 has to be deluded because either position requires a certainty about the source of their absolute certanty that it is impossible to have.
    The key difference is that those of faith are necessarily 1s whilst those that call themselves atheists would more likely describe themselves as 6.999999999Rs as they would generally accept that absolute certainty about anything requires the sort of faith that they oppose!!
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 453 by Straggler, posted 11-25-2009 7:27 PM Straggler has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 497 by Straggler, posted 11-29-2009 7:55 PM RAZD has replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 462 of 533 (537104)
    11-27-2009 12:34 AM
    Reply to: Message 461 by xongsmith
    11-26-2009 9:13 PM


    The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
    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:
    For reference on definitions, we can use the (flawed) "Dawkins scale" as a reference to some general positions:
    quote:
    1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
    2.00: 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
    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.'
    4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
    5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
    6.00: 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.'
    7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
    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.
    Where the "A," "B" and "C" positions were:
    • person A: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is true,
    • person B: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to believe that X is not true, or
    • person C: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true or that X is not true, therefore it is logical to say that we don't know.
    Now let Y = notX to see if the same conclusions are reached:
    Curiously, A(X) = B(Y) = theistic position, B(X) = A(Y) = atheistic position, and C(X) = C(Y) = agnostic position.
    By comparing the form of the arguments, we see that "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:
    Message 307:
    • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true, and
    • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,

    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.
    So, once again we substitute Y = notX into these statements:
    • person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is true,
      Becomes: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is true,
      Or: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is notnot true,
      = person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is not true,
      and
    • person E: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows Y is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that Y is not true,
      Becomes: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is not true,
      Or: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows notX is notnot true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that notX is not true,
      = person D: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider the possibility that X is true.
    Here we have the same inherent problem with the "A" and "B" positions, except that the possibility that X is not true implies the possibility that X is true without any measurement of one being more or less likely than the other:
    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:
    • person F: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider it is highly probable that X is true, and
    • person G: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider it is highly probable that X is not true,
    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 461 by xongsmith, posted 11-26-2009 9:13 PM xongsmith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 464 by Briterican, posted 11-27-2009 11:27 AM RAZD has replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 467 of 533 (537190)
    11-27-2009 1:26 PM
    Reply to: Message 464 by Briterican
    11-27-2009 11:27 AM


    Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
    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:
    This leads us to the final pair:
    • person F: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is not true, therefore it is logical to consider it is highly probable that X is true, and
    • person G: there is no objective empirical evidence that shows X is true, therefore it is logical to consider it is highly probable that X is not true,
    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 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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 464 by Briterican, posted 11-27-2009 11:27 AM Briterican has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 469 by Briterican, posted 11-27-2009 2:55 PM RAZD has replied

    RAZD
    Member (Idle past 1405 days)
    Posts: 20714
    From: the other end of the sidewalk
    Joined: 03-14-2004


    Message 468 of 533 (537194)
    11-27-2009 2:04 PM
    Reply to: Message 466 by xongsmith
    11-27-2009 11:51 AM


    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) • • •

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 466 by xongsmith, posted 11-27-2009 11:51 AM xongsmith has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 470 by onifre, posted 11-27-2009 4:05 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
     Message 473 by Rrhain, posted 11-27-2009 8:01 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024