Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
Hi Briterican, sorry to take so long getting back,
It is this evidence that sways me to a 6 on Dawkins's scale, which you've criticised as flawed but nonetheless referenced often.
Yes, it is flawed because it refers to probabilities that cannot be calculated, only assumed, as a measurement. What you see when such "probabilities" are used, is that they are made up, with no relationship the impossibility of making such a calculation without including a lot of a priori assumptions. It's opinion, not math.
Likewise, we see atheists time and again argue that there is "literally mountains of evidence" for their position, and yet when asked to present it, somehow cannot manage to find any that really relates to the question of whether god/s exist or not.
There is no personal opinion involved. I base my probability estimate on two things:
The available evidence from the fields of cosmology and biology support a universe that moves forward on fixed laws without intervention from a controlling agent.
There is no recorded evidence of the existence of the FSM or any evidence to support the contention that he created the universe last Thursday (again, substitute the god(s) of your choice).
And yet these are your opinions, and not facts, not sound logical conclusions that inevitably follow from true premises.
For instance, your first problem is that any estimate is an opinion, so your "probability estimate" is your personal opinion that the two items listed are factual statements, backed by evidence and sound logic.
Second, you have somehow assumed that any god/s that created the universe have somehow left the natural laws untouched to occur on their own, when the logical conclusion is that if god/s created the universe, then they also put in place the "fixed laws" that control how it behaves, this being in fact one of their ways to control the universe. In this respect the existence of "fixed laws" is evidence of creation to the theist, who assumes god/s, as it is to you/etc., who have assumed no-god/s, and is not evidence that god/s cannot exist. This is the problem Rrhain has with his model - he cannot explain why it exists the way it does, only how it works, and how it works is just possibly due to god/s making it work - he cannot eliminate this possibility, and therefore his arguement is insufficient. In essence, you have assumed a lack of god/s input to the "fixed laws" that then justifies your opinion for a lack of god/s input to the "fixed laws" being evidence of a lack of god/s -- a begging the question logical fallacy.
Third, your last "evidence" is the old argument that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence," which is also a logical fallacy, one of hasty generalization, or of assuming that because all A is B that all B is A, when there is no evidence that A=B, the only condition where the conclusion can be made (ie you need to know everything first).
I don't think I'm arguing with your mathematics, and I agree that possibility makes no judgment of likelihood. If your argument addresses only possibility, and not probabilty, then I suspect your maths follow. But I don't believe you can apply this sort of binary logic to the ideas of theist/atheist/agnostic.
What is pointed out, by evaluating the structure of the arguments, is that as soon as you say that X is more likely than notX, that you have created a situation that is contradicted by the form of the statements. We can replace X with Y = notX and end up with the contraditory conclusion that notX is more likely than X, and this cannot be true if X is more likely than notX. This inherent contradiction shows that the logical structure is invalid when probability\liklihood statements are included.
It is only when you do not make a judgment about one being more likely\probable\etc than the other that you avoid the contradiction that shows the argument is logically invalid.
There is a possibilty that God exists. That leads you to the conclusion that there are only two possible states: True and False. You therefore aver that these two possible states are equally likely.
No, I say that the probability is not known, and cannot be known, so all you can say is that each are possible.
It is the coin flipping argument above. If, however, I had empirical evidence that the coin had a minor flaw resulting in an imbalance causing it to land on heads more often than tails, it would be logical for me to bet on heads. I could still lose, but probability would be on my side. It is in this way that scientific evidence (from the fields of cosmology and biology) has tipped the balance so that someone arguing from a position of skepticism does so on a firmer foundation than those arguing from a position of faith.
Agreed, if you had evidence.
As we have seen that "literally mountains of evidence" melts away every time we talk about evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, and that the "scientific evidence (from the fields of cosmology and biology)" etc etc is not a predictor of god/s not being responsible for the "fixed laws" that cause all that evidence to be as it is.
You are stuck with basing your opinion on your opinion of reality, and not on logical conclusions that inevitably follow from premises in a valid construction, a construction that results in a true conclusion if the premises are true. Only positions 4C, 3D and 5E have valid constructions, and they only allow the possibility that they are true, with no judgment of likelihood or probability. The most logical position is still the agnostic position, 4C, because it specifically recognizes that each are possibilities.
Enjoy.
ps - using terms like FSM, IPU, Last Thursdayism, etc. don't bother me, I just find it somewhat childish, like schoolyard mockery.
Substitute in both sides after parallel construction.
Looking at the form of the argument, not the content, means that • p(X) > p(notX) is the same form as • p(Y) > p(notY) in terms of the claim being made which becomes • p(notX) > p(X) when the substitution is made
In other words it is just as logical to claim p(notX) > p(X) as it is to claim p(X) > p(notX) - which is the contradiction because both cannot be true -- unless you have actual empirical evidence that one probability is known to be greater than the other, which is where the necessity for actual empirical objective evidence enters the picture.
Because the form causes the contradiction, not the content, the form is logically invalid, and the conclusion does not follow.
The argument can contain logical fallacies as premises (see hasty generalization), or the form can be invalid so that a proper conclusion is not reached.
quote:Logic, which provides the principles of correct reason, does not ensure we will use those principles correctly, and it is easy to suppose we are being logical, while making subtle mistakes in our reasoning that are not easy to detect. Explanations are necessary and important, but examples frequently make obvious what explanations fail to make clear. This list of fallacies can help sharpen our mind's eye in detecting logical errors in our own and other's reasoning.
The word fallacy is sometime used to mean "untrue," but every untrue statement is not a fallacy.
Fallacies pertain specifically to "arguments," or that form of reasoning we use when attempting to lay the ground or rational basis for a view or opinion. If our arguments are correct, they will conform to the principles of sound reason, for which logic provides the formal rules. If our arguments are logically incorrect, either because we violate a formal rule of logic, or include false ideas, our arguing is fallacious, and our conclusions will be false.
Formal logic defines, in rigid terms, the exact form in which statements must be made and arranged to lead to conclusions which are true.
The formal logic fallacies indicate those forms that always or sometimes lead to wrong conclusions, and therefore, can never be depended on to produce correct conclusions, even if they sometimes do.
Over time, logicians and philosophers have identified many informal fallacies. No list of such fallacies, however, is exhaustive. We have attempt to include as many as possible of those any of us are likely to encounter.
Formal logic is concerned with the form of the argument reaching valid conclusions. Informal fallacies are more common and generally better known.
An interesting article, and a useful resource for most logical fallacies, such as these common ones:
Consider the following argument which claims to prove that pie is delicious:
1. Pie is food. 2. Food is delicious. 3. Therefore, pie is delicious.
This particular argument has the form of a categorical syllogism. In this case "Pie is food" and "Food is delicious" act as premises. The first assumption is almost true by definition: pie is a foodstuff edible by humans. The second assumption is less clear; it could mean any one of the following:
* All food is delicious. * One particular type of food is delicious. * Most food is delicious. * To me, all food is delicious. * Some food is delicious. * Anything not delicious can not be considered food (equivalent to the first statement under formal logic)
Only the first interpretation validates the second premise. If the interlocutor grants this interpretation then the argument is valid; the interlocutor is essentially conceding the point. However, the interlocutor is more likely to believe that some food is not delicious. In this case, the speaker must prove the assertion that pie is a unique type of universally delicious food. This is a disguised form of the original thesis. In this case, the speaker commits the logical fallacy of begging the question.
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,
Here you replace all X's with Y's, where Y = notX and the arguments are not contradictory if the form is valid, but they are contradictory where the form is invalid.
Message 409 again: 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.
... Curiously, A(X) = B(Y) = theistic position, B(X) = A(Y) = atheistic position, and C(X) = C(Y) = agnostic position.
Message 462 again: 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, ...
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.
Re: logic of the form needs to be valid for valid conclusions
Hi xongsmith,
Yeah, I saw all that and kinda shrugged. By that method the 50-50 option is the only one that works, so this is a sneaky form of begging the question. It doesnt do anything for me.
You need to let go of the flawed concept of any of the probabilities being known, what you have are two possibilities, and beyond that there is no information on whether one is more likely than the other.
A conclusion that allows both possibilities to exist is valid, but any conclusion that tries to add a measure of likelihood of one over the other, means that an additional term has been added to the argument, a term that is not part of the original information - a logical fallacy of a hidden assumption - and it results in the formal error in composition.
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true • Yetis have no contradictory evidence ∴ Yetis can be true
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern.
versus:
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true • Yetis have no contradictory evidence ∴ Yetis are absolutely true
can be true ≠ are absolutely true
1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically invalid
or
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true • Yetis have no contradictory evidence ∴ Yetis are probably true
can be true ≠ are probably true
2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically invalid
How is this begging the question rather than proving the question?
You say a 6.0 has to show evidence, but a 5.0 does not. This is an assumption on your part. If you say that, I say anything EXCEPT a 4.00000000000000000000000000000 has to show evidence.
How do you show evidence for a possibility that may or may not be true?
You have the lack of contradictory empirical objective evidence, which indicates that it is not impossible. 3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern.
Exactly, and that is why the scale as listed is flawed - it is not possible to know these "probabilities" and all they turn out to be is opinions based on a person's world-view.
Using pseudo-probabilities gives the impression that there is more to the issue than opinion, and this just is not so.
A better scale would remove this misleading information:
quote:For reference on definitions, we can use the (flawed) "Dawkins scale" as a reference to some general positions:
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.'both possibilities.
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 skeptical.'
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.'
(where deletions are marked deletions and additions are marked additions)
Notice it does not appear in 7 - unneccesary - and that you cannot judge exactly 50-50 either. The scale is relative, and the pseudo-probabiities distract from the real issue.
I guess what I'm saying is people are going to look at this and pick their number based on their worldview, including, among other things, their own estimate of what the probability is, problems or not. You cant stop people from doing that when they look at this scale.
I agree, that has been a consistent problem with this discussion, with pages wasted talking about the relative merits if pseudo-probabilities.
Message 494: The 3.0 position says the person is inclined to believe s/he/it exists.
I would ask "Why?" Now if they answer "Is just feels better for me, it gives me a cozier feeling", then I call that a pseudo-3. Most people would probably say something like "I had a personal experience" and thus we are looking at Straggler's dreaded Subjective Evidence.
It is possible to have an opinion on a topic without having any knowledge of whether that opinion is actually true or not. That opinion is formed in your world-view, and yes, it includes subjective experiences.
Remember that subjective experiences can - at best - only indicate possibility, nothing more than that. Thus the opinion that X is possible is consistent with the logic (as long as there is no contradictory empirical objective evidence) and with having subjective experience/s.
The 5.0 position says the person is inclined to believe s/he/it does not exist.
Again, I would ask "Why?" Now if they answer "Is just feels better for me, it gives me a cozier feeling", then I call that a pseudo-5. But, unlike the other case, I doubt if anyone has had a personal experience equivalent to the 3. Maybe this person considers the Absence of Evidence being enough of an indicator to incline towards Absence - and when you take apart their worldview in detail, you find they are basing it on loosely drawn together opinions of respected others like their parents, professors, friends, college textbooks, professional journals and witty songwriters - appeals to authority if you will. Again, all ultimately subjective evidence.
Again, you have an opinion, formed, as you say, from the world-view.
The key difference, as I see it, is recognizing it as opinion, rather than pretending that it is a logical conclusion (as you get with "2" and "6" positions).
Now, are you saying that subjective evidence cannot be used?
Not to invalidate a claim or premise: you need to show that the claim\premise IS invalid, rather than assume it.
The central positions have no corresponding lifestyle references. We can imagine someone at the 3.0-4.0-5.0 levels living their lives assuming they dont know, but what would this look like?
People live their lives according to their world-view, whether they are strong believers, weak believers or agnostic. If a decision is necessary (life\death incident) then people will decide based on the information (or lack) that they have - they will make their best guess - regardless of whether the choice is true or false. If no decision is necessary, then the default behavior is that of not knowing. So how you live your life depends more on how much you think a decision is necessary, than what that decision involves.
Easy. Possibility: There's a treasure worth more than 1 million dollars buried 10ft under the middle of my/your backyard.
Why aren't we digging up our backyards? Because we take the "6" position that, although we cannot know whether or not this possibility is an actuality, we think it very improbable that it is an actuality.
Curiously, that has nothing to do with proving that it is a possibility or not, only with trying to realize the possibility ....
Strangely, you could dig for 10 or 100 years and still not eliminate the possibility that it was still there, and the only thing you would have proven was that it was not recognized\observed in the dirt you dug up and discarded (perhaps it was a lottery ticket while you're looking for gold bricks).
Nor can you say just how improbable it is until you have cataloged all the possibilities, just as was necessary in the search for nessie.
All you can make are pseudoskeptical pseudo-calculations of pseudo-probabilities. That is not scientific OR logical.
There's a book by James Thurber, The Thirteen Clocks, that has a character (the Golux) that makes up a buried treasure in someone's yard and then digs along with the neighbors ... why? Because he thought it might be true.
No, something is possible until it has been proven to be impossible, and it does not matter how improbable you think it is, you need to have empirical objective evidence to (a) make any valid calculation of probability or (2) contradict the possibility by evidence that shows it is not possible.
Substitute these (or yetis) for your "X", and we find that they do not actually exist in complete evidential voids.
No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong, because you have a logical fallacy that contradicts your logic as soon as you claim knowing something you don't know is true.
Logic is not opinion. Your pseudo-probabilities are nothing but your opinion based on your world-view. It's really very simple. From Message 491:
quote:A conclusion that allows both possibilities to exist is valid, but any conclusion that tries to add a measure of likelihood of one over the other, means that an additional term has been added to the argument, a term that is not part of the original information - a logical fallacy of a hidden assumption - and it results in the formal error in composition.
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true • Yetis have no contradictory evidence ∴ Yetis can be true
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern.
versus:
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true • Yetis have no contradictory evidence ∴ Yetis are absolutely true
can be true ≠ are absolutely true
1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically invalid
or
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true • Yetis have no contradictory evidence ∴ Yetis are probably true
can be true ≠ are probably true
2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically invalid
These can also be rendered in a more valid form as:
• any X with no contradictory evidence can be true (TRUE) • Yetis have no contradictory evidence (TRUE) ∴ Yetis can be true (VALID and TRUE)
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possible is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus (inserting the hidden assumptions into valid argument forms):
• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true (FALSE) • Yetis have no contradictory evidence (TRUE) ∴ Yetis are absolutely true (VALID but FALSE due to p1 being false)
We see that the first premise is FALSE and therefor the conclusion is as well. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE
or
• any X with no contradictory evidence is probably true (FALSE) • Yetis have no contradictory evidence (TRUE) ∴ Yetis are probably true (VALID but FALSE due to p1 being false)
We see that the first premise is also FALSE and therefor the conclusion is as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE
We can run through the X and the Y = notX one more time if you still have trouble with this logic.
Likewise we can do the same for your concepts in this post, and even though you just made them up, you still end up with possibilities being a true conclusion and probabilities being a false conclusion.
It's a mistake to think that we can discover reality by mathematical logic alone. That's why we do science. Maths and logic are useful tools in science. Your "X" in mathematical logic can exist in a theoretical evidential void. But in reality, no proposition that human beings make does exist in such a void.
Curiously, that is exactly why your "6" position is a false pseudoskeptical one, based on opinion and fake probabilities and NOT on scientific empirical objective evidence of reality that would confirm or contradict one position or the other.
Fascinatingly, I am not trying to deduct reality, but the possibility of reality. It is NOT by logic alone, it is logic after the methodology and investigation of science have done what they can, and the possibility remains. It is the known absence of contradictory empirical objective evidence after that point, where logic that says we don't know, can't know for sure, but without contradiction X is possible.
Possible, not probable, not known, just possible.
Clutch those straws, you might make a man out of them yet.
RAZD recasts the Dawkins Scale thusly: Is that it?
Not quite, I think it can be simpler yet, and still retain the overall general scale effect:
Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist.
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other.
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure.
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not.
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.
This casts it more in the vernacular of opinion, and keeps the relative likelihood of the original without the implications of the inaccurate word probability.
That is why RAZD rewrote Dawkins' Scale the way he did. He wants to stamp out probability from the scale, in order to eliminate subjective evidence.
No, not subjective evidence, fake probabilities posing as some mathematical calculation that is impossible to make. As bad as the 747 from the junkyard pseudo-calculations. To me, all these position except 4 involve opinion, which is necessarily subjective and based on one's world view.
possibility versus logical fallacy? I'll take door number 3
Hi Straggler,
I am a 6.9999R with regard to Santa Claus. Not gods. As you know because I have told you at least a dozen times now. Your ongoing need to misrepresent others does nothing but highlight the paucity of your own arguments.
No. I am a 6 with regard to any gods so far even remotely defined.
Well, curiously, I don't see how quoting your full post is misrepresenting it, and I must have missed that clarification on your first ever post, where you were arguing with iano about the existence of gods, rather than Santa, and said (whole post again):
Logically speaking: God is knowable, Message 34: 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!!
But if you say so, I'll take it as new information from this point forward, noting that iano's response was:
Message 50: I agree. The same could be said of positions 2-6 however.
Curiously, what we see from logical analysis is that the same is true for positions 2 and 6 - they too are logically invalid arguments based on opinion and not facts or evidence or sound logic.
Compare:
to:
OR:
Now, let Y = notX:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
Your "6" position is logically invalid, unless - and only unless - you have direct empirical objective evidence that contradicts the existence of god/s.
Pretending that "people make things up" is evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, just doesn't cut it. It's like saying
Mushrooms grow in the woods when it rains at night during a new moon ∴ god/s are more likely to be mushrooms than supernatural beings
... Are you going to argue with the objective empirical evidence of mushrooms?
Question: With regard to the concept of god in which you believe what would you say is the rational response for others to take?
Based on the analysis above only 3D, 4C and 5E would be rational responses, depending on people's personal world view and opinions.
I expect people to be agnostic for several reasons, not least of which is that I just don't discuss it, except in generalities, with generic terms (god/s).
Of course, I mean an actual agnostic position as I see it, and not your false straw-man-begging-the-question fallacy -- that there is not sufficient evidence pro or con to make a logical conclusion.
C) Agnostic - There is no evidence. There is a complete vacuum ...
I notice that you do NOT quote me as saying this, amusingly, just after complaining about my misrepresenting you with a full, complete and documented quote. One wonders where you come up with these ideas, because it does nothing but highlight the paucity of your own arguments.
Intriguingly, it should be relatively easy to find an actual quote of what I actual post as the agnostic position, as it has been repeated on this thread many times. For instance, here's one from earlier in the thread:
Re: The third level of logical evaluations of the positions
Thanks, Briterican,
This is a good summation of how I feel about your mathematics. They look great on paper, and your elimination of probability from the equation makes everything fall into place neatly, but doesn't really move us any closer to reality.
And my reply to bluegenes remains that this is not intended to replace scientific inquiry, as long as that is possible.
Rather it is to show that some positions are logically invalid, and thus not likely to lead to future scientific evidence, that the best we can derive from a lack of evidence, is that a lack of contradictory evidence shows that something ("X") [i]may[/y] be true. Assuming that something is "highly unlikely" can lead to short-sightedness, while being a little more open minded might lead to new insights.
I realise that is not your intention, and that your intention has been to show that agnostic is the position most defensible in terms of logic, to which I feel that you have successsfully presented a viewpoint that I cannot disagree with, in the terms it is presented.
And I thank you for your gracious words.
Fair point, at least in terms of the ultimate origin question. I DO feel strongly that science demonstrates that these fixed laws hold firm and are not subject to the whimsical fancy of "miracles". Where the faithful see a miracle, many of us see a missing or inadequate explanation. Although the accumulated evidence of mankind does not abrogate the possibility of a divine creator having kicked off the whole process in the first instance, I feel strongly that the same evidence DOES strongly indicate that said creator is no longer "on the scene", guiding everything like the ultimate choreographer.
I can agree with this. In the '60's there were T-shirts that said "god is an absentee landlord" ... so "peace, man."
quote:god (gŏd) n. 1. God . a. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions. . b. The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being. 2. A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality. 3. An image of a supernatural being; an idol. 4. One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god. 5. A very handsome man. 6. A powerful ruler or despot. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
quote:God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1]
God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".[1] These attributes were all supported to varying degrees by the early Jewish, Christian and Muslim theologian philosophers, including Maimonides,[2] Augustine of Hippo,[2] and Al-Ghazali,[3] respectively. Many notable medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God.[3] Many notable philosophers and intellectuals have, by contrast, developed arguments against the existence of God.
So with regard to gods we have to provide contradicting evidence that shows that gods do not, or can not exist to justify any scepticism.
No, you can have a skeptic opinion without any evidence at all -- you just need to admit that it is not supported by objective empirical evidence of a scientific nature. This is where the position 5 atheistic agnostics are.
No assessment of probability is even possible as a result of objective historical evidence that implies human invention of such concepts.
You are making two conceptual errors here. The first is that you can make a calculation when you only know part of the possibilities and have no idea how large the set is. It's not a probability, it is just an opinion based on your world view of what you think the probability is: there is no calculation. This pseudo-probability argument is just the argument from incredulity dressed up.
Second, you are making a logical leap, confusing the map with the mountain, and resulting in a logical fallacy:
• there is no evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that people make things up &there4 gods do not exist
is no different from
• there is no evidence that gods exist • there is evidence that mushrooms grow in the forest at night during a new moon when it is pouring rain &there4 gods do not exist
There is no connection between premise 2 and the conclusion, and this connection is absolutely necessary for a valid conclusion.
Could you tell me what direct empirical objective evidence you have that contradicts the existence of magical Santa Claus concepts,
This concept is originally based on a real person that actually lived and was of very benevolent (year round) disposition, someone worth emulating, and worthy of inspiring others to emulate. The mythos that has grown up around him is easily traced to various sources, including the recent additions of flying reindeer and living at the north pole being due to known fictional story-telling by documented individuals writing and illustrating documented poems and pictures.
Does this mean that the 'spirit of Saint Nicholas' does not exist? No.
Does this mean that the universe was not created by god/s? No.
You are confusing human concepts about reality with the actual reality, in thinking that any demonstration that a specific concept about reality is false means that the reality is also false, when it can just have been misunderstood, or have been misrepresented by the concept in question.
This happens in science all the time, why should we be surprised to see the same thing happening in concepts dealing with supernatural things?
Ahhhhh so there is evidence then........? What happened to your much stated mantra that atheism necesarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? And "convincing"....?????? Convincing to who? You?
Now you are conflating my position on what constitutes a logically defensible agnostic position with a common atheistic position.
My "much stated mantra that atheism necesarily equates to 'absence of evidence is evidence of absence'" still holds - it is the observation that this is commonly used by atheists, and has been documented as such. This, of course, is logically defensible, being a logical fallacy.
The agnostic can review all available objective and subjective evidence from whatever sources, and still conclude that the evidence does not show that god/s exist, or may exist, NOR does it show that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, and THEREFORE a logical conclusion on the existence of god/s cannot be derived from this evidence.
Convincing to who?
The person doing the review. Different people will reach different conclusions based on their particular world views, particularly when there is insufficient objective empirical evidence that speaks directly to the question. They will be swayed by their personal opinions one way or the other.
At best you can cite historical and cultural evidence that (very) strongly suggests that these are human inventions raher than real entities.
In your opinion.
They are magical undetectable beings that are inherently unable to be directly refuted in the ridiculous way you are demanding.
Then you have a problem, holding a position that requires that they be refuted in order to have a logical basis for your position that they are not likely. This is why your position is logically invalid and indefensible.
You certainly have been caught. Caught contradicting yourself.
So you keep thinking, and yet it always turns out that you have confused two different things, one is what you think my position is, and the other is my actual position.
Please do explain.
To recap, there are levels of confidence regarding concepts:
You can think of this as a three level pyramid, where scientific concepts are concluded based on objective empirical evidence and tested against reality, and where concepts invalidated by contradictory evidence are discarded.
When we step off that level we are necessarily limited in the validity of what can be concluded. We can have some confidence in concepts that are logically valid, that have some subjective evidence supporting it, and that have no contradictory objective empirical evidence contradicting it. This confidence only lets us conclude that such concepts may be valid, that they are possibilities, but we cannot conclude anything about probabilities. This is demonstrated with the following logic:
Compare:
to:
OR:
Now, let Y = notX:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true ... which is valid, and a true conclusion is reached.
3D, 4C and 5E fit this pattern. Possibility is a valid conclusion from a lack of contradictory evidence.
versus:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still absolutely true ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified. 1A and 7B fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
OR:
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) is still more likely true than false ... which is a contradiction ... unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true: without such evidence there is a contradiction in the form of the argument and the argument is invalid, falsified, void.
As the second premise is the same as above, we see that the first premise is falsified as well. 2F and 6G fit this pattern and are logically FALSE arguments.
It is fairly clear that on level two we are dealing with opinions, logic, subjective evidence and possibilities. Probabilities are left on level three where there is objective empirical evidence to use in calculating actual probabilities. These possibilities are better than guessing.
Guessing is left on level one.
What we see in pseudoskeptical "6" atheists, is that they think their opinion about the available evidence is logical rather than just a subjective opinion. In this regard, they are intellectually dangerous, convinced of the accuracy of their opinion.
quote:The rational conclusion based on evidence is agnosticism, the uncertainty of existence of god/s.
Atheists are on one side of the line of agnosticism, deists are on the other. This may be a fine line, but the distinction is real, like the difference between negative numbers and positive numbers, with the zero position being your fine line.
The atheist believes there is no evidence of god/s and that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence (all A is B, B therefore A logical fallacy).
The deist believes that god/s is/are essentially unknowable, that all evidence points to the way the natural world functions as created, and all we can understand is how it works.
Enjoy.
In essence, that atheists and deists are similar, except that one assumes the existence of god/s and the other assumes the non-existence of god/s. As long as these positions are "5" atheistic agnostics, and "3" theistic agnostics, there is no substantial difference, as one is as logical as the other.
What has become clear since then, is that there are subcategories of atheism that range from "5" to "7" that are similar in degrees to the "3" to "1" positions of theists, and that some atheists, the "6" to "7" positions, have the same level of faith in their opinion, their position, being correct as the theist "2" to "1" position.
I certainly agree with other posters on this thread that faith is a poor determinate of validity of a concept, and the best concepts are formed, tested and continually re-evaluated by the scientific methods. This includes the faith some have in their opinions being valid. Certainly such opinions should have substantiation, if one is going to use it to form a credible concept of reality, and the lack of any substantiation should give any rational person pause before considering whether the concept is a valid portrayal of reality.
In pursuing a valid approach to reality one needs to be skeptical of negative claims as much as one needs to be skeptical of positive claims, and where there is an absence of evidence contradicting a concept one needs to keep an open mind about the possibility that the concept may be true.
One does not need to reach a decision unless the results directly affect their lives, and when a decision is necessary in those conditions a person will make a decision based on the available evidence and their personal world view, whether their choice is true or not, whether the information is sufficient to reach a valid choice or not, in response to the necessity.
My personal opinion is that we have evolved to make "snap" decisions as a means of self-preservation. Such decisions may not always have resulted in a positive outcome, but some did, and that is more than would have occurred with no decision: that small positive result is enough to evolve the ability to make "snap" decisions on insufficient information. We need to be careful not to feel forced into decisions when there is no particular personal threat.
™ Version 4.2
