Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

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.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.Now, are you saying that subjective evidence cannot be used?

RAZD recasts the Dawkins Scale thusly: Is that it?
I was going to say something, but I have to go. Back tomorrow to edit this.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

LOL! Thanks Straggler The subjective evidence I was referring to was the collective worldview assessment an individual has on the probability god(s) exist. Since this probability has no empirical objective evidence, each individual has to make their own estimate,and the estimate they make is based on their opinion developed out of their worldview - it is a subjective opinion.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.I say he has not gone far enough, because a 3.0 has made the determination that god(s) exist has a probability slightly higher than the probability they dont. That is why a 3.0 would lean that way. All 3.0s and 5.0s should really be 4.0s.Bluegenes is still trying to use probability, and I agree with him that it is appropriate here. But RAZD does not, because it is unscientific.Well, the whole process of picking a Dawkins Number is unscientific in the first place.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Bluegenes says: Hi Bluegenes,Unfortunately this thread is NOT about the 100% track record thus far of finding out that every supernatural chocolate sprinkly thing examined closely turns out to be another figment of human imagination.RAZD has something else in mind. I hope we can figure out what the implications are. My opinion, subjective as it is, is that RAZD has set up a thing in his head where he is a 3.0 on this scale and still needs to behave very much like a 6.0 everywhere else (as you have been trying to point out) in such a way as not have a conflict.It is curious. I think he's doing it. But he has to go through all these Powerful Ptolemaic Gymnastical Hoops with Logic rules. This is beyond math. This is like quantum entanglement. You ring up 50% here, 50% there, 50% over this way, and oh look there's another 50% - and complain that it is over 100%. You're using the wrong yardsticks and rules. There would be so many things, all possible - but anyone of them at any time would be 50% likely, 89% likely - it doesnt matter - this is out side of the confines of mathematics and probability theory - this is trying to explore the implications of the raw bare bones of Logic Theory.We should throw everything we have against this! This is crazy! And yet, this is also one of the sanest things ever.Fascinating.One of the things with one of the fastest rate of evolutionary change is each individual human mind.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

*Blink!*
If you dont know what they are how can you say RAZD is demanding them?If I recall, you said something like "Whatever incompleteness the model may have, I call the missing part chocolate sprinkles." AH here it is:
From Message 471 in this thread: What's wrong with your elegant definition? Looks good to me.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Rrhain asks: Who in this thread is insisting that anything get tossed out? Certainly not RAZD! We arent talking to YECs here.As the scientific analysis is brought to bear upon the situation, the unexplained would be expected to melt away into naturalistic phenomena explained by the now expanded Model, as has always happened thus far, in it's self-correcting way. Nothing is getting tossed out.Take for example the excitement caused by this thing, the Voorwerp:http://www.sciencenews.org/...id/33471/title/VoorwerpWHT.jpgSoon there WILL be a naturalistic explanation that everyone will agree on. But speculation had been running wild for awhile there.Suppose something does come along that would require a major change in how we understand the Laws of Physics. How much of a change would be needed to call it a bonified Chocolate Sprinkle, the Real Thing?Arthur C. Clarke is famous for saying a Technology from any sufficiently advanced civilization is indistinguishable from Magic. Au contrere! For people like you & me, we sink down to the 6ish Dawkins scale. The Sample Size and Result drives us that way, along with the fact that the Current Chocolate-Sprinkle-less Model works better than anything else we know.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Straggler asks:
NO.
Of course not. I think I threw away the Coelancanthic Ace for the Rrhainian Chocolate Sprinkle Ace, and regretted that I had to do so. It was a poetic visual, inappropriate yes, that I had latched onto first, complete with JAWS soundtrack. Unfortunate.The Ace in the deck that we have never seen, dont have any objective evidence that we will see, but cannot rule out 100% certain.What we can do is observe the track record so far of finding such an Ace. It has been Zero. I think there are some mathematics that can characterize the likelyhood we will ever see it, in terms of statistical confidence, based on the Sample Size in question, that is Positive Evidence for taking a Dawkins 6.0 position. But this would entail computation of probability that RAZD wants to avoid.No, the Coelacanth was not a major extrapolation from the existing Model at all. It was hardly a ripple in the Model, if anything. Scientific evidence of a god would most likely entail a major extrapolation, if not a major course change in the development of the Model - something way beyond any of the changes and expansions to the Model we've seen to date. Way beyond the change from the Ptolemaic system to the Copernican system. Way, way beyond that.** come to think of it, though, encountering a scaly, toothy, sea-wet, flopping live Coelacanthic Ace within what been looking all along like an ordinary deck of ordinary playing cards would be quite something....but that is another day.

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d

Straggler asks: He considers it a fake probability.e.g., Scientific Probability of observing a god Event, p(G):

Events with Scientific Evidence of G
p(G) ~= ----------------------------------------
                      All Events

All Events = Events with Scientific Evidence of G + Events with no Scientific Evidence of G + Events not yet examined scientificallyCurrently the scoreboard of the game in progress shows Events with Scientific Evidence of G to be 0. And the Events with no Scientific Evidence of G is some 83 gazillion already. But the conjecture is that within the Events not yet examined scientifically we cannot be 100% certain there is not 1 or more Events with Scientific Evidence of G.Anyone who makes their estimate of p(G) is using conjecture in determining the numerator and denominator. There is no scientific evidence of how big All Events is, other than what we have seen to date. This isnt just an estimate of the kind they make to count the total number of particles in this Universe, because any particle can participate in any number of Events. To use my Chocolate Sprinkle Ace in the deck of cards analogy, we need to have a feel for how many cards there are. Now, I happen to think we have seen enough cards to make a statistical assessment on p(G), admitting that we are not sure, to support a RAZD-Dawkins level greater than the 5.0. But that is my opinion that we've seen enough cards - it's a subjective opinion ultimately. Edited by xongsmith, : typo & tidying upEdited by xongsmith, : remove irrelevant equation

---

- xongsmith, 5.7d