Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

"Supernatural beings are human inventions."No shortage of validated and confirmed objective supporting evidence, especially for those of us who understand what mutually exclusive means.We could start here:ForbiddenThere's certainly no known contrary evidence.Falsification would be establishing the existence of any supernatural being of any kind or genera, and plenty of attempts have been made to do this, consistently without success. Anything would do. A fossilized centaur, for example, or a captured leprechaun, or strong indirect evidence of such creatures. The field is enormous, with countless beings believed in, or having been believed in in the past, not to mention any that humans have never thought of.The theory can make very specific predictions, like "RAZD will not present any positive evidence for the existence of his deity on EvC."The level of confidence is so high that many of us would bet a lot of money on this.This is one of at least two strong theories that supports the position that gods are very unlikely.It's worth noting that arguments like "you cannot demonstrate that all extant individual organisms have come from other organisms" does not weaken the strong theory that "all extant organisms come from other organisms".The same kind of thing, "you cannot demonstrate that all individual supernatural beings are inventions," is no good here. Once the evidence of biological reproduction and human invention of supernatural beings has been established, the burden of evidence is on skeptics to demonstrate exceptions to the rule.Edited by bluegenes, : wrong wordEdited by bluegenes, : punctuation

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.This is because there's zero positive evidence to support the proposition, and because we have evidence that ten foot holes dug at random very rarely uncover valuable treasures.Possibility: RAZD is going to be struck dead by lightning in 20 days time.Look at your phrase above. We know this to be a possibility, but we have evidence that such a thing happening is a rare occurrence even without knowledge of the likely weather patterns in your area in December; so once again, it's a "6".Substitute these (or yetis) for your "X", and we find that they do not actually exist in complete evidential voids. Now:Possibility: The multiverse was drawn by nine dimensional magic pencils. Once again, this is a "6". There is zero positive evidence to support the proposition, so it is a random guess, and any random guess at the origins of something will be very unlikely to hit the nail on the head, a bit like random holes in a treasure hunt.Possibility: The ultimate origin and nature of the universe is explained by "theory" X, when "X" has no positive evidential support. "X", then, is not really a theory in the scientific sense of the word, but just a random idea. As such, like the nine dimensional pencils, it is very unlikely to hit the nail on the head by chance alone. So all individual "X" ideas are "6" propositions.The evidence for the random explanatory guesses that humans make being far more likely to be wrong than right is in our history. Most ideas never gain the hypothesis level, let alone the not very strong, 50/50 theory level, let alone the position of being a strong theory. No ideas involving supernatural beings have ever achieved the level of support required of a serious scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory.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.Multi-dimensional pencils, god/s, universe making machines, or Douglas Adams' "42" as ultimate explanations of the "universe and everything" do not earn a "5" on the Dawkins scale, let alone a "4", "3", "2" or "1". The scientific skeptic will place all of these on the "6" level. "I cannot know, but I think it very improbable". Personal "faith" may lead people to promote one or another of such propositions to a 5,4,3,2 or 1.Such faith is often clearly cultural. People from monotheistic cultures, including some non believers, often have a mistaken and culturally subjective habit of discussing the existence of "God" from a starting point of 50/50, when it would not occur to them to promote "universe making machines" or "42" to that level. There are, of course, only two 50s in 100, and a proposition about the ultimate origins/nature of the universe would require considerable evidential support in order to reach the 50/50 level.

Who's trying to eliminate the possibility. The treasure is possible, but very improbable, and we do not need to waste time digging for it. We know that holes are dug all the time, and we know that it's extremely rare for treasures worth more than a million dollars to be found in them. You don't have to know "just" how improbable it is to describe it as very improbable. It is very improbable that RAZD will be struck by a meteorite tomorrow, but I've made no calculations as to exactly how improbable. It is very improbable that a figment of RAZD's imagination created the universe, but I've made no exact calculations on this either. It is certainly scientific. Don't you ever read scientific papers? Rough probability estimates are frequently made. I'm defending the "6" position, remember, which is about things that are possible but very improbable. Yes. And who on the "6" position is trying to prove that gods or magical deer which pop into existence without being born from other animals are impossible. We conclude that they are very improbable based on the evidence. When are you going to falsify the theory that all supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination and do not exist in reality? Are you talking to the people who are 1 and 7 on the Dawkins scale here? The "knowing" people? Of course there are different world views. My opinions are made from observing the world. I'm not a fantasist/supernaturalist. Creationists frequently make your "world view" argument, and they do it for the same reason. Do you agree with me that it's very improbable that you will be struck dead by lightning in twenty days time? Yes or no?Do you agree with me that it's very improbable that Satan is manipulating your mind? Yes or no? I've explained to you that we explore reality by science. "X" is abstract, and is not the equivalent of yetis or any other proposed creatures or beings. The "6" position does not conclude that possible things are "very improbable" by abstract logic alone, it does so in relation to the evidence. It is a position on specific described propositions.How do you think people bet on horses in races where all runners could possibly win? They assess the past form of the horses. Why don't you try assessing the past form of supernatural explanations for phenomena?You seem to need to learn what evidence is. Repeat, for slow people: How do you think people bet on horses in races where all runners could possibly win? They assess the past form of the horses. Why don't you try assessing the past form of supernatural explanations for phenomena? You're not trying to do anything in relation to reality. We agree that fairies, gods, and magic nine dimensional pencils are theoretically possible. What you're trying to do is ignore the evidence that supernatural beings like your precious deity are figments of the imagination, making their real existence very improbable. Falsifiy my theory, which is about the reality of human supernatural beliefs and delusions. Is it a religious belief of yours that science has "done what it can"? How do you think people bet on horses...... Is your English comprehension letting you down again. The phrase "very improbable" does not mean "impossible". You fail to explain why you think that propositions that have absolute zero supporting evidence get promoted to anything other than very improbable. Try something like Satan existing, and Satan manipulating your mind. Do you think that that's ~50/50? If not, why not? Then what about the evil elves manipulating your mind? ~50/50 as well? Then what about the evil gnomes.....?Then, there are the fairies that manipulate atoms. And Obama being the anti-christ.All of these have something in common with your deity. The evidence points towards them being made up superstitious bullshit.Theory to be falsified: All supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination and do not exist in external reality.Enjoy falsifying.

If the well evidenced theory that supernatural beings are figments of the human imagination is unscientific, then there are no scientific theories. Think about it. There's loads of evidence to support it, and there are thousands of ways in which it could potentially be falsified. It is a theory about a real phenomenon: belief in supernatural beings.As it's highly probable that such a strong theory is correct, and as there is overwhelming evidence that humans and their imaginations post-date the origins of the universe, then it is highly unlikely that an apparent figment of the human imagination is responsible for creating the universe.

What RAZD will do, having described "X" as something in a complete evidential void, is try to substitute god/s or the existence of god/s for "X". He will not establish that god/s or the existence of gods actually is an "X".Now, examine the "1" position of those who claim to know there is a god. If someone claims this, we cannot actually conclusively prove or disprove the claim. Attempting to do so would mean begging the question, and assuming that the existence of gods is an "X" in order to prove that the person cannot know there a god.This is something well known about strong agnosticism, the position from which a "1" or "7" claim is attacked. Weak agnosticism (I do not know whether there are gods or not or I do not know where my sister is right now) just states a fact of personal ignorance. But the strong agnostic claim that no-one knows whether or not there is a god requires evidential support. There could be some old sage in China who knows the secrets of the universe, and who could therefore be a ligitimate "1" or "7".So, we cannot disprove a "1" position. What we can do is use science rather than logic to establish a strong case against the position. This would mean establishing the kind of theory that I've been using. It's not hard to find evidence of spurious claims of knowledge of gods. Two "1" people who claim to know that there are "one true gods" of different discriptions provides this, for example, and we can build up a theory that claims of knowing that there is a god are spurious, and ask the "knowing" people to falsify it. But we cannot prove them wrong, because we cannot assume our conclusion by declaring all gods to be "X"s.So, if you were to claim that you knew there was a god, I would be in a "6" position on your claim, with a scientific theory to back up the view that it is "very improbable". RAZD would be what? A "1" (he knows you cannot know), on the basis that the existence of god/s is an "X". Or a "4" on the basis that he cannot know whether gods are "X"s or not. Then your claim might be an "X" in his view.