the NON RIP of the Absence of Evidence argument as used by atheists
Small point here
Throughout this you have maintained that there is no objective evidence relevant to the existence of gods at all.
This is a different issue than showing that some atheists use the (logically false) argument that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" justifies their belief/s.
Should we ever find any atheist (or indeed an agnostic) making the absence of evidence argument I assume that you will join me in eductaing them as to the fact that there is not, and can never ever be, a complete absence of all objective evidence in any practical sense?
I will happily join you in pointing out that such arguments are logical fallacies regardless of the actuality of any other evidence pertaining to the question.
I will point out that people making statements like this ...
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 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.
(color for reference)
... are making just that logically false argument.
In logical (premise+premise/conclusion) format we have:
Or, more simply put, belief in the absence (non-actuality) of gods, due to the absence (non-existence) of evidence for gods.
Question: What is the difference between atheism and deism?
Answer: Evidential and intellectual consistency.
With the implication that anyone NOT an atheist doesn't meet his "evidential or intellectual consistency" criteria.
What I have found since then, is that Straggler in particular, and some other strong atheists in general, do not meet his own criteria, and are (a) pseudoskeptics and (b) inconsistent.
Pseudoskeptics for making a claim that the non-existence of gods is more likely than the existence of gods, but without providing the objective empirical evidence that shows that god/s do not, or could not, exist can rationally be concluded.
Inconsistent for claiming that the non-existence (absence) of compelling objective empirical evidence for god/s is reason to "have absence of belief" in god/s, but ignoring the logically equivalent argument that the non-existence (absence) of compelling objective empirical evidence for no-god/s is reason to have "absence of belief" in no-god/s.
I also see Straggler in particular, and some other strong atheists in general, basing his\their arguments on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, rather than on evidence and intellectual consistency.
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.
I really don't seem much argument with this position. We could also revise the revised "dawkins scale" be:
quote:
(+3) Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (+2) Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (+1) Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. ( 0) Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (-1) Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (-2) Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (-3) Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist.
The true skeptic is also critical of the evidence, or lack or it, supporting their own position.
The open-minded skeptic remains open to the possibilities of concepts that have not been invalidated.
Re: Maps and Mountains - Modeling Logical Fallacies against reality
Hi Straggler,
You seriously think so? I guess others can decide that for themselves.
Especially as you have no answer to the refutation, so yes, you have been refuted on this as on so many other points where you think you have accomplished something but have only made it up in your mind.
Some people DO make things up you know.
In the most simple sense there are two possibilities. Either immaterial undetectable unknowable gods actually exist as part of some external reality. Or they are the products of human invention.
Nope. False logic once again: people could have made up everything, and god/s could still exist, PLUS god/s could be detectable, just not detected in your worldview: once again we see a false dichotomy logical fallacy, one that has been pointed out before, but seems to fall on deaf ears.
The true two possibilities are (1) god/s exist or (2) god/s don't exist. That is the simplest conception of this issue. Anything that does not relate to one or the other is irrelevant and misleading.
That some people make some things up sometimes does not prove in any way shape or form that (A) god/s are made up, and (B) god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Proving that all maps are made up representations of mountains, no matter how well documented, does not mean that the mountains do not exist.
Let's review this logical fallacy once more:
Argument 1 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
And mushrooms grow in the woods at night during a new moon and a pouring rainstorm. These premises do not lead to a valid conclusion. What is involved is are a couple of hidden assumptions that are due to bias, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance (just for Rrhain).
As amusing as that is, we can also use the same "evidence" in a counter argument with a different hidden assumption:
Argument 2 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do or can exist.
Which still suffers from hidden assumptions and doesn't reach a valid conclusion due to the incomplete form of the argument.
Now let's put in the missing pieces ...
Argument 1 + hidden assumption • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up* ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
(* an unsupported conclusion, with no evidence presented for it's validity: made up by Straggler to support his pseudoskeptic position.)
Fascinatingly, this is STILL not a valid argument, because (as pointed out before) subjective experience can be made up and god/s can STILL exist: there is still a hidden assumption here, the assumption that god/s don't exist if all subjective experiences are made up.
Now the counter argument with it's hidden assumption:
Argument 2 + hidden assumption • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • NOT all subjective experiences of god/s are necessarily made up* ∴ God/s do, or can, exist.
(* a rational conclusion about the current state of knowledge until such time as it is prove that all subjective experiences are in fact made up, as I'm sure most skeptics would agree)
Thus we see, that until you prove that all subjective experiences are in fact made up, AND that this means that god/s do not, or cannot exist, that god/s are just as much a possibility as they were without your evidence.
Because of this simple logic we see that your argument is indeed refuted again. It certainly is not worth repeating until you figure out some amusing way to fix it. Perhaps another logical fallacy?
Did you see this graph on [tid=538851]?
Made me think of you ....
Secondly in ANY evidence based argument assessment of probability is just inevitable. It is necessary and wholly unavoidable. There isn't a scientific or any other evidence based conclusion in existence that is not essentially a statement of probability.
Curiously, you do not have an evidenced based argument, you do not have the numbers. Without the numbers you do not have a base on which to build a "assessment of probability" ... it's that simple.
There isn't a scientific or any other evidence based conclusion in existence that is not essentially a statement of probability.
quote:Science Dictionary
probability ( prŏb'ə-bĭl'ĭ-tē ) A number expressing the likelihood of the occurrence of a given event, especially a fraction expressing how many times the event will happen in a given number of tests or experiments. For example, when rolling a six-sided die, the probability of rolling a particular side is 1 in 6, or 1/6 . The American Heritage Science Dictionary
You do not have that degree of ability, that degree of knowledge, because you have no idea what the possibilities actually are, so pretending that your "assessment of probability" is scientific is YOU making things up and pretending that it is true.
Re: The Practical Problem With Incessant Agnosticism
Hi Straggler,
The problem with your entire argument is that A) You cannot prove that magical Santa, the Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy "do not or can not exist". But this doesn't stop us being justifiably far from agnostic about these concepts. B) Nobody here is claiming to be able to disprove anything anyway. That just isn't how evidence based arguments work.
Actually this is your problem, as I don't need to decide one way or the other at this time.
Curiously, what the Santa\StNick issue showed was that there was a real event, a real person, and that subsequent folklore, legend, myth and fiction were added. Thus it is logical to assume a real event for any similar persona.
Thus the problem for you is that this demonstrates a real origin for such stories, and therefore - for you to support your argument - it is up to you to demonstrate that such a real origin for portrayals of god/s are not due to the actual existence of such beings.
Once we have actually addressed the issue of the existence or non-existence of god/s, then we can return to discussing Easter Bunny or the Tooth Fairy or any other member of folklore, tradition, myth, legend, fairy tale. Until that time, such a discussion does not address the issue and only serves to disctract from the issue.
You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa "does not, or can not exist". You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa is logically "impossible".
Agreed, but I thought that was relatively evident. What was shown was that the whole entire story of Santa\StNick was not made up, but rather that it was based on a core reality. Thus it is logical to assume a core reality for similar situations, and logically this means considering the possibility that god/s do, or can, exist.
Which part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
The part where this actually shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Again, I thought that this was relatively evident.
Proving that all the known current and past maps of a mountain are made up representations, some with wildly inaccurate portrayals, some with rather vague descriptions, some cartoonish, and some more accurate than others (but still not capturing the essence of the mountain), ... proving that all of these known maps are actually made up representations, no matter how accurate they are, does not show that the mountain does not exist.
What part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
Now, I may seem to be obtuse, but this looks to me like a clear claim that he does not believe in the actuality of gods, AND that this claim is based on the perceived absence of evidence for god/s.
Yup. It's pretty clear. Straggler does not believe in something for which there is no evidence. Lack of evidence results in a lack of belief. Exactly what I said earlier in Message 252.
quote:Message 258 We were talking about Straggler's position in the quoted post. Putting Straggler's quoted words in the above form I get:
Now, I may seem to be obtuse, but this looks to me like a clear claim that he does not believe in the actuality of gods, AND that this claim is based on the perceived absence of evidence for god/s. I don't see any "wiggle room" in those statements.
Straggler does not believe in the actuality of god/s. This is not a passive lack of belief, but an active disbelief.
Now I realize that this is not your statement nor your claim, what it is, rather, is evidence that he bases his belief about the non-actuality (absence) of god/s on the lack of evidence of god/s.
When you can put the ... through your silly formula ...
When you can refute the issue, rather than use more logical fallacies in reply, then I might start taking you seriously again.
Failure to respond in any way to the logical analysis, the analysis that shows your position is logically false and invalid, does not mean that it is silly, rather it implies that you are completely and totally unable to come up with any other answer.
Enjoy.
ps - still a deist. Deists must, almost by definition, be agnostic for the most part:
quote:deism (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-) n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
This rather assumes that evidence will not be forthcoming eh? And by logical analysis we see that the best one can derive logically is the possibility of god/s, and a "3" position is the most that can be defended by logic and reason.
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.
To be consistent you should also have an equal absence in belief in the non-existence of god/s:
• There is no convincing empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • The absence of evidence causes me to have an absence of belief &there4 I have an absence of belief in god/s
• There is no convincing empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • The absence of evidence causes me to have an absence of belief &there4 I have an absence of belief in no-god/s
Don't you agree?
... just a reasoned belief that such things should have more than zero evidence if they actually exited.
Now there you go, making an assumption on the absence of god/s due to the absence of evidence.
Why should a god that makes the universe perform for you? Your expectations are what could be unreasonable.
It's time for you to stop lying about our beliefs to support yours.
And yet Straggler and others have claimed that they don't believe in the actuality of gods, not just have a lack of belief. Saying that some atheists say that the absence of evidence is evidence of absence is based on actual posts by actual atheists (see above).
It's time for you to stop lying about our beliefs to support yours.
Pretty strong emotional words there. Emotional reaction is a sign of cognitive dissonance: being presented information that contradicts your world view, causes a rejection reaction that the information is false, and then that the presenter of the evidence is lying.
Obviously I am not lying when I post quotes of actual claims:
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 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.
(color for reference)
In logical (premise premise conclusion) format we have:
Or, more simply put, belief in the absence (non-actuality) of gods, due to the absence (non-existence) of evidence for gods
Alternatively, you could attempt to show that I am in fact not telling the truth when I lay out the poor logic of the strong atheist position:
Compare:
to:
OR:
If the logical form is true for any X then it is true for Y, 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.
Will you be the one to take this one? If I'm lying about the logic it should be an easy matter to prove, eh?
How is human invention not the logical and rational conclusion based on your own self declared scale of belief?
I've actually explained this 5 or 6 times already, but let's see if we can't take it in simple steps to get past your apparent cognitive dissonance in actually reading the reply.
What you have is a simple statement:
Some people make up some things some of the time.
We know that the statement "some concepts are made up" is true, because without this there could be no fiction or entertainment, and because people admit to making fiction and entertainment up.
On the other hand we also know that this corollary statement is also true:
Not everything people say\write\etc is made up.
We know that the statement "some concepts are not made up" is true, because without this there could be no science, there could be no shared discovery of reality.
Ergo "some concepts are made up" is true AND "some concepts are not made up" is true
Both of these facts sit on level III of the table of confidence. Because of this we also know that the statement that "ALL concepts are made up" is false.
Therefore any claim that "some people make up some things some of the time" is evidence a specific concept is made up, means that you need to actually show that the concept is made up. When you actually do that, then the claim that "some people make up some things some of the time" is unimportant compared to the actual objective empirical evidence of a concept being made up.
We take the santa example again: we have a core reality, consisting of an actual historical figure of extraordinarily benevolent demeanor, and then we have the story of his life past down and mixed with folklore, legend and myth, and finally we have documented works of fiction that portray StNick as the modern american santa.
We know that parts of the modern story (folklore\legend\myth) was made up, but we also know that the person of StNick was not made up.
There could be just as real a core beginning to any belief, and included in that possibility is the possibility of a subjective experience actually involving a supernatural entity in some way, even if the experience is poorly explained and badly documented.
One such incident in the billions of subjective religious experiences that are also documented fact (that people have such experiences), means that your argument is dead in the water.
Therefore the onus is on you to prove that all religious experiences, beliefs and concepts of supernatural beings etc, are made up. A pretty tall order, as TeapotsToUnicorns said.
Prattling on about easter bunnies, the tooth fairy, and the like does not even begin to dent the issue, and they also do not address the direct issue of god/s that created the universe. Why try to confuse the issue by bringing up other irrelevant supernatural entities when the issue is god/s that created the universe?
What is curious is why you think it is a valid argument. There appears to be a certain degree of confirmation bias going on, of liking the argument because it appears to support your position. This is where we get into the issue of hidden assumptions that are part of your world view rather than a part of the argument provided.
Argument 1 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
... These premises do not lead to a valid conclusion. What is involved is are a couple of hidden assumptions that are due to bias, confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance ...
Argument 1 + hidden assumption • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up* ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
Fascinatingly, this is STILL not a valid argument, because (as pointed out before) subjective experience can be made up and god/s can STILL exist: there is still a hidden assumption here, the assumption that god/s don't exist if all subjective experiences are made up.
Where the hidden assumptions are (1) that "ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up," and (2) that "god/s don't exist if all subjective experiences are made up."
Now, when you look at it from the other side, from the a priori belief\assumption that there are in fact no god/s, then -- and only then -- is the existence of all the religious experiences, beliefs and concepts of supernatural beings etc, explained by the fact that some concepts are made up, but this only becomes a valid conclusion after the fact of this actual absence is proven (at which point, once more, it is not necessary).
quote: ... we can also use the same "evidence" in a counter argument with a different hidden assumption:
Argument 2 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do or can exist.
Which still suffers from hidden assumptions and doesn't reach a valid conclusion due to the incomplete form of the argument.
Argument 2 + hidden assumption • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • NOT all subjective experiences of god/s are necessarily made up* ∴ God/s do, or can, exist.
These last two can also be rendered as:
Argument 3 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do or can exist.
Which seems like a fairly silly conclusion to make, (just as silly as argument 1), but then we add the corollary statement as a assumption:
Argument 3 + corollary • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time • some concepts are not made up ∴ It is possible that some concepts of god are are not made up ∴ It is possible that God/s do, or can, exist.
The conclusion that god/s can possibly exist is a valid conclusion, and the first three premises are all true, level III facts. Thus your claim that "human invention is the only logical and rational conclusion" is not supported, is demonstrated to be logically invalid, AND it is contradicted by a logically valid argument using the same evidence.
How is human invention not the logical and rational conclusion based on your own self declared scale of belief?
Because logical fallacies and invalid logical structures do not qualify for level III concepts.
RAZD, when you say 'absence of evidence' what do you mean - sorry to ask this question so far in the debate but I'd like to be clear on it.
Do you mean the absence of POSITIVE evidence for a proposition or the absence of ANY evidence either for or against?
When I note that some people claim that "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" then it is understood that the absence of positive evidence is being claimed as sufficient "evidence" to not believe the concept.
When we are talking level III concepts, we see that they need to (a) be supported by objective empirical evidence AND (b) not be contradicted by objective empirical evidence, ie - not be falsified.
We also carry this condition of not being falsified by contradictory objective empirical evidence down to any concept being considered: if it is falsified by objective empirical evidence then it cannot be considered possible without explaining the contradiction.
Note that there can be subjective evidence on both sides of the issue, subjective evidence that can be a basis for a personal opinion about the issue, but not anything that can lever a concept from level II to level III.
Thus we see Catholic Scientist discussing religious experiences as evidence for belief in god/s, and Staggler et al saying that people making things up is evidence that god/s are made up concepts.
These opinions are not sufficient for an agnostic to be convinced, because each possibility allows a contrary possibility. Objective empirical evidence does not allow a contrary possibility, otherwise falsification would not work. The evidence for an old earth does not allow for the possibility that the earth is young without some explanation of the contradiction posed by the objective empirical evidence for old age/s.
Your "logical" argument remains plagued by the fact that we need to have decided whether we believe the irrefutable something under consideration exists or not before we put it through your silly formula. Because once we have done so we are "rationally" required to be agnostic towards it. Do you seriously not see the rather significant problem with this?
Nope. The validity of the logical construction does not depend on the content of the argument, only on the form.
As noted before, you want to assume your conclusion, and then pick the evidence to fit your argument. You claim to have a "6" position and you have also categorically stated:
quote:Percy is a Deist - Now what's the difference between a deist and an atheist?, Message 332: 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 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.
There was no weaseling about the definition of god/s in that claim, it is a claim of a proclaimed "6" position holder and demonstrated pseudoskeptic.
Pseudoskeptic because your logic is false, invalid, wrong, and your "evidence" does not speak to your claim that there are no gods. Your "6" position is logically indefensible without empirical objective evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
You appear here to be saying that the defining evidential difference between those irrefutable concepts that you have concluded are the product of human invention (e.g. magical Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. etc.) and the gods/deities that you are requiring us to be agnostic about is subjective evidence? But surely not.
Correct. I do not need them to justify belief that god/s are possible.
Rather this is just one simple example of why your argument about human invention is necessarily incomplete and therefore cannot lead to a valid conclusion that god/s do not exist. The fact is that god/s remain possible for simple logical reasons.
Furthermore, I've noted that you could prove that every subjective experience description -- the interpretation of the event by the people involved -- could involve human invention, and this would still not prove that god/s do not, or cannot, exist.
The point being that to make your argument valid you need to prove that all such experiences are indeed involving human invention AND that this means that god/s do not or cannot exist as a result.
You have not done the first, and you have not even begun to attempt to provide this second link at all, rather all you have done is assume you are correct a priori and then tried to use the conclusion from your assumption as evidence that the assumption is correct. This is begging the question, circular reasoning, affirming the consequent, etc: logical fallacy.
RAZD's dictionary definition of desim writes:
deism (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-) n. The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. Deist Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
In advocating the above you are making a whole host of completely unjustifiable assumptions to derive your desired deistic conclusion. In doing this you are in denial of the indispitable facts available.
What the definition assumes and what I assume are two different things. After all the same source defines atheism as follows:
quote:atheist (ā'thē-ĭst) n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods. The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, Copyright 2009 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
And several people here who call themselves atheists disagreed with this definition.
I assume that god/s are currently unknown, that the issue of whether they can be known, in part or in whole or not at all, is currently unknown, and I assume that what we see in the universe could be the result of god/s creation, either directly (by making it so) or indirectly (by establishing the natural laws that cause the result). I assume that my personal belief in the existence of god/s is just personal opinion until such time as there is empirical objective evidence for or against the existence of god/s. If this belief is "based solely on reason" then I am bound by limits of logic and the limits of empirical objective evidence, which is why I necessarily end up as an agnostic theist "3" position:
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.
I would need to have more than subjective evidence to move from "3" to "2" and be based on reason.
This is also why an atheist position based on reason, logic and the available objective empirical evidence can only justify a "5" position, rather than a "6" position.
So by your own criteria we find that the human invention argument is entirely justified. History is awash with the discarded remains of erroneous supernatural explanations for natural phenomenon. Verified objective historical evidence supporting the fact that humans invoke supernatural concepts to fill gaps in human knowledge and understanding. Exactly as you are doing when you plug the cosmic origins gap with the particular object of your deistic belief.
Curiously, the history of human knowledge is awash with all kinds of failed concepts on how things work, not just supernatural explanations, but when an old idea explaining how something works by (proposed) natural laws is falsified and discarded, it is held up as an example of how well science works, rather than claim that all science must be wrong because of all the discarded concepts that were wrong.
All such previous "naturalistic" explanations of how things work were also the product of human invention, so this either proves that science is just the product of human invention OR that your argument is logically false.
Our knowledge of reality is refined by discarding falsified concepts, and it should not matter what kind of concept we are talking about, as logically it is the process of discarding falsified and invalidated concepts that leads to a refined knowledge of the possibilities of reality.
Hi RAZAWO ... before we put it through your silly formula.
Amusingly, your attempts at ridicule, of both the person and the argument, just demonstrates that your inability to deal with the actual argument is a product of cognitive dissonance rather than a logical and reasoned position.
If your position is truly valid, then why is it only supported by logical fallacies, personal opinion, and unsupported assumptions? Until such time as you can show that the "silly formula" is indeed silly, it will continue to invalidate your argument/s. Curiously, I don't find that simple fact silly at all.
Hi RAZD, I'm not sure why you think repeating yourself is the same as clarifying something. But I'll play along.
Now I realize that this is not your statement nor your claim, what it is, rather, is evidence that he bases his belief about the non-actuality (absence) of god/s on the lack of evidence of god/s.
Really? I see two types of statements from him.
Straggler's statement is evidence that he actually uses the lack of evidence of god/s to support his belief about the non-actuality (absence) of god/s. It just amuses me that he makes this claim when he started the whole nonsense over that not being a valid description of some atheists.
Do you agree that there is no evidence of gods?
I agree that there is no empirical objective evidence that god/s actually exist, ANDthat there is no empirical objective evidence that god/s actually do not exist.
Do you agree that one should not believe a claim for which there is no evidence?
I agree that if there is no contradictory empirical objective evidence, one can keep an open mind but be skeptical about claims without empirical objective evidence that they are true.
Do you agree that this means one should not believe in a claim for gods?
One should not believe it out of hand, but one can have an open mind on the issue and be skeptical, just as one can have an open mind and be skeptical on the issue the non-existence of god/s, because there is no contradictory empirical objective evidence.
Do you agree that there is no empirical objective evidence that shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?
Do you agree that this means one should not believe in a claim for the non-existence of god/s?
No. It is a belief in the existence of a being. It means you believe it exists. Without evidence. This is not agnostic. That is a belief. It seems you do 'assume one is true, but not the other' You 'assume' that the claim that god exists, created the universe, and then abandoned it, is true.
Based on reason alone. This means limited to logically valid conclusions, not opinion. I've answered this in Message 296 as well:
quote:I assume that god/s are currently unknown, that the issue of whether they can be known, in part or in whole or not at all, is currently unknown, and I assume that what we see in the universe could be the result of god/s creation, either directly (by making it so) or indirectly (by establishing the natural laws that cause the result). I assume that my personal belief in the existence of god/s is just personal opinion until such time as there is empirical objective evidence for or against the existence of god/s. If this belief is "based solely on reason" then I am bound by limits of logic and the limits of empirical objective evidence, which is why I necessarily end up as an agnostic theist "3" position...
Thanks. I'll take that as the closest thing I am ever likely to get from you as an apology for your ridiculous "liar liar" tirade.
What you have done once again is quote mine and misrepresent. This is especially ludicrous behavior after your recent tirade about partial quotes:
Report discussion problems here: No.2, Message 202: I would like to request once again that RAZD edit his post to include at least the full sentence he is responding to. And that he treat this as standard practise in future.
Honestly we cannot start quoting each other in half sentences merely because full sentences don't comply with our counter arguments. This is just ridiculous.
LOL.
For reference, the full response -- and the correct text responded to -- was:
quote:
You appear here to be saying that the defining evidential difference between those irrefutable concepts that you have concluded are the product of human invention (e.g. magical Santa, Easter Bunny, etc. etc.) and the gods/deities that you are requiring us to be agnostic about is subjective evidence? But surely not.
Correct. I do not need them to justify belief that god/s are possible.
(bold for emphasis)
I do not need to use subjective experiences to justify belief that god/s are possible, so you are indeed correct when you say:
You appear here to be saying that the defining evidential difference .... is subjective evidence? But surely not.
Indeed, most surely not.
If you are confused by your own sentence structure, then I don't know how to help you.
Thanks. I'll take that as the closest thing I am ever likely to get from you as an apology for your ridiculous "liar liar" tirade.
And yet here you are, repeating this very same behavior again, the precise behavior that led directly to the "liar liar" posts -- because you were making false representations then about what I said and failed to justify it in any way -- just as you do here.
When you misrepresent what someone says to mean the opposite of what they mean you are telling a lie.
This is sad Straggler, sad to see, sad, but not surprising.
So the validity (or otherwise) of subjective evidence is rather fundamental to your anti-atheist arguments. What a shock! I must be psychic to have realised that before you did. Or maybe you weren't being entirely truthful in your flashing scrolling campaign of denial?
Presumably, when (if) you review the statements you will see your error and realize that your assumptions were wrong then, just as they are wrong now.
Not psychic, so much as psychotic, perhaps pathologically unable to understand.
All your stated criteria for "High Confidence" on your much vaunted "Scale of Belief" have been met by the human invention argument. You can equivocate as much as you like. You can talk about "proof" as much as you like. But it won't change this fact.
It is a fact that some people make some things up some of the time. We know this is so, because some people admit making up some concepts.
Argument 1 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do not and cannot exist.
It does not matter that premise 2 is true, level III fact, because the logical structure is flawed and the conclusion does not follow.
That it is a fact that "some people make some things up some of the time" does not mean that all concepts of god/s are necessarily made up. That is the logical fallacy of using part for the whole, assuming the consequent, etc etc etc.
"Argument 1" is no more valid than "Argument 2" from the same posts using the very same second premise:
Argument 2 • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Some people make some things up some of the time ∴ God/s do or can exist.
It is ALSO a level III fact that not all concepts are made up, so we can replace the second premise with the equally valid level III factual statement that "not everything people say\write\etc is made up" and get:
Argument 2 rev A • There is no empirical objective evidence that god/s do not exist • Not everything people say\write\etc is made up ∴ It is possible that some concepts of god/s are not made up. ∴ It is possible that god/s do, or can, exist.
This is a valid conclusion from the premises given, premises that are level III facts.
Therefore, until there is evidence that contradicts the possibility, it is possible that one or more concepts of god/s are indeed not made up but based on actual reality.
Therefore, until such time as there is contradictory evidence that shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist, it is logical and rational to believe that god/s are possible.
You still miss the reality here: faith is not a conclusion, not a choice, and that no logic, good, bad or indifferent is used.
You used to be a faith based deist disclaiming the need for logic in matters of belief. Now you are a wannabe Vulcan agnostic with opinions. What happened? More equivocation?
No, just more misunderstanding.
The reason I have a personal opinion about the existence of god/s is from that original faith, faith that is indifferent to logic and reason, faith that is necessarily subjective, faith that is necessarily personal opinion until such time as there is objective empirical evidence.
Your immaterial subjective evidence arguments have been well and widely refuted in previous threads.
Not surprisingly I once again notice that absolute and complete absence of any substantiation for this unfounded claim.
Presumably you mean the list of fantasy refutations that you keep posting that are laced with logical fallacies and misrepresentations. Of course the fact that I've never made posts about "immaterial subjective evidence" MIGHT be a clue about the veracity of your latest fantasy claim. You really need to keep track of what I actually post versus the lies you tell about what I post.
™ Version 4.2
(1)