The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. If it were not for personal conviction it would have been abandoned long ago. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural.
Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is an "absence of evidence". Incredible.
RAZD writes:
Then you have objective evidence that god/s do not, or cannot, exist
No such evidence exists for irrefutable Santa concepts. Or the Easter Bunny. Or the Tooth fairy. Why do you persist in this "you can't prove my god doesn't exist nah nah nah nah" nonsense? All we can ever do is demonstrate that magical ethereal inherently irrefutable beings are in all probability human inventions. Exactly as you did with Santa. I have said this about ten times now. Which part of this simple fact are you still having trouble with?
RAZD writes:
or your assertion that there cannot be a complete vacuum of all objective evidence is false.
How can it possibly be false? Are you denying that concepts relating to "unknowable" magical beings originate and evolve in the context of human history, culture and psychology? Are you saying that these areas of knowledge have absolutely no relevance when assessing the validity of deistic claims? Are you saying that these areas of knowledge are not objectively evidenced? Your relentless need to insist that atheism must equate to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is starting to border on the seriously deranged. No human claim operates in a vacuum of all objective evidence. How possibly can it?
Why not just concede that there is relevant objective evidence to consider and move on with the discussion? Why is that so hard for you to admit?
I think bluegenes is saying that if we have an infinite number of unknown supernatural concepts... we cannot make any inferences at all. But, after we test 10 of them, and see that they are all human inventions, then test 100 of them, and see that they are still all human inventions, then test 1000 of them, and they are all still human inventions... it is then logical to tentatively conclude until shown otherwise that all of them are human inventions.
RAZD writes:
Yet it is still a logical fallacy
No it isn't. He is not making a statement of logical certitude. He is making a tentative evidence based argument of likelihood.
Well you are blatantly unable to dispute the fact that deistic claims necessarily operate in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. Nor can you dispute the relevance of this objective evidence to assessing the validity of such claims.
Which means that for all your bluff and bluster your relentless and ubiquitous assertion (namely that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence") is just plain wrong.
I guess after so many years of reciting this mantra it is too much to expect you to ever now actually admit this error. But the fact remains there is not, and in fact can not ever be, an "absence of evidence". You would rather actually deny the mere existence of objective evidence than give up on your preconceived position. It is plain for all to see.
Straggler writes:
No it isn't. He is not making a statement of logical certitude. He is making a tentative evidence based argument of likelihood.
In other words, he is giving his opinion rather than a logical conclusion - an opinion that is based on the logical fallacy of begging the question, and hence questionable at best.
Opinion is not a fact, not a known true premise for a logical conclusion.
It is logical in the same sense that all evidence based or scientific conclusions are. Logical but tentative based on the evidence available. That is not the same as an IF THEN statement of logical certitude. Nor is it the same as an "opinion".
But given your cognitive blindspopts regarding evidence and the fact that you think as yet undiscovered species of fish are evidentially equivalent to gods I don't really expect you to understand this point.
Still unable to explain how deistic claims can possibly occur in a complete void of historical and cultural evidence I see. Still basing your entire anti-atheist argument on an "absence of evidence" that does not exist and never can exist in any practical sense.
Your relentless and ubiquitous assertion that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" is just plain wrong. I guess after so many years of reciting this mantra it is too much to expect you to ever now actually admit this error. You would rather actually deny the mere existence of objective evidence than give up on your preconceived position. It is plain for all to see.
RAZD writes:
Summary Time or Time to readress the Topic?
I love the way you seek to moderate the threads in which you are the major participant. It is just so you. But if you want a summary here is one.
SUMMARY 1) ALL of the atheist arguments you have been presented with (by numerous people across multiple threads) are evidence based arguments. In any evidence based argument a degree of uncertainty is inherent and innate. Insisting that logical fallacies are being committed by conflating these arguments with statements of logical certitude is unjustifiable and simply demonstrates that you have no coherent counter-argument.
2) A high degree of scepticism towards the existence of a concept is entirely justified if sufficient evidence in favour of the concept being a product of human invention is available. Even if the concept in question relates to an undetectable being that is inherently "unknowable" and logically irrefutable (e.g. Santa Claus). Insisting that it be shown that such concepts "do not or cannot exist" is a pointless, ridiculous and futile debating tactic. We cannot prove that the Easter Bunny "does not or cannot exist" but we can cite historical evidence regarding the origins and evolution of a concept to show that it is in all probability a human invention.
3) There is no such thing as an "absence of evidence". All claims are unavoidably made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology. This is simply inarguable despite your bewilderingly stubborn and increasingly hysterical ongoing refusal to concede on this point.
4) Human history is literally bursting with claims of the supernatural. None of these claims have stood up to scrutiny. All but a tiny minority have been completely abandoned as examples of human invention. Those god concepts that remain in circulation have retreated into the darkest recesses of human ignorance. They have evolved into gods of the most difficult to fill gaps. Exactly as you would expect of concepts that inspire deep personal conviction but which have no actual basis in reality. ALL of the available objective evidence indicates that the very concept of the supernatural itself is a human invention. NONE of the objective evidence available suggests that there is any reason to think the supernatural actually exists. For more on this see here: Message 499.
Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion with regard to supernatural gods is that they are most likely human inventions and in all probability do not actually exist.
See Message 508, it answers the meat of your post, such as it is.
Having analysed your linked-to-post in more detail it has become obvious that you have actually conceded on the practical impossibility of "absence of evidence". Albeit it in your own inimitable and highly charming manner. And with some surreptitious thread hopping thrown in to disguise this fact. Nice try.
We will presumably no longer be hearing your much stated and entrenchently defended assertion that has been the mainstay of your anti-atheistic argument over the years? Namely that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". We can at least do away with that silly misconception. Finally.
C) Agnostic - There is no evidence. There is a complete vacuum of all objective evidence pertaining to the existence of your god (including any historical, cultural or psychological objective evidence that might be relevant to assessing the likelihood of human invention) and the only rational response is therefore pure agnosticicm.
RAZD writes:
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:
Rrhain writes:
That presumes a complete absence of evidence
No, it presumes that there is an absence of convincing evidence, that what exists is insufficient for decision/s pro or con.
So not an absence of all objective evidence after all. Apparently just an absence of evidence that YOU find "convincing". Hardly the same thing are they?
CONCLUSION Anyway: What you can never ever ever do again is legitimately proclaim that the atheist position necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". Because no human claim ever operates in a complete vacuum of all relevant objective evidence. Santa said so. And you agreed with him.
You seriously think so? I guess others can decide that for themselves.
RAZD writes:
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.
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. In a more complex sense where gods are invoked for explanatory reasons the possibilities are infinite. The creation of the universe by god, for example, is no more evidenced than any one of the other myriad of other possible causes. Pixie dust, the farts of celestial cows etc. etc. ad-infinitum. Why does god get special consideration over and above any of these other possibilities?
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. Even those conclusions that we are all but certain of. Evidence based conclusions are necessarily tentative. My quote of the moment:
Bertrand Russel Writes: "To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
RAZD writes:
Second, you are making a logical leap, confusing the map with the mountain, and resulting in a logical fallacy:
there is not evidence that gods exist there is evidence that people make things up ∴ gods do not exist
The only fallacy here is your base assumption that this "mountain" necessarily exists. All of the objective evidence tells us that humans are predisposed to creating such "maps" to fulfil a variety of very human needs. Needs that persist regardless of the existence of any "mountain". The need to explain the world. The psychological need to contemplate mortality. The need for meaning, comfort, companionship, purpose etc. etc. etc. All reasons that strongly suggest that the "map" is of far more import to the culture that creates it than any "mountain". All reasons that would seem to tell us far more about the commonality of human psychology than they do about some unknowable reality inhabited by unknowable supernatural beings. Can you please explain why do you conclude that there is a mountain at all?
If we strip down your silly euphamisms all we are left with is the circular argument that belief itself is evidence upon which to justify belief.
Well it seems that we have all learnt something from this string of related threads. 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?
RAZD writes:
Straggler writes:
What you can never ever ever do again is legitimately proclaim that the atheist position necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence".
Once again, confusing the agnostic position with what is observable from atheists does not mean that atheists do not use this logical fallacy.
You and I have spent the last ten months in an on-off debate about the rationality of atheism. Throughout this you have maintained that there is no objective evidence relevant to the existence of gods at all. You have relentlessly and remorselessly asserted that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence". In response I have attempted to show you that no claim can ever operate in a complete vacuuum of all objective evidence. In addition I have also attempted to show that this objective evidence strongly implies that in all probability god concepts are the product of human invention rather than aspects of an "unknowable" reality.
Given your bewildering need to translate my arguments into the simplistic straw man of "people make stuff up therefore everything Straggler disagrees with must be made-up" and other such imbecilic misrepresentations I decided in this thread to try a different approach. In this thread I have made no attempt to show that the objective evidence available justifies anything. I have instead simply restricted myself to forcing you to acknowledge that relevant objective evidence exists. That there is no "absence of evidence". That there can in fact never be an absence of all objective evidence. That ALL claims are necessarily, inevitably indisputably and inarguably made in the context of human history, culture and psychology.
Rather than wade our way through this silly charade any further why don't you just tell us explicitly what your view is on the absence of objective evidence? And whether this is even possible in any practical sense? Are deistic claims made in a complete vacuum of all objective evidence OR are deistic claims necessarily and inevitably made in the objectively evidenced context of human history, culture and psychology?
Are you still wedded to your foolish notion that atheism necessarily equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence"? Or have you at last been swayed by the facts away from this much asserted and long time misconception of yours?
I am guessing that you won't actually answer these questions.
There is evidence for the claim that gods, like Santa, are embellished ideas and stories stemming from mundane things such as real people, peculiarities in human psychology etc. It isn't, nor can it ever be (due to the unfalsifiable nature of many of the entities in discussion) 100% proof. But it is a claim, and it does have supporting evidence. You might choose not to believe the claim, which is fine.
Except where one possibility is claimed as being more likely than the other. That is a claim based on a personal opinion about the validity of the argument/s, not on any actual evidence that god/s are in fact all made up. As such, it is as relevant as the mountains of evidence supporting the fact that mushrooms grow in the woods at night during a pouring rain under a new moon.
Which is fine for a "5" atheist, as I keep saying, but if you want to claim more than a "5" position, if you want to discuss the relative likelihood, then you need to put up some actual evidence that speaks directly to the issue of existence\non-existence. You need to connect the dots with evidence, not assumption and conjecture.
Where are you on the Dawkins scale with regard to the Easter Bunny? The Tooth Fairy? Magical sleigh riding jolly Santa?
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.
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". You have simply cited objective historical evidence to demonstrate that notions of magical Santa are in all probability a human invention. Exactly as the rest of us are doing with regard to concepts of supernatural gods. Concepts that originated to explain aspects of nature, which then evolved to reflect aspects of human culture and society and which have since evolved to be compatible with scientific progress. As per here: Message 499
Which part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
When you can put the Easter Bunny through your silly formula and come out with an answer that isn't agnosticism I might start taking you seriously again.
With regard to absence of evidence - You have been forced to accept that there is not, and can never be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not consider the existence of gods to be objectively evidenced. Therefore it must be the case that ALL of the objective historical, anthropological and psychological evidence supports human invention. Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion is tentative atheism.
What else is there left to say on this matter?
Bertrand Russel writes:
"To my mind the essential thing is that one should base one's arguments upon the kind of grounds that are accepted in science, and one should not regard anything that one accepts as quite certain, but only as probable in a greater or a less degree. Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality".
Amen to that. And if you feel compelled to start talking about maps and mountains again you can start by explaining why you think there even is a mountain to make maps of.
I used to think that you had something interesting and different to say on this issue. But you don't. Your arguments amount to nothing more than the same old same old. We cannot prove that gods don't exist. And if lots of people believe in something (i.e "mountains") then the must be something to believe in. Remove the silly euphamisms, funky coloured backgrounds, pseudo-mathematical logicisms and the bewildering array of arbitrary and ever changing "scales of belief" and what are we left with? These same two standard timeless and tiresome arguments. The usual drivel spouted by believers of all flavours who are desperate to rationalise their irrational beliefs. Honestly why even bother?
Straggler writes:
When you can put the Easter Bunny through your silly formula and come out with an answer that isn't agnosticism I might start taking you seriously again.
RAZD writes:
When you can refute the issue, rather than use more logical fallacies in reply, then I might start taking you seriously again.
Yep. As expected. You can't.
RAZD writes:
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.
Your bizzarre attempt to mathematicalise your argument amounts to nothing more than a long winded, over elaborate and desperately convuluted way of saying "You cannot prove that my god does not or can not exist."
The problem with this is that A) You cannot prove that the Easter Bunny magical Santa or the Tooth Fairy "do not or can not exist". But this doesn't stop us being justifiably and rationally 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.
RAZD writes:
The part where this actually shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist. Again, I thought that this was relatively evident.
And yet again I thought it was very (and increasingly) evident that you have failed to demonstrate that magical Santa concepts "do not, or cannot, exist". You have not demonstrated that a magical Santa is logically "impossible". You have simply cited objective historical evidence to demonstrate that notions of magical Santa are in all probability a human invention. Exactly as the rest of us are doing with regard to concepts of supernatural gods. Which part of this are you still struggling to comprehend?
RAZD writes:
This rather assumes that evidence will not be forthcoming eh?
In exactly the same way that you are assuming that evidence of the actual existence of the Easter Bunny or jolly magical Santa will not be forthcoming. Eh?
If you think being agnostic towards the Easter Bunny is the rational option then you are insane. But more likely than insanity is just the fact that your silly arguments are nonsense. Seriously - Until you can put the Easter Bunny through your logical formulae and come out with something other than agnosticism I don't see how you can consider yourself to have a leg to stand on.
Dawkins Scale of Belief writes:
1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.' 2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Where are you on the Dawkins scale with regard to the Easter Bunny and on what evidence? And if you are a 3 on the aforementioned scale with respect to "god" (whatever it is you mean by that) how can you even call yourself a deist? By the definitions you have supplied in your various scales (including "RAZD's Concept Scale - See post below) you are an agnostic with opinions.
With regard to absence of evidence - You have been forced to accept that there is not, and can never be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not consider the existence of gods to be objectively evidenced. Therefore it must be the case that ALL of the objective historical, anthropological and psychological evidence supports human invention. Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion is tentative atheism.
What else is there left to say on this matter? Message 266
How is human invention not the logical and rational conclusion based on your own self declared scale of belief?
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?
With regard to your self proclaimed "scale of belief" and the evidential validity of atheism:
Straggler writes:
With regard to absence of evidence - You have been forced to accept that there is not, and can never be, a complete absence of all objective evidence. You have also made it abundantly clear that you do not consider the existence of gods to be objectively evidenced. Therefore it must be the case that ALL of the objective historical, anthropological and psychological evidence supports human invention. Thus the evidence based and rational conclusion is tentative atheism.
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.
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.
The possibility that gods conjured our universe into existence is utterly un-evidenced. We have no reason to think it even might be true. It is as unevidenced as the possibility that we are actually all living in the matrix. Or the possibility that the universe and it's constants were created from the farts of celestial cows, or the possibility that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn magicked us all into existence last Thursday, or the possibility that our universe is the product of pixie dust etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum.
The gap you are attempting to slot god into could equally justifiably be filled by an infinite number of other wholly unevidenced possibilities. Which makes the chances of your particular preferred proposition 1 out of infinity. Not very good odds at the best of times. But they get worse. Throw in the fact that the entirety of human knowledge indicates that any such invocation of the supernatural to explain the natural will in all likelihood turn out to be misplaced and the odds of your particular supernatural answer drop even further. How low do they need to be before you accept "very unlikely" as a reasonable response?
The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural. Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is a gap in which to insert your god and an opportunity to demand that everyone else be agnostic.
RAZD writes:
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.
RAZD writes:
Where the hidden assumptions are (1) that "ALL subjective experiences of god/s are made up,"
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.
Because we all know that this cannot be the case. Because when I previously suggested that this was indeed your argument you lost the plot and went on a rampage of insults:
RAZD writes:
ROFLOL de LOL. You just CANNOT GET DEITIES OUT OF YOUR MIND, can you. You just CANNOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND THAT MY ARGUMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH DEITIES, can you.
NEWS FLASH:
sheesh! What is WITH you and DEITIES? Bad childhood experience?
So what is the role of subjective evidence in your argument here? Because it very much seems that subjective evidence is the defining difference between those concepts you want to apply your silly "logical" argument to in order to require agnosticism and those that you don't.
And you have still never even attempted to tackle the problems with subjective "evidence" as pertaining to the inherently non-empirical as per here: Immaterial "Evidence"
You ask us to produce evidence of God to your satisfaction.
The possibility that gods conjured our universe into existence is utterly un-evidenced. We have no reason to think it even might be true. It is as unevidenced as the possibility that we are actually all living in the matrix. Or the possibility that the universe and it's constants were created from the farts of celestial cows, or the possibility that the Immaterial Pink Unicorn magicked us all into existence last Thursday, or the possibility that our universe is the product of pixie dust etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. ad-infinitum.
The gap you are attempting to slot god into could equally justifiably be filled by an infinite number of other wholly unevidenced possibilities. Which makes the chances of your particular preferred proposition 1 out of infinity. Not very good odds at the best of times. But they get worse. Throw in the fact that the entirety of human knowledge indicates that any such invocation of the supernatural to explain the natural will in all likelihood turn out to be misplaced and the odds of your particular supernatural answer drop even further. How low do they need to be before you accept "very unlikely" as a reasonable response?
The supernatural explanatory model has failed. Failed repeatedly and spectacularly. Any rational person will consider the entirety of human history and knowledge demonstrating this immense and unmitigated failure as being entirely relevant to assessing the potential validity of any further claims of the supernatural. Apparently you don't. Apparently the entirety of human history and knowledge doesn't exist or has no relevance as far as you are concerned. Apparently all you see is a gap in which to insert your god.
Why god and not celestial cows ICANT? Seriously. Why?
Now do you have any reproducible evidence that proves that god/s do not exist?
If not then they are a very real possibility.
A possibility? Yes. Nobody here has ever denied that. A "very real possibility"? No more so than the twelve and a half pixies that magicked the universe into existence last Thursday. Why do you give your chosen possibility any more credence than any other wholly objectively unevidenced possibility?
Why do you think that if someone reads The Bible and believes it, then they should believe in some random made-up god that you just threw together?
If they want to read Lord of the Rings and then believe it represents reality that is frankly up to them. The problem I have is when they then demand that I treat it as any more likely to be true than any other similarly unevidenced story.
™ Version 4.2
(1)