Identifying false religions.

Yes. You obviously don't have kids if you think this is not a critical issue.It is of the utmost importance. My 4 year old son is starting to have serious bunny based ontological doubts and desperately wants to know the truth. I am in a state of near despair as to how to tackle this difficult and thorny issue. I think he is old enough to not be patronised with fairytales regarding this matter. But simultaneously I very conscioulsly don't want to indoctrinate him needlessly with my own pseudoskeptical atheistic ways. But conversely I do want to teach him how to draw rational conclusions based on agreed forms of evidence.Your position on falsification combined with your outright denial that evidence favouring human invention has any validity demands that you be purely agnostic towards the magical and empirically undetectable Easter Bunny.The fact that you are too embarrassed to actually unambiguously state this as your position for fear of looking ridiculous and your need to hide this should lead you to question the validity of the arguments that have led you to this conclusion that even you consider too silly to admit to.So RAZ - What should I tell my son regarding the rationality of belief or otherwise in the actual existence of the Easter Bunny?Be specific. No evasion. No ambiguity. Bunny atheist. Bunny agnostic. Or Bunny believer.

I don't think its ever been in dispute that a belief in god is irrational. I think I might have argued that it can be rational.The root of the argument is atheism being rational.Straggler's probability argument is pretty good, but I don't think his physical probability follows from the induced one. Him thinking that its more likely that god does not exist is insufficient to come to a rational conclusion of god not existing.There's a paper called The Concept of Inductive Probability that explains:

quote:

---

As an illustration of the difference between these two concepts,
suppose you have been told that a coin is either two-headed or two-tailed
but you have no information about which it is. The coin is about to be
tossed. What is the probability that it will land heads? There are two
natural answers to this question:

​

(i) 1/2.
(ii) Either 0 or 1 but I do not know which.

​

Answer (i) is natural if the question is taken to be about inductive
probability, while (ii) is the natural answer if the question is taken to
be about physical probability.

---

I don't think you can get the physical probability from the inductive one and I think that's what Straggler is trying to do.

I don't really agree with this. I think of supernatural as things that are beyond the rules of nature. Nature has a set of rules, like gravity, which give measurable and predictable results every time. The supernatural is supposed to denote that it is a subset phenomenon that allegedly supersedes natural law and order.I do agree with you that it is essentially a functionally useless term, insofar as to say that it is subjective.The point is that one would not expect to measure the supernatural in terms that apply with nature. How much space does God occupy would be a meaningless term for something that does not even reside in this plane of existence or, in essence, is the totality of this existence.So expecting people to prove God or disprove God via science is useless. In that way, it would appear impossible to either verify or falsify God. In that sense it may seem reasonable to be atheist, but it also seems reasonable to be an agnostic. Maybe, and that's the point. We don't know, hence the apprehension of defaulting to a de facto position of either theism or atheism.One might look at the supposed demon possession in the bible and conclude by today's standards, that those people who were claimed "possessed" where actually paranoid schizophrenics. But we don't know that. It's okay to be skeptical, but is it okay to say that couldn't be true because I've never seen anything like it?This is precisely why these philosophical questions about God never end. If you really contemplate how much thought has been given to the concept of God, it's an endless debate.The only thing we can conclude at this point is that it is neither verifiable nor falsifiable; hence, agnosticism.

---

"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from mistaken conviction." — Blaise Pascal

In what way? I'm making two separate claims here, which I think I've supported very well:1) in a true absence of evidence with all competing hypotheses being equal, selecting one to believe in, whether you call it "opinion" or not, is utterly irrational, because the real probability for the selected hypothesis is still no greater than the other possible selections.2) in reality, we do not have an absence of evidence. While most god hypotheses are equivalent to each other in probability of accuracy, the hypothesis that there are no gods is better supported by the observations we can make.1) is intended to point out the fact that even granting your basic premise (that we have zero knowledge about gods), your "opinion" is still irrational, even if you find it to be personally acceptable. This is not a straw man - it accurately reflects your argument from everything I have seen you post. If you still believe this to be inaccurate, please show me in detail where I am going astray in my conception of your position.2) is intended to show my own position, which has nothing at all to do with "opinion," but rather is a simple analysis of available observations. The absence of evidence always supports the hypothesis of absence more strongly than any other. Observing my desk with no pen more strongly supports the hypothesis that there is in fact no pen on my desk than the hypothesis that the pen is invisible. THis is not based on opinion, it is based on solid probability theory and common sense, unless you honestly believe that failing to observe a pen on my desk supports the hypothesis that the pen is invisible equally or more strongly than the hypothesis that the pen is simply not there, in which case you'd have to be insane.I don't care about your scale. I care about a rational analysis of the problem to determine which hypothesis is more likely, if any. Yes. The absence of an observation of a prediction always more strongly supports the hypothesis of absence more strongly than other possibilities.If a murder has been committed, we would rationally predict that we should find a body; a sign of struggle; a murder weapon; witnesses. If we observe none of those things, while it remains possible that there has in fact been a murder and the killer was simply very good at hiding the evidence, the hypothesis that no murder occurred was more likely to result in the actual observation of a lack of evidence, and so the most likely hypothesis is still that no murder occurred.Do you disagree? If so, why? Is there really a 50/50 chance that a murder has been committed in the absence of predicted evidence? Is it actually more likely that a murder has occurred if we can find no sign of it? RAZD, I'd like you to use my murder analogy to immediately show why the absence of predicted evidence is not in fact evidence that the hypothesis is false. Nobody has claimed (to my knowledge) that an absence of predicted evidence is absolute proof of absence; only that the failure to observe predicted evidence increases the likelihood that the hypothesis is false, that an absence of evidence is in fact evidence of absence.Remember - we have several hundred thousand individuals without alibis. Each is an unfalsified hypothetical killer. We have no witnesses to a murder, no signs of a struggle,no blood, no murder weapon, and no dead body. Is one of the several thousand possible hypothetical killers more likely than any of the others? Are any of them more likely than the hypothesis that no murder occurred?If you agree that the most likely hypothesis is that no murder occurred, then you are in agreement that the absence of predicted evidence is evidence of the absence of a murder.Projection much? I'm not weaseling one iota, and neither is my position based merely on my own subjective opinion.All god hypotheses make certain weak predictions - many say that at least sometimes we should see that events which are prayed for should occur more frequently than without prayer; believers in the appropriate deity should be more successful or more moral or more wise than nonbelievers; believers will be protected from harm more frequently than nonbelievers; believers should find "emotional peace" more frequently than nonbelievers; etc. The observation that none of these predictions are borne out in reality does not outright falsify any of them, since they typically only weakly predict such things in the first place. However, the hypothesis that there are no gods more strongly predicts that we should observe exactly what we see: belief in a specific deity has no statistically significant effect on the occurrence of desired events, morality, financial success, etc. This means that the observations that are available to us most strongly support the hypothesis that there are no gods.It's not a matter of opinion, RAZD. I'm not pulling it from my own mind. The fact that no amputee has ever been miraculously healed, ever, across all religions, is objectively true. The fact that prayer has no statistically meaningful effect has been shown in multiple double-blind studies. I'm not arbitrarily choosing a favored hypothesis due to some subjective preference. I'm looking at what the evidence more strongly supports. Bullshit.Given my murder scenario as proposed above, what is the most likely hypothesis, RAZD? I'm not asking for certainty - I'm well aware that we cannot know whether a murder occurred. But which hypothesis has the highest probability of being accurate? The actual observations are more strongly predicted by one hypothesis than all of the others, aren't they? Additional observations would of course force us to re-evaluate and possibly raise or lower the probability of one or more hypotheses and force us to change our conclusion, but I'm not afraid to change my mind in the face of new observations. Are you? Do you need to know the actual probabilities involved for my murder scenario, RAZD? Or are you actually fully capable of understanding that the observation of a lack of a body, the lack of a murder weapon, the lack of witnesses, and the lack of signs of a struggle, are all more strongly predicted by the hypothesis that no murder occurred than by the hypothesis that any individual might be the killer?Here: I'll draw it out for you. Please tell me at which specific step you may disagree.P(H|D)=P(D|H)*P(H)/P(D)I said "several hundred thousand" individuals had no alibi - let's just call it 200,000. This means we have more than 200,001 possible hypotheses (1 for "no murder," but it's possible there could be more than one killer in a conspiracy). For the purpose of estimation, we can just call it 200,001 hypotheses. We don;t need the exact numbers to illustrate my point.So, the prior probability (P(H)), the chance that any of those hypotheses is accurate before making any observations, is 1/200001.P(D), the chance that our observation (the lack of a dead body, etc) would be made across all possible hypotheses, is unknown, but will remain the same across all hypotheses; we can ignore it for the purpose of determining relative probability.This means that the most relevant part is P(D|H) - the probability that our observations would be made given that each hypothesis is true. In other words, how strongly does each hypothesis predict the observation?The hypothesis (let's call it H1) that Jimmy killed someone predicts that we should observe some sign of the event. There is an extremely low probability that Jimmy was able to commit the perfect murder and leave no trace at all. This is the same across all potential killers.The hypothesis that no murder occurred (let's call it H2) very strongly predicts that we should find no dead body, no murder weapon, etc.So, P(D|H1) < P(D|H2). I don't need to know the actual numerical probabilities - all I need to know for a quick estimate is the relative strength that the observations are predicted by each hypothesis.So let's take a look:P(D|H1) < P(D|H2)
P(H1) = 1/200,001 = P(H2)
P(D) remains the same across all hypotheses.This means that P(H1|D) < P(H2|D) for all possible values of P(D). Every hypothesis involving a murder more weakly predicts the observation of no dead body, no weapon, no struggle, etc than does the hypothesis involving no murder.Have I based any of this on "opinion?" If you were Deputy Dawg, what would your conclusion be? Would you write up a report of a homicide? Would you arrest anyone?This analogy works for literally any god hypothesis that makes even the barest, weakest prediction.The only god hypothesis it doesn't apply to is one that makes absolutely zero predictions, where no possible observation could alter the probability that the hypothesis is correct. This particular sort of hypothesis is a child's fantasy. Sure, it could be true, but only in the way that a completely blind guess could be true - there is nothing whatsoever to tie your map to the territory. Such a hypothesis is completely empty, lacking any sort of predictive power, and conveys no knowledge. In such a hypothesis, you could replace the word "god" with any other word, like "magic" or "phlogiston" or "Aether," with the same result. That sort of hypothesis is so useless that it doesn't even justify consideration.I'm not Straggler. I showed my analysis of the probabilities above. If you disagree with me, please feel free to show where and why. It doesn't have to be a specific number - we have these things called variables, and all that's required is to know whether x is greater than, less than, or equivalent to y. If we can determine those relationships for all the variables, then our conclusion will remain true regardless of the actual numbers represented by the variables. If x > y, then a*x > a*y, every time, regardless of the specific values of a, x, and y. Invalid analogy - there are no observations that can be made that will shift the probability of any possible hypothesis. There are observations that can be made surrounding all meaningful god hypotheses.In this case, any hypothesis would have no observations to tie its map to the actual territory; no hypothesis would have predictive power that could be tested through observation, since all possible observations would not shift the probability either way. Believing any hypothesis to be more likely than any others, regardless of whether it is "opinion" or not, is irrational.Your analogy suggests that your actual beliefs do in fact exemplify a hypothesis with zero predictive power, that a universe where your hypothesis is correct would look absolutely identical to all other conceivable universes. Is this the case? Is this why you insist that there is no evidence at all, because your god hypothesis happens to have zero utility and no actual reason to even so much as consider? False, as I showed in my murder analogy above. Which is, incidentally, an accurate model of identifying any hypothesis that actually has predictive power. All you need to know when comparing hypotheses given identical observations is the relative strength with which each hypothesis predicts the observations in order to know which one is better supported by the evidence. You won't be able to say "hypothesis x has a 24% chance of accuracy," but you will be able to say that "the probability that hypothesis x is correct is greater than that of hypothesis y."

Yet if it actually occurs, then it does obey the rules of nature - our understanding of those rules is simply flawed.There are many maps, Hyro, but only one territory. If we find some part of the territory that isn't on our current map, that doesn't mean we keep our map and just say "that part of the territory is outside the bounds of our map." Instead, we re-draw our map to incorporate the newly discovered territory.That which is "supernatural" is simply an asserted phenomenon that would not be explained by our current understanding of the Universe. It's not so much that it's subjective, it's more that it has no predictive power. You could replace the word "supernatural" with anything and not meaningfully change any relevant hypothesis. Saying "ghosts are supernatural" is functionally identical to saying "ghosts are made of ectoplasm," or "ghosts are magic," or "ghosts function on a different plane of existence." None of those statements allows us to make any prediction that could be supported or falsified by any observation. ...as we currently underastand nature. Remember, the map is not the territory, and the incidence of our map failing to encompass all of the territory simply means that we need to re-draw. If there are "other planes of existence," then there are simply additional areas of the territory of which we are currently unaware. If we become aware of them, we can then begin adding them to our map.Imagine you live in Europe in the year 1490. You've never heard of the "New World," because it hasn't been discovered yet. How much space do the Caribbean Islands take up? What are the coordinates of the Grand Canyon?Your map doesn't include those locations, because you are currently unaware of that portion of the territory.Now come back to 2010. Do you still refuse to add the Grand Canyon or the Caribbean Islands to your map?Our map of the territory, our understanding of the Universe, changes as we make new discoveries about what does and does not exist. "Supernatural" is a useless term because it simply means "potential parts of a map that may or may not reflect the territory." Once we have thoroughly investigates a "supernatural" phenomenon, it becomes incorporated into our ever-updating map. That depends on the specific god hypothesis. Most god hypotheses make predictions whcih can then be tested.Now, you are right that it's almost impossible to falsify most god hypotheses - that requires an observation that is absolutely predicted to never happen if the specific god hypothesis is true. That's not very common - it isn't even very common in science.It is however possible to analyze the relative probabilities of various hypotheses be asking how strongly each hypothesis predicts any given observation. Remember, we don't live in a binary world - we don;t get to know with certainty that hypothesis x is absolutely false and hypothesis y is absolutely true. But if hypothesis x has a 23% chance of accuracy and hypothesis y has a 4% chance, then the rational position is that "x is more likely to be accurate than y." Uncertainty is part of the game - we can never ever be certain of anything, ever. Remember, it's possible that we're all in the Matrix, or that I'm a figment of your imagination. If I throw my pen up in the air, there is a tiny little possibility that it will simply stay there, and that our modern theory of gravity is absolutely wrong.The question is not "are we sure?" The question is "what appears to be most likely given the information we have." Remember, we can always change our minds later if further observations compel us to do so. I know both you and I have already changed our minds concerning theism at least once. Just as important as identifying the most likely hypothesis is learning to accept that, when your personal beliefs and reality clash, reality always wins int eh end.I'm not afraid to be wrong. In fact, I know I'm wrong. But I'm also less wrong than I was a decade ago. Don't try to be right - when you're right, you'll defend your beliefs long after you should have changed them. Your beliefs can never become stronger and more accurate than they are right now unless they change. Try to be less wrong instead. Identify the inaccuracies in your own beliefs and discard them in favor of more accurate positions. Of course it is - simply because we like to be right, we like to be sure, and often we like what God represents. It's a problem of human cognition - we will instinctively tend to assign a higher estimation of probability to results that we find personally satisfying. That's why rational consideration of evidence is necessary, and why it's difficult to do. But again, we don't live in a binary universe. We can;t say with certainty "this is right" and "this is wrong." We can say "this is more likely than that."I'm an atheist, not because of some arbitrary opinion, not because I find the prospect of no-gods to be more personally satisfying, not because I think I can positively prove that gods don;t exist.I'm an atheist because when I look at each god hypothesis of which I am aware, the observations I make in the real world more closely match the predictions of the hypothesis that there are no gods.I don't disbelieve in "the supernatural." I fully acknowledge that there is more territory than we have mapped out, and some of that unmapped territory could be identified as "supernatural." I simply strive to constantly modify my personal map to more closely reflect the territory of the universe - which means adding the most likely hypotheses to my set of beliefs and tentatively discarding the less likely until additional observations prompt a revision.If next month physicists discover that the laws of physics we know today are simply a subset of a much more complicated system that allows for events that would appear to violate the laws we think we know today, I would simply have to update my map to incorporate that previously unknown territory as we discover more of the real rules that govern existence.

Relative likelihood between competing theories based on the evidence available. That is Straggler's argument.If you want to get into evidence based conclusions as being necessarily the result of deductive processes to some extent - We can do that. This is partly why science deals in likelihood and not the sort of logical IF THEN certainties that RAZ relentlessly imposes on anyone he disagrees with.Straggler's argument (which are in addition to the same sort of arguments being made by Bluegenes re the random hypothesis - I.e. "guessing") is that there is not and never can be a complete vacuum of objective evidence.No matter how much RAZD requires that we consider such a situation the fact is that every single claim ever made by any human is made in the very evidenced arena of human psychology, culture and history.And it is this contextual evidence that means we can confidently say that the Easter Bunny, magical undetectable red jolly Santa, the IPU, gravity gnomes, Thetans and all those other unfalsifiable entities which RAZD is now necessarily agnostic towards can all be discarded as all but certainly made-up entities. The products of human invention. When I cite such entities I am not asking why the theist in question does not believe in all these entities as well as their particular god (as is usually assumed to be the case). I am asking how it is that we can all agree that these "unknowable" entities almost certainly do not exist and requiring them to apply the same forms of evidence consistently to all "unknowable" entities.All I ask, all I have ever asked, is that this same contextual evidence be taken into consideration when looking at the validity of god concepts. From where did the concept arise? Is it being used to explain a phenomenon (e.g. subjective experiences) that there are better evidenced explanations for? Has the god concept in question evolved from a prior god concept that has been effectively refuted by the filling of a gap (i.e. is it a god of the gaps in retreat)? Why do people feel the need to invoke god concepts to explain things they don't understand and cling onto aspects of these concepts long after said phenomenon has been understood? Why do we need to anthropomorphicise nature and does doing so inevitably lead to theism in some sense? These are the questions I think we should be asking if we want to identify false concepts.But all I ever get is a wall of "there is no evidence" and "you cannot prove gods do not exist".

Yeah you are a faith based agnostic with an opinion. I know. But where your use of the term "faith" departs from normal use is where you can only have faith within the limits of logic and reason. If one is going to have faith why must it be limited so?You seem to make up the rules to define the criteria to fit the scales that you yourself invent to justify your own position.And then in a pique of circularity you pronounce the internally consistent nature of these self defined rules, criteria and scales as some sort of all encompassing logical argument in favour of the position on which they were originally founded.

"No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis of the universe.

ah, bluegenes,then you are left with god did it of one kind or another eh?enjoy

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Still assuming the consequent, Rahvin? Because it identifies you as holding an irrational position of claiming to know something you don't? Except that it is your opinion, and not a conclusion based on empirical evidence. According to your opinion. This then leads you to confirmation bias. It is pure opinion. Claiming that it is not opinion doesn't prove a thing: you need to substantiate it with evidence.Making up hypothetical situations only proves Straggler's position that some people make some things up some of the time. Curiously sometimes is not very conclusive, and that is why - pure and simple - his much touted "evidence" is useless.Likewise your claim that the "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" can be shown by a number of instances to have been just evidence of an absence of evidence, and thus it can only be be considered (at best) true some of the time. Thus if fails for the same reason Stragglers "made up evidence" fails: it cannot lead to a conclusion if it is only true some of the time and you cannot tell when it is true.Assuming that you can would be the logical fallacy of using part for the whole, assuming the consequent, etc etc etc.

Argument 1
• There is no empirical objective evidence that X true
• The absence of evidence is evidence that premise 1 is most likely false
∴ X (most likely, high probability, etc) is false.

If Argument 1 is a logically valid construction for X, then it is also valid for Y:

Argument 2
• There is no empirical objective evidence that Y is true
• The absence of evidence is evidence that premise 1 is is most likely false
∴ Y (most likely, high probability, etc) is false.

Let Y = notX and you end up with X and notX both being (most likely, high probability, etc) is false.You end up with a contradiction because premise 2 - the common premise, the premise you use - is false.Amusingly the absence of evidence for god/s cannot be used to contradict in any way the absence of evidence for no god/s because that would be confirming the consequent.The absence of evidence is only evidence of the absence of evidence.Here is why your probability argument is false: You need empirical evidence, not wishful thinking based on something that is true sometimes and false sometimes, that you have no idea how often true vs false, and no way of telling whether true or false in any specific instance. In your opinion.Like Straggler's made up evidence, all you have is opinion based on confirmation bias, where you only see the result you want to see and ignore the contrary results. This, of course, is the reason for the lottery analogy. Cognitive dissonance avoidance behavior.You base your probability argument regardng the existence of god/s on their being a large number of tickets in the lottery, so the likelihood of one ticket winning is minute, and conclude that it is probable that the lottery will not be won because of this minute possibility for any single ticket, correct?Your problem though is not whether a single specific ticket wins the lottery, but whether the lottery is won by any ticket.

quote:

---

Does the hypothesis that no one will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that one specifically identified ticket will win the lottery?

---

You have assumed that it has a higher probability, yes?

quote:

---

Does the hypothesis that someone will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that no one will win?

---

This is the probability that you have not taken into consideration. Now one could argue that the probability is higher that the lottery will be won than not, and thus that it is more rational to conclude that it is probable that god/s exist ... if one were to use your logic.Basing an argument on a perceived probability that is made up (a pseudo-probability) is really just you expressing your opinion.If you cannot actually measure and document the actual probability, then what you have is opinion based on your personal biases and worldview.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : typo

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Straggler, It's also limited by not being contradicted by any known empirical evidence.If you eliminate beliefs that are self contradictory or that are contradicted by evidence, then you are left with ones that may be true. Curiously, these are the same tests I have proposed here as means to identify false religions, and note that this is not restricted just to religious beliefs.Having demonstrated that this "evidence" is incapable of showing what you want to show - because it is only true some of the time (and you can't tell when) - does not leave me in denial. No, I start with being logically agnostic, and then look to see if there are any valid reasons to believe X or notX. Amusingly I have stated my position many times on many threads to many people. I could give you my opinion, but it is only opinion, and not a conclusion based on facts.I also see absolutely no reason to form a conclusion on this, and it should be no surprise to you, based on previous debates. Amusingly, I also let my son reach his own conclusions. Perhaps you remember this:

quote:

---

An Exploration Into"Agnosticism" Message 75: Why do you feel so compelled to decide ... what is wrong with being an agnostic?

question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
|                        |
yes                       no
|                        |
decide based               is a
on empirical             decision
valid evidence            necessary?
(A)                  /         \
yes          no
/            |
decide         why
based on       decide
inadequate      at this
evidence        time?
=guess         =wait
(B)            (C)

(A) is a position based on empirical evidence that is validated and confirmed.
(B) is a position based on worldview evaluation of available evidence.
(C) is agnostic

---

The fourth option is to decide based on opinion whether you need to make a decision or not, which seems to be your obsession. You then make up reasons for your decision, and think that this shows that your decision was rational.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : end

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

No. "No god did it" is not an explanatory hypothesis because it leaves the universe unexplained.Random explanatory hypothesis: The universe was created by the fart of a celestial cow.Like the god hypothesis, this is random because there's no positive evidence to support it.What you're trying to do is give one random hypothesis that explains the universe special privilege. Does it make sense to you that the celestial cow hypothesis becomes likely merely because it can't be conclusively disproved?This is where you get into trouble. I described the religion of Mr. X further up the thread. Because it cannot be conclusively disproved, then, by your own arguments, you are uncommitted on Mr. X's god, and therefore the age of the earth, and everything else in science, because you are uncommitted on the role of a devil who sows illusions in your mind.I dismiss Mr. X's god and his satan primarily because there's no positive evidence to support their existence, to which I can add the evidence that our species has a proven tendency to invent such things (there are many "one true gods").So, I can post on science threads without contradiction, but you can't, and you should be retracting any definite statements you've made on the age of the earth and anything else in science if you want to continue arguing that you are uncommitted on Mr. X's god.

Hi bluegenes,Amusingly you missed it again. Actually what I have said time and again is that as god/s have not been invalidated that they remain a possibility. No one single random hypothesis is chosen in the process.You have the same erroneous thinking shown above by the lottery example:

quote:

---

Message 134: Assume we have a lottery, and there an unknown number of tickets sold:

​

Does the hypothesis that no one will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that one specifically identified ticket will win the lottery?

​

Does the hypothesis that someone will win the lottery have a higher or lower probability than the hypothesis that no one will win?

---

We can agree that the probability that one specific ticket will win is small, but that isn't the whole picture, no matter how much you pretend that it is. Ignoring the second hypothesis does not make it go away.The question is whether or not the lottery will be won by any ticket. Amusingly, all you have done is assume that your opinion is true, while I recognize that they are opinions. Curiously, this does not make your posts on science threads any more valid than mine.All you have done is begged the question by first assuming you are correct and then using your assumption as evidence that you are making a logical conclusion. You can't use an assumed conclusion as your premise for the conclusion. ... any pretense on your part for concluding that it is false, is you just expressing your opinion, without having sufficient evidence to substantiate it, and then pretending that it is true. This makes you a pseudoskeptic or a hypocrite. And because you have eliminate this from the list, this means that you can't use any explanation that does not use god/s in it, as they are part and parcel of the "no god did it" explanation package.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi Catholic Scientist, how's the dirt biking? And as we have seen, when it relies on opinion yet claims to have knowledge of likelihood\probability without evidence supporting it, that it is not logical.Conclusions based on opinion and belief (worldview) are not (strictly speaking) rational conclusions, whether deist, theist or atheist. We can acknowledge that they are opinions, or we can pretend to know something that is not known from empirical evidence. One is rational, the other irrational, whether deist, theist or atheist.Opinions based on opinion and belief (worldview) that are logically consistent with all known evidence and are not contradicted by evidence can be considered rational opinions, whether deist, theist or atheist (else one is engaged in special pleading)Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
R ebel A merican Z en D eist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Anyone who chooses to consider the existence of the unfalsifiable magical Easter Bunny and who concludes that this entity is almost certainly made-up is, by the terms of your argument, a pseudoskeptic.By the terms of your argument one must remain wholly agnostic (i.e. very uncertain) if one is to remain rational with regard to the existence of the Easter Bunny. I am unsurprised that you are unwilling to come straight out and say that your argument necessarily results in the rational conclusion regarding the Easter Bunny to be agnosticism. The same degree of agnsoticism that applies to god no less.Because it makes your argument look rather silly. Since when did burying ones head in the sand with regard to concepts that one doesn't want to be quizzed on for fear of looking foolish constitute a valid or reasoned response? As do I. But at the age of 4 he could do with some guidance on how to reach reasoned conclusions. This is what I was seeking from you.Apparently your son (whom I assume is an adult?) can be of the opinion that the Easter Bunny does indeed actually exist and still consider himself to be wholly rational. As long as he remians very uncertain of this conclusion. Likewise, if he has followed your teachings on rationality, he will consider those of us who strongly believe the Easter Bunny to be a human invention and not a real entity with the same disdain you consider my atheistic "pseudoskepticism" with regard to god(s).Hopefully he has not adopted your teachings on this matter. Or, if he has, I hope for his sake that like you he has the good sense to simply refuse to be quizzed on the subject for fear of looking entirely ridiculous. If people ask me to consider a concept I will. And considered agnosticism may well be the result if I genuinely think there to be insufficient evidence. But in my world, the real world, falsification is not the be all and end all of evidence based conclusions.I guess the difference between you and I is that I am not embarressed by the conclusions that my arguments result in. So I have no need to refuse to consider the questions people put to me.Will you state it clearly RAZ? Will you actually come out and say that you consider those of us who have concluded that the Easter Bunny almost certainly does not actually exist are irrational pseudoskeptics? My own addition would be to seek evidence that indicates the origin of the concepts or concept involved. With falsification being unnecessary to conclude unlikelihood of actual existence if the evidence strongly indicates that the concept has arisen for reasons other than being a part of objective reality. E.g. the origins of the concept that is fat jolly magical but undetectable and unfalsifiable Santa Claus.Is that so unreasonable? Says the man whose circular use of self defined rules, criteria and scales to justify the position on which those rules, criteria and scales are constructed is becoming almost legendary.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.