Identifying false religions.

The old unfalsifiability trick again huh. If there is a wealth of objective evidence in favour of a competing theory then it is quite obviously rational to give that explanation more credence than an unevidenced explanation. No matter how unfalsifiable the unevidenced explanation may be. Do you actually disagree with this?Failure to acknowledge this fact will leave you in your usual position of being confronted with a collection of questions regarding the unfalsifiable concepts that you loathe so much but have no actual answers to. Is it rational to give undetectable gravity gnomes equal billing as an explanation for gravitational effects as space-time curvature? Is it really sensible to state our undying agnosticism to the idea that Immaterial Pink Unicorns are magically manipulating E-coli experiments to trick us into believing bacteria can evolve? Can we falsify these possibilities? How much evidence do we need in favour of an alternative before we can legitimately conclude that the unevidenced but unfalsifiable possibility is probably wrong? Why must it be purely opinion? Why can conclusions that lack absolute certainty not be evidence based? In fact is that not the norm? Are not all evidence based conclusions necessarily made on the basis of incomplete evidence and thus tenative to some degree anyway?

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".

I could say the same about you and your position on falsification. I guess we are both just keen to exchange pleasantries yet again. As we have both previously agreed there never ever is an absolute vacuum of all evidence. All claims are made in the objectively evidenced arena of human history, psychology and culture. Ignore that at your peril. Well let's take an example of an actual religion that we might even be able to agree on. Scientology. Thetans as far as I understand the concept are unfalsifiable. Many would claim that they are designed to be unfalsifiable. Where exactly do you stand on Thetans?Probably a human invention? Complete Agnosticism with any doubt on your part being nothing more than personal bias and worldview? Are you maybe even a believer?Where do you stand on Thetans RAZ? False? Are you arguing in black and white terms of logical certitude again? How about almost certainly a human invention based on the evidence available? That would be my basic answer.As it is to Santa and the Easter Bunny and all those other unfalsifiable entities that you so hate me mentioning whenever you fly off on your falsification by numbers routine.

Awwwwww!!! There are an infinite number of possible wholly unevidenced god concepts. Even if we accept that one is definitely correct (quite an asumption!!!) the probability that any given concept advocated by any given believer is correct is astronomically small to the point of irrelevant.

You have amended and ambiguified your terminology in this thread but your entire point here is nothing other than a rehash of your much stated and discredited demands for disproof. Etc.No amount of evidence favouring human invention can ever in practise actually disprove the existence of any concept envisaged to be empirically irrefutable. No matter how blatantly made-up that concept may be. From gods to the Easter Bunny via Thetans and the IPU along with her infinite army of allies. As such there is no point discussing evidence with you until you accept that disproving things is as unnecessary as it is futile. Will you agree that disproving unfalsifiable god concepts is an unnecessary step in determining whether or not a religion is probably false?What test can we undertake to prove that the magical and empirically unknowable Easter Bunny can not exist or does not exist?Does this have any significant bearing on our conclusion as to whether or not this particular entity actually exists?These are not rhetorical questions.

Actually RAZ has declared himself to be a faith based agnostic with a deistic opinion.See below. So RAZ is an agnostic deist. Here we see that he is an agnostic with deistic leanings based on subjective "evidence". Being bound by the limits of logic and reason as he is RAZ continues to state that he is an agnostic with a desitic opinion founded on subjective evidence. Here he re-expresses his deistic opinion. If you follow the various links you will be rewarded with RAZD's bewildering attempt to mathematicalise the logic of belief and the limits he imposes by means of his ever-changing array of scales.It is truly fascinating stuff. Once again the paramount importance of logic and reason are stated with regard to the limits on belief. And here we see RAZ's original position on his deistic faith which discludes logic as having any bearing whatsoever.Make of all this what you will.......But don't say you have not been warned......

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.

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.

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.

Nobody here disgrees that gods are a possibility. Do you still not understand that?Do you accept that the farting celestial cow hypothesis is an equally valid possibility?That is the question.And if not - Why not?

After 18 months of persistence on my part have you finally come round to the idea that evidence favouring human invention makes falsifying the unfalsifiable wholly unnececessary.Let us try to build on this. Yes let's. Now that you have agreed that falsification is unnecessary we can potentially move on to discuss the sort of evidence mentioned here Message 499. But before we do that you have one major stumbling block of a question to answer: Question: If the god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?I want to use your most cited example of that which has been falsified to see if we agree of the limits of evidence based certainty.It is both conceivable and philosophically possible that the falsification for a 10,000 year old flooded Earth could itself be falsified. Yes?We could find Noah's Ark. Yahweh could subsequently reveal himself with an explanation as to why he made the Earth empirically appear to be older.This is an unfalsified possibility - Yes?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Question: If the specific god under consideration is immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable how can it have originated as a human concept from anywhere other than the internal workings of the human mind?

I will take it from this (unless you state otherwise in response to this) that you now accept that any specific god concepts that are immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable must be considered to be purely products of human invention.This is significant progress. If the specific god under consideration isn't immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then we are talking about empirically detectable gods which can be investigated by the methods of science. The issue of whether or not the concept in question can be scientifically investigated is really rather significant as to how we progress on this is it not?

We agree that it started there. You seem to be suggesting that it should not end there. But why rationally should we pursue the human invention of god any more avidly than we would pursue any other blatant product of human imagination? If one defines ones invention to be unimaginable I suppose one will be able to say that ones invention is unimaginable. I am not sure what your point is here? Some people believe in an invented god that they are able to imagine. Others believe in an invented god that they define to be conceptually unimaginable.This seems like a rather insignificant difference in terms of concluding that such beliefs are solely products of the human mind.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

If Kermit the frog exists, then Kermit the frog exists regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does not exist.If Kermit the frog does not exist, then Kermit the frog does not exist regardless of any evidence or belief that Kermit the frog does exist. Only in so far as it takes care of absolutely anything one applies this statement to. It could be equally applied to anything from Santa Claus to raspberry jam via the Matrix and the Higgs Boson. And if this god is both immaterial and wholly empirically undetectable then, as you previously wholeheartedly agreed, it is necessarily the case that this concept originated as a product of human imagination. How could it be otherwise? I fail to see what difference adding the additional attributes of being vastly superior and unimaginable to ones imagined concept makes to this logical conclusion? Why worship or oppose any concept that we know must have been made-up?