... For instance, someone who thinks they saw Bigfoot would presumably consider it more genuine than their preference for chocolate cake, even if they were simply mistaken about that observation of Bigfoot.
They should be distinguishable by the person with the private evidence.
Agreed, as I pointed out ad nauseum to Straggler regarding the value of subjective (personal experience) evidence, and this is the difference between level I and level II concepts, however it is still opinion. Said person is of the opinion that they saw bigfoot.
No, the latter two are insanity if they are not accompanied by evidence. Deciding to believe that something exists simply based on personal preference and a lack of contradictory evidence sums up what I would view as mental illness.
Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence.
Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false.
It is still making a decision based on an absence of evidence, rather than just not making a decision.
I can be totally agnostic on the issue of bigfoot, and that means I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim of the person who had a personal experience (subjective evidence) and they are of the opinion that they saw bigfoot.
I can also be of the opinion that whether I believe or not, there are plenty of people looking for evidence, so I can wait to see if more persuasive evidence turns up: I don't need to rush out and start looking myself.
Those who base their interpretation of what exists in reality on personal opinion alone are in my opinion engaging in unsound thinking practices.
And you are free to have that opinion. Curiously, it will have little effect on whether the opinions of others are true or not.
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?
and if it isn't?
Then it is empirically detectable and able to be investigated empirically.[/qs]
Which still does not address the question of whether or not god/s exist.
Are the god concepts under discussion empirically imperceptible or not?
Irrelevant. Either they exist or they don't. Your personal ability (or lack) to perceive or detect them is not required for their continued (if they do) existence.
RAZD writes:
Whether you can identify actual tests that show that actual beliefs are false is the issue of this thread.
And how we go about this will very much depend on whether or not you are talking about empirically detectable gods or not.
No, it depends only upon talking about false beliefs and determining that they are false.
Whether god/s exist or not is relatively inconsequential to the question of false beliefs.
Belief in the IPU, and what the IPU means, can be totally irrelevant to the existence of god/s
Would you like to point to a bluegenes post in which the claim is made that bluegenes can make a probability calculation on what books you've got in your room? Would you like to point to a bluegenes post that makes the claim that bluegenes can make probability calculations on everything in the world?
Ah so finally it sinks in that you have no basis for judging the likelihood of the existence of god/s, that you have nothing more than your personal opinion, based on your worldview and biases.
Here you go:
What bluegenes claims is this: It is rational and productive to make probability estimates on many things without being able to mathematically quantify the probability.
In other words you make up pseudo-probabilities to fit your opinion/s, rather than have any real calculation.
You call it rational, I call it confirmation bias, based on your worldview, opinions, experiences and biases, with a touch of cognitive dissonance thrown in for good measure.
The probability is either 1 or 0 that there is a non-science fiction book in my library.
The probability is either 1 or 0 that god/s exist.
Said person is of the belief that they saw Bigfoot as an objective observation, distinct from their subjective opinions on other things. Anyone else they make the claim to may be unable to distinguish this from their opinion, but the observer presumably *can*.
Or they could be mistaken. An open-minded skeptic would say "I think I saw a bigfoot, but I could be wrong."
Note, that I argued with Straggler that such a person would have a valid reason to believe that they saw bigfoot (or an alien, etc), however I don't think they necessarily would come to that conclusion. It would depend on the person, how committed they are to believing their experience was what they thought it was.
The point is that the observer's "opinion" of seeing Bigfoot as you state it shouldn't be confused with other opinions, such as their preference for there being a million dollars in their bank account, or preference for there to be a god. The observer *must* be able to distinguish these things with some regularity, otherwise they are suffering from mental illness.
Let's not confuse the issue with preferences. Having a "preference for there being a million dollars in their bank account" does not necessarily mean they would be of the opinion or belief that there is a million dollars in their bank account. It certainly does not affect my opinion or belief about the amount in my account.
I don't think there is that much difference between belief and opinion in practice:
versus
There might be some difference in connotations, but do these words form different levels of confidence in their validity: is belief more valid than opinion or opinion more valid than belief? Is one more likely to be true than the other?
And by doing so you lack belief in Bigfoot's existence, correct?
No, I am open minded to the possibility that bigfoot may exist, but remain skeptical about it, needing more evidence before deciding one way or the other.
rational vs irrational? or another false dichotomy (again)?
Hi Rahvin (et al)
What's been rankling Straggler for months now (and prompted me to limit participation in threads that start down this road) is that RAZD claims that it is rational to hold any unfalsified logically valid position - that tentative belief or disbelief is a matter of personal opinion.
If it is a logically valid concept that isn't falsified by empirical evidence, then it can't really be irrational (no matter how much you may want it to be), basically by definition:
What's been "rankling Straggler for months now" is that he cannot demonstrate that the agnostic position is irrational, while I have demonstrated that his position fails the test of logical analysis.
As it related to deities, RAZD says that the only truly logical position is total agnosticism,
As has been amply demonstrated (except that I wouldn't say total), for any concept where there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, the concept for the formation of a logical conclusion.
... but that it is perfectly rational to slightly believe or disbelieve in gods according to one's own opinion.
Specifically WHEN there is an absence of contrary evidence that would invalidate or falsify the opinion.
OR to disbelieve in god/s (as atheists are fond of doing) based on one's own opinion. Curious that you keep ignoring this part.
When there is not sufficient evidence for, nor sufficient evidence against, a concept for the formation of a logical conclusion, THEN the only basis one has for making a decision is opinion (based on personal worldview, experiences and biases). This is true whether you decide to believe or disbelieve a concept.
There is no functional difference between an atheist belief or a theist belief in this regard, so if you allow the atheist beleif to be rational then you allow the similar theist belief to be rational, or one is guilty of special pleading etc.
Straggler and I (and others) disagree rather strongly. We think that there are several reasons to believe that the existence of gods is less likely than the nonexistence of gods, and so the only rational belief is that gods tentatively do not exist, pending additional evidence. We don't think "opinion" has anything to do with it, that it's simply the only rational conclusion (ie, the most likely amongst all logically valid hypotheses).
And yet, curiously, all you have is opinion. You and Straggler and bluegenes etc can all have a high opinion of your own opinion/s, but somehow that fails to amount to anything more than confirmation bias towards your own opinions (something everyone is guilty of, and thus proves nothing).
Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence.
Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence.
(now): So you don't believe Bigfoot exists, but you cannot say it because your personal cult of insanity doesn't allow you to admit it for fear of becoming an atheist.
Amusingly, I am agnostic - totally agnostic - on the question of bigfoot, as pointed out:
Message 226: I can be totally agnostic on the issue of bigfoot, and that means I neither believe nor disbelieve the claim of the person who had a personal experience (subjective evidence) and they are of the opinion that they saw bigfoot.
Message 244: No, I am open minded to the possibility that bigfoot may exist, but remain skeptical about it, needing more evidence before deciding one way or the other.
It's more like lacking disbelief.
So my "personal cult of insanity" has forced me to take "the only reasonable position" on the issue of bigfoot?
Perhaps you don't understand the difference ... it's also like lacking an opinion.
Message 224: Keep in mind that deciding not to believe a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is false.
Keep in mind that deciding not to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding that the claim is true.
Keep in mind that deciding not to decide until there is more evidence is not the same as having an opinion\belief\etc that the concept is either true OR false.
No, your "personal cult of insanity" has prevented you from phrasing the reasonable position in a particular manner.
No, the agnostic position requires it be phrased that way. It is necessarily impartial.
I hope you understand this isn't contradictory to my statement that "you don't believe Bigfoot exists", right? It would be a shame if you still didn't understand agnosticism to the existence of something implied lack of belief in its existence.
Once again, I don't disbelieve that bigfoot exists: the agnostic position is not to take sides without evidence that substantiates it.
You cannot force agnosticism into your (atheistic) position no matter how hard you try.
Keep in mind that deciding to disbelieve a claim is not the same as deciding the claim is false.
No, it means that you decided to disbelieve, that you have made a choice based on insufficient evidence, the kind of choice that you previously labeled "insane" ...
Message 224: No, the latter two are insanity if they are not accompanied by evidence.
Message 227:
RAZD writes:
Sorry, special pleading. The agnostic position is the only one supported by logic, so if any choices are "insanity" then it is both positions that take an opinion (true or false) based on a lack of evidence.
Pardon, I mean "the other two" as you said, not the latter two. Agnosticism is indeed the only reasonable position in a complete lack of evidence.
The agnostic position does not decide to believe it is true OR false. It doesn't believe, it doesn't disbelieve, it is undecided.
Your position is not agnostic because you have chosen to disbelieve.
No, your "personal cult of insanity" ...
Curiously, using ad hominem and emotive labels like this does not advance your argument, nor does it address the issue/s.
Gosh, a direct question instead of pretending (again) to know?
Hi Straggler, you should know these answers, but it is evident that you have ignored previous posts in your obsession to misunderstand me.
1) Is your belief in your god irrational?
This has been addressed before.
My belief is a personal opinion, based on my worldview, experiences and biases, that god/s do exist.
Because it is an opinion and not a conclusion based on facts and empirical evidence, it is not a rational conclusion. No unsubstantiated opinion is.
When we talk about the logic of the position, I will tell you (again) that I am skeptical of my personal opinion, and that the best I can conclude logically is that god/s may exist.
Because this is not contradicted by facts or empirical evidence, it is not an irrational opinion to hold, while waiting for more information that could confirm or refute my opinion.
2) Is atheism towards your god irrational?
This too has been addressed before:
The conclusion that it is possible that god/s may not exist level of atheism is just as rational as the conclusion that it is possible that god/s may exist level of theism. (see below).
NOTE: By atheism I don't mean absolute denial of existence. I mean the conclusion that the actual existence of this creator of "all that is seen and unseen" is highly improbable.
The conclusion that it is "highly improbable" that god/s do not exist level of atheism is just as irrational as the conclusion that it is "highly probable" that god/s do exist level of theism.
The conclusion that it "is highly improbable\probable" is what makes these conclusions irrational, as they are not supported by anything other than personal opinion, confirmation bias, and wishful thinking.
This was proven, and the proof has been posted several times. Here it is again, fleshed out a bit to perhaps help drive the point home:
Compare:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is possibly true • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) can be true
to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) is absolutely true
And to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
NOW:
If the logical form is true for any X, then it is true for any Y, or the logical structure is invalid. This is logic 101 stuff.
Let Y = notX to test the above arguments for valid structure:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is possibly true • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) can be true == notX(a) can be true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) still can be true true, because these conclusions are not mutually exclusive ... thus the logic is valid, and a true conclusion is reached:
∴ X(a) can be true ∴ Y(a) can be true
Either of these conclusions is rational, being based on valid logic.
Now consider the others:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) is absolutely true == notX(a) is absolutely true ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) must still be absolutely true ... which is a direct contradiction ... or the structure of the argument is invalid: unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true, this conclusion is invalid: 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 it is the first premise that must be invalid, and thus the conclusion does not follow from the argument.
∴ X(a) is absolutely true ∴ Y(a) is absolutely true
Either of these conclusions is irrational, being based on invalid logic.
OR:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false == notX(a) is more likely true than false ...
... and by the form of the argument, X(a) must still be more likely true than false ... which is still a contradiction ... or the structure of the argument is invalid: unless you have objective empirical evidence that directly contradicts one or the other being true, this conclusion is invalid: 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 invalid here as well, and thus this conclusion also does not follow from the argument.
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false ∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
Either of these conclusions is irrational, being based on invalid logic.
Now the choice is yours: rational opinion
∴ X(a) can be true ∴ Y(a) can be true
OR irrational opinion.
∴ X(a) is more likely true than false ∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
Either way it is opinion unsupported by facts and empirical evidence.
But neither fat jolly magically undetectable Santa Claus nor the empirically undetectable Easter Bunny have been empirically falsified.
Empiical evidence showed that the modern santa clause is a product of fiction where a number of people are documented embellishing the original folk tale, and the original folk tale was shown by empirical evidence to have a likely source in an actual historical figure.
You have not done this for the easter bunny yet, that I am aware, so you cannot claim results you have not demonstrated.
Yet you quite sensibly accept that the actual existence of these entities has been refuted ...
I showed you how this process of using empirical evidence to show embellishment of old folk tales into modern myths could be done.
I also said that you need to do this for every case you wish to discuss, as you cannot assume that what applies in one case must apply in another.
Further, I am on record as saying that these entities are totally irrelevant to the issue of whether god/s exist or not: showing that santa clause is an embellished folk tale does not address whether god/s exist, as santa clause has never been considered a god per se, and certainly not one involved in the (possible) creation of the universe.
Nattering on about these entities is not addressing the issue of the existence of god/s that could be involved in the creation of the universe.
The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity ...
No, your logic is faulty again. That would be the old all a is b, b: therefore a logical fallacy that you seem to love so well.
You don't know that god/s are necessarily undetectable or imperceptible, so you are assuming the consequent.
And even for your precious empirically imperceptible entity, lack of information about it does not mean that it does not exist, just that you lack information about it.
One could consider the question of whether god/s exist, and what one would expect to see if that were the case. If those expectations are met, one could say that the existence of god/s can be logically deduced.
This is the fact you refuse to confront.
curiously, I have refuted your false logic several times, but it seems to make no dent on your preconceptions.
Would you agree that saying you don't believe gods exist is technically true considering your agnosticism, but that it does not fully state your position?
Amusingly, it doesn't come close to my position, but perhaps we should stay focused on bigfoot for now, before you add misinterpretation to misrepresentation to misunderstanding, and end up with more posts about correcting you, than building on understanding (like Straggler).
Disbelief is not the same thing as lacking belief.
Correct it is active denial, while lacking belief is passive. But you still focus on only one side of the issue.
There are in general three answers to the question of belief in Bigfoot's existence:
1) I believe Bigfoot exists. 2) I don't know/care/etc. 3) I believe Bigfoot does not exist.
Completely impartial agnosticism, your position, is number 2. Number 1 is belief in Bigfoot. "Not believing" in Bigfoot encompasses everything that isn't number 1; that means 2 and 3, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.
If what you claim is valid, then "believing" encompasses everthing that is not number 3; that means that 1 and 2, and any additional options we happen to dream up later.
This means that the 2 position can involve both belief and disbelief at the same time. This is indeed possible within agnosticism, with low (confidence) levels of belief\disbelief.
The real problem with your black and white approach, however, is that belief is a spectrum and disbelief is a spectrum and there is a lot of overlapping possibilities. There is no line between belief and disbelief, but a spectrum of positions.
Look at Message 344, for there are a number of different levels of belief\disbelief:
quote:
Compare:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is possibly true • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) can be true
to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) is absolutely true
And to:
• any X with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false • X(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ X(a) is more likely true than false
Those are 3 different levels of belief that X(a) is true.
We can also look at the similar converse positions:
quote:
Let Y = notX to test the above arguments for valid structure:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is possibly true • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) can be true
... Now consider the others:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is absolutely true • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) is absolutely true
... OR:
• any Y with no contradictory evidence is more likely true than false • Y(a) has no contradictory evidence ∴ Y(a) is more likely true than false
Those are 3 different levels of belief that X(a) is false.
These cover the spectrum of possible beliefs and disbeliefs:
• possible • likely • absolute
One can adopt some multiple positions as well
• possibly true, and possibly false • likely true, but possibly, albeit unlikely, false • likely false, but possibly, albeit unlikely, true
Of course the latter two positions require evidence to substantiate the (extraordinary?) claim to known the likelihood of one versus the other, or it is just unsubstantiated opinion and belief in an non-rational conclusion
Therefore, you don't believe Bigfoot exists.
Wrong again.
I believe that it is possible that bigfoot exists, and I also believe it is possible that bigfoot does not exist, but neither of these beliefs are strong enough to form a formal opinion at this time, due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
How do you know the decision is based on insufficient evidence? The lack of evidence to support the claim is, when considering the claim, sufficient evidence to dismiss the claim as unreliably representing the truth.
In your opinion, but sadly (for your) this is not a logical conclusion. The logical conclusion is to be agnostic.
The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but only evidence of an absence of evidence. Logical fallacies are insufficient by definition.
If there is actual evidence is sufficient for the formation of a valid logical conclusion, then it needs to be presented to show that the conclusion is valid and must follow from the evidence.
But we both know that there is no such convincing evidence, as there have been literally thousands of posts on this issue, and evidence has yet to be presented that is actual empirical evidence that god/s do not in fact exist: all we have seen is confirmation bias coupled with wishful thinking and logical fallacies.
Your religious agnosticism is an atheistic position. Atheism is not the claim that gods don't exist, it is simply the lack of belief that gods exist.
Wrong again.
See? you haven't settled the bigfoot issue and already you are making false claims based on your misinterpretation and misrepresentation due to misunderstanding.
Agnosticism is not the same as atheist, and this is self evidence by all the atheists (including you) arguing against the agnostic position.
As an atheist I am perfectly open to the possibility that gods exist, but I don't consider that the standard of evidence required to validate such a claim has been met.
As a deist I believe that god/s exist, and logically conclude from the available evidence that it is indeed possible that god/s exist: I don't consider that the standard of evidence required to invalidate such a claim has been met.
This belief that god/s do exist is not rational (ie based on logic and evidence) nor irrational (contrary to logic and evidence), per se, rather it is non-rational. It is opinion, based on my personal worldview, experiences and biases, which I freely recognize as opinion, and do not expect anyone to accept in any way.
The belief that god/s may exist, however is rational, as it is a valid logical conclusion (see Message 344 for proof) that is not contradicted by contrary evidence. I do expect (at least some) people to understand that this is a logically valid conclusion, even if they do not agree with it.
As an atheist I am perfectly open to the possibility that gods exist, ...
Which is my point: it is rational to consider that god/s may exist. The only difference is which side of the 'coin' we think ends up on top: either is possible, but I call heads and you call tails. For now, though, the coin is in the air, so we don't really know.
You've missed out on a long and drawn out discussion, so we are likely to repeat stuff that has been covered before.
I don't see how it can be an "opinion." Opinions are valid subjectively, and differ from individual to individual. But taking a position about the existence of gods can't be an opinion - God either exists or doesn't. He can't exist for you and not exist for me; one of us must be wrong.
Your opinion is that god/s do not exist.
My opinion is that god/s do exist.
Opinion is like belief:
quote:Opinion Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com opinion -n. 1. A belief or conclusion held with confidence but not substantiated by positive knowledge or proof: "The world is not run by thought, nor by imagination, but by opinion" (Elizabeth Drew). ... The American Heritage Dictionary 2009
Neither of these opinions is contradicted by currently available evidence (that I am aware of), and so they are both valid opinions: we just don't know which one is true at this time.
That's not an opinion; that's a position. You take one that is contradicted by the available evidence. That's rarely rational.
That's your opinion, which you are entitled to, however opinion -on it's own- has proven curiously incapable of affecting reality.
Contradicted by evidence? Please present your evidence, for you are making an extraordinary claim.
Actually I believe you are wrong RAZD. Is not it more rational to acknowledge that the burden of proof is required for the one who is proposing the evidence that something/someone exists than the other way around?
The burden of proof is born by anyone claiming knowledge that something exists or is likely to exist AND by anyone claiming knowledge that something does not exist or is not likely to exist.
The burden of proof is born by anyone asserting that you must believe or consider the validity of a claim.
Conversely, I can say that I like chocolate ice cream, but that doesn't mean I need to prove it. Only if I claim that chocolate ice cream is the best flavor, and that you must like it as well, would I need to provide evidence that this is so.
Curiously, if someone claims that my liking for chocolate ice cream is irrational\delusional\insane, then they are making a claim that needs to be supported by objective empirical evidence.
If someone claims to know absolutely that X is true, then they need to provide objective empirical evidence that this is so.
If someone claims to know enough to have an informed opinion that X is likely true, then they need to provide the objective empirical evidence that informs that opinion, and evidence that shows that a substantial proportion of all conceivable possibilities are known.
Do we really have to prove the existance of everything that is proposed to exist in order to be considered 'rational'? Is it as rational to believe in the unsubstantiated existance of dragons, faries, teapots orbiting Uranus or any other flight of fancy that our human minds can conjure up as not believing in these things until emperical evidence can be provided?
Short answer: no. We can be apathetic to many concepts, and we can form opinions about others, based on our world view, experiences and biases, as long as those opinions are not contradicted by known evidence.
Long answer: consider why any decision on such matters is in any way critical.
question
|
is there sufficient valid
information available to decide
| |
yes no
| |
decide based is a
on empirical decision
valid evidence necessary?
(A) / \
yes no ... but ...
/ | |
decide why make a
based on decide decision
inadequate at this anyway
evidence time? based on
=guess =wait opinion
(B) (C) (D)
Amusingly, I can put dragons, faries, teapots, etc. in category (C) and wait for other people to sort it out.
Fascinatingly, many people often feel that they must make a decision even though there is insufficient evidence to reach an (A) conclusion, and end up in (D).
Now if some person asserts that I must make a decision on something that they claim could be true (dragons, faries, teapots, etc.), then aren't they making a claim that should be substantiated with evidence that such concepts are actually worth considering?
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : messed up again by new board html coding ban .....
I would correct you and say that my position is that gods don't exist, and your position is that one does. Opinions are subjective, but if God exists he must do so objectively. If God is an actually real thing he's objectively, not subjectively real.
It doesn't matter to me what you call it, it is still just your opinion, based on your world view, life experiences and biases.
the place, situation, or location of a person or thing: he took up a position to the rear
the appropriate or customary location: the telescope is in position for use
the arrangement or disposition of the body or a part of the body: the corpse was found in a sitting position
the manner in which a person or thing is placed; arrangement
military an area or point occupied for tactical reasons
mental attitude; point of view; stand: what's your position on this issue?
social status or standing, esp high social standing
a post of employment; job
the act of positing a fact or viewpoint
something posited, such as an idea, proposition, etc
sport the part of a field or playing area where a player is placed or where he generally operates
music
See also root position the vertical spacing or layout of the written notes in a chord. Chords arranged with the three upper voices close together are in close position . Chords whose notes are evenly or widely distributed are in open position
one of the points on the fingerboard of a stringed instrument, determining where a string is to be stopped
in classical prosody
the situation in which a short vowel may be regarded as long, that is, when it occurs before two or more consonants
make position (of a consonant, either on its own or in combination with other consonants, such as x in Latin) to cause a short vowel to become metrically long when placed after it
finance the market commitment of a dealer in securities, currencies, or commodities: a long position ; a short position
(foll by an infinitive) in a position able (to): I'm not in a position to reveal these figures
position (6): mental attitude; point of view; stand: what's your position on this issue?
== opinion.
position (9): the act of positing a fact or viewpoint
posit --n 3. a fact, idea, etc, that is posited; assumption
To posit is to assume the statement is true.
== opinion.
For instance, the existence of evil contradicts the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent God.
So ... if god/s exist, then they would not meet your criteria for "benevolent, omnipotent" gods. You're expectations could be what is false here, rather than the existence of gods, so this is not evidence that god/s do not exist, just that your expectations are not met.
Now I personally do not expect god/s to be benevolent or malevolent or concerned in any way with the human life experiences or conceptions of the welfare of human life on earth, so I don't have that problem.
Your "evidence" fails to address the issue of whether god/s exist or not.
This would seem to be an unassailable basis from which to assert any old nonsense: "the sky is blue." "That's your opinion; mine is that it's green."
So you're saying that my position is that the sky is blue, and your position is that the sky is green, and that this terminology magically changes these positions from being opinions.
Amusingly, this demonstrates graphically that opinion (or position) is not capable of altering reality. What we can do is compare recorded wavelengths of light from the sky to the spectrum of light with our subjective nomenclature for the various ranges of light, and demonstrate that the light from the sky falls within the range labeled "blue" (and sometimes shades of red to purple, occasionally yellow or green, but predominantly blue). The recorded wavelengths are objective empirical evidence, which can definitely show that the sky was blue when they were recorded.
Opinion cannot change that recording or the spectrum labels.
If you can't draw a distinction between opinions and positions, if everything is an opinion, then we're in a situation where none of your positions are falsifiable - ...
Curiously, I have just shown that opinion OR position can be falsified with actual objective empirical evidence.
... because you can simply be of the opinion that they haven't been falsified, regardless of what evidence you're shown.
Anyone of the belief\opinion\position that the earth and universe are young would have to be in denial of the massive objective empirical evidence of extreme old age of the earth and universe.
a. The act or process of deluding. b. The state of being deluded.
A false belief or opinion: labored under the delusion that success was at hand.
Psychiatry A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness: delusions of persecution.
(American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
They can still hold that opinion, but it would be delusional to do so, because the concept has been falsified.
Opinions that are logically valid, consistent with one's worldview, life experiences and biases, and that are not contradicted by objective empirical evidence, however, no matter what they involve, are not irrational per se, but without supporting objective empirical evidence they remain just opinions.
They may seem strange to you - based on your world view, life experiences and biases - however without evidence contradicting those beliefs\opinions\positions all you have is your opinion versus theirs.
I prefer to use the term opinion because it clearly distinguishes them from statements of fact.
"Evolution is substantiated by the evidence."
The objective empirical evidence all around us shows that evolution - the change in frequency and character of hereditary traits in breeding populations from generation to generation - occurs in all species of life.
I'll be brief Phage0070, to try to focus on the critical areas.
No, it does not. Number 1 is belief in the existence of Bigfoot, to the point that they consider it a real being. Number 2 is uncertainty, or reservation of judgment. With #2, someone would not be comfortable considering Bigfoot to be a real being. Other additional options wouldn't include the belief that Bigfoot exists, otherwise they would be option #1.
You keep restricting the #2 position based on your personal biases.
Your belief that bigfoot does not exist is not absolute: you also have a belief that it is possible (but unlikely) that bigfoot exists.
Someone - particularly your person with the personal experience - can believe that bigfoot does exist, and that belief can also not be absolute: they could also have a belief that it is possible (but unlikely) that bigfoot does not exist.
Someone else - me as an example - can believe that it is possible that bigfoot does exist, AND believe that it is possible that bigfoot does not exist.
No, it cannot. Someone cannot simultaneously believe that something both exists and does not exist at the same time, at least not reasonably. They may be uncertain, or alternating between two answers, but they cannot hold the two at the same time. They are very clearly mutually exclusive positions.
But you see, your problem is not with the actual positions, but with your bias to see these in absolute terms. Let me state it again:
The real problem with your black and white approach, however, is that belief is a spectrum and disbelief is a spectrum and there is a lot of overlapping possibilities. There is no line between belief and disbelief, but a spectrum of positions.
I believe that it is possible that bigfoot exists, and I also believe it is possible that bigfoot does not exist, but neither of these beliefs are strong enough to form a formal opinion at this time, due to a lack of sufficient evidence.
Beliefs can be strong or they can be weak.
You have a strong belief that bigfoot does not exist, along with a weak belief that it is possible that bigfoot does exist.
Our personal experience person has a strong belief that bigfoot does exist, along with a weak belief that it is possible that bigfoot does not exist.
I have a weak belief that bigfoot does exist and a weak belief that bigfoot does not exist. This is more rational than the previous two positions when there is insufficient information to make a formal conclusion.
Let me put it in plain English: If someone claims Bigfoot exists, but has no evidence to back it up, I will consider the claim unreliable. The claimant's lack of evidence to back up their claim does not mean that their claim is false, and I didn't conclude that it was. I only decided that the claim shouldn't be considered reliably true. I would still be open to the possibility that Bigfoot exists, but I simply wouldn't believe that particular claim.
Are you equally skeptical if someone claims Bigfoot does not exist, but has no evidence to back it up -- do you consider that claim unreliable as well?
Science does not place equal footing for the burden of proof on both the claim of knowledge that "something exists or is likely to exist" and "something does not exist or is not likely to exist". Please show me where in science that it does so.
But the issue here is not claiming that "something does not exist" it is with claiming to know the likelihood, to have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision.
Don't you think that someone making a claim that he was convinced, absolutely certain, that god/s do not exist - that he would be making an extraordinary claim?
What would be the rational basis for such a claim, if not objective empirical evidence?
In fact nothing can be 100% disproven as science always speaks in terms of probability, including the probability of existance.
And when science talks about the probability of X being true (or false) it is an informed conclusion, based on a review of objective empirical evidence and the determination that enough is known to calculate the probabilities and the levels of confidence in them.
Don't you think that someone making a claim that he was convinced that it is highly likely that god/s do not exist - that he would be making an extraordinary claim?
What would be the rational basis for such a claim, if not objective empirical evidence?
Here is the catch. Science begins at the foundation of the non-existance of phenomena. It is up to the scientist or group of scientists to show evidence for the validity that certain physical phenomena to exist. Not the other way around. We don't automatically assume something exists in science, we must show evidence of its existance whether it be biological cells, viruses, atoms, electrons, quarks, 1-dimensional strings, gravitons, or any other proposed physical phenomena.
Curiously, I have no problems with the normal course of science, and the slow parsing away of falsified concepts to arrive at clearer and clearer conceptions of reality.
We also know that when there is insufficient evidence to reach an informed conclusion that science is perfectly happy to say "we don't know," and that we have to wait for further information and evidence to be gathered before a conclusion can be rational arrived at.
™ Version 4.2
(1)