Can you either quote me (in full context) as to where you think I have ever actually deployed any such statement of logical certitude? Or desist from relentlessly asserting that I have.
You really do not understand when you do this? I quoted it in the reply for gosh sakes:
Message 300: The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity ...
Your santa clause is B, and your implication that it "must apply to any ..." is your therefore A claim.
RAZ writes:
You don't know that god/s are necessarily undetectable or imperceptible, so you are assuming the consequent.
Can you explain how the deistic notion of god as previously described by you - "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225 - Can possibly be empirically perceptible?
First off, we need to once again correct your misrepresentation: what was described was a common deist concept, and you can find similar statements quite easily:
quote:Deism Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com deism --noun 1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism). 2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.
To properly address the question, you would need to consider what would be rational expectations of evidence of god/s that created the universe and have not done anything in it since.
If god/s created the universe at the start and set it running by various laws, then the discovery of those laws of behavior of things by science is evidence of how god/s made things work. None of it would appear supernatural, because we don't have a created universe and a non-created universe to compare to judge which is natural and which is god/s-done-it.
Your problem is not that god/s may be undetectable or imperceptible, but that your expectations of having empirically testable evidence may be false.
Consider, for the sake of argument, that spiritual experiences are indeed experiences of god/s (or some transcendental spirituality): would you expect any two experiences to be similar enough to make an empirical evaluation? If you had a god experience and I had a god experience, would you expect them to be the same?
I don't, and this is why I can logically conclude that if god/s exist that they can be unknowable - that no single experience would be sufficient to know.
As to being outside the universe, that too is a logical conclusion for god/s that created the universe. There is no reason to believe that they would be trapped within their creation.
It will be interesting to see what fantasies you make from this.
Why should I claim to know the likelihood of something not-existing when the default position of science is the non-existence of something until shown evidence otherwise?
No, the default position is that we don't know.
Take the graviton as an example of something that is claimed to exist but for which there is currently no objective empirical evidence that it exists. The possible responses to the claim that gravitons exist are:
it is possible that they exist, there is no evidence that shows they do not exist, and this theory (logical construction) implies that they exist, let's see if we can find evidence that they exist.
I don't know, there is insufficient objective empirical evidence at this point to say, but
let's see if we can find out, or
we'll have to wait until more evidence becomes available.
no they don't exist. Don't waste your time looking for them.
Position (1) can be held by anyone that develops or accepts the theory that they exist: it's a tentative claim of existence.
Position (2) is the default position of science: it is skeptical but open-minded to the possibility, and willing to wait until that information becomes available from other sources, or to look for more information before making a decision on whether or not they exist: wait or investigate.
Position (3) leads nowhere, certainly not towards any scientific investigation into the possibility of the existence of gravitons.
Now one can just have the opinion that (3) is true, based on their world view, life experiences and biase, but it is not a conclusion reached on evidence.
Now if one made either the claim that gravitons absolutely exist OR that gravitons absolutely do not exist, then they would need to provide evidence to support that position.
You may want to read through Pseudoskepticism and logic, or at least filter it for Rrhain's posts and then read from where he makes this same assertion of a default position (mid=526397), and the replies to them.
When the doorbell rings, do you assume a default position that no-one is there, or do you open the door to see who\what made the bell ring?
Proving the non-existence of something is a logical fallacy. Although someone may prove non-existence in special circumstances, such as showing that a box does not contain certain items, one cannot prove the absolute non-existence, or non-existence out of ignorance. In other words one cannot prove something that does not exist in the entire universe.
Agreed, and therefore it is irrational to claim that something absolutely (or that it is highly likely that something) does not exist.
The proof of existence (burden of proof) MUST come from those who make the claims for something’s existence.
But the claim that "X absolutely does not exist" would have to be substantiated by the evidence that you refer to above, or it is just a delusional claim.
Likewise a claim that "it is likely that X does not exist" assumes a level of knowledge of a sufficient proportion of the universe to allow one to make an informed conclusion of the likelihood.
The claim of knowing the likelihood is a positive claim, and it certainly bears a burden of proof.
The rational conclusion is that we don't know, the default position is that we don't know.
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)
The scientific process normally leads to (A) when there is sufficient objective empirical evidence to base an informed conclusion, and to (C) - wait or investigate - when there is not sufficient objective empirical evidence.
Many rationally minded scientists as agnostics or even weak atheists may say "I don't know" for certain if God exists or does not exist.
And some that are theists.
That however does not take away the burden of proof from theists to show evidence that God exists.
Or from atheists that claim to have some inside knowledge of the likelihood that god/s do not exist.
You, RAZD, may say you believe in God, but it has no basis in science but rather personal opinion and pure conjecture until you can show emperical evidence that God exists.
And amusing, what I have actually said is that it is my personal opinion that god/s exist, based on my world view, personal life experiences and biases. I do not claim that anyone needs to believe me.
Logically, as I have also demonstrated in previous posts, it is possible to have an agnostic, weak atheist, or weak theist positions (Forum Oscars, Message 91):
quote:There was much wailing and gnashing of teeth in the following posts, but it seems that the key claim -- that the logical, rational position based on the evidence available was agnosticism -- went largely uncontested.
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
This has not been refuted, certainly not by the likes of Straggler, so we see that this original claim - that the only logical position was the agnostic position - has withstood the test of time.
There's more, lots more, but the gist of this is that on their own, without objective empirical evidence to support or invalidate them, positions (3), (4) and (5) are rational (based on valid logic), while (1), (2), (6) and (7) are irrational (based on invalid logic).
Thus positions (1), (2), (6) and (7) all bear a burden of proof to show that the claim is supported by objective empirical evidence OR the claim is merely an irrational assertion of opinion.
Enjoy
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Enjoy
One of us has to be wrong. That's why it can't simply be a matter of opinion.
But you don't know which one, so it is opinion.
You can toss a coin in the air and call heads or tails ...
You can hold the opinion\position that it will fall on heads
I can hold the opinion\position that it will fall on tails
They are "mutually inconsistent positions" because one of us must be wrong, but you don't know which until the coin lands.
But God can't exist for you and not exist for me. One of us has to be wrong ...
Yes, and at this time we don't know which one is wrong. It is perfectly rational to hold mutually opposing opinions about something when the truth is not known, it is only after the truth is known that one becomes irrational to continue to hold.
... (and according to the weight of the evidence, it's you.)
Which you have thus far failed to demonstrate.
All you have done is assert that you have evidence ...
... and posted one (1) instance of your opinion, based on confirmation bias, that an expectation of yours in one particular case was not met.
As pointed out, this is not evidence that god/s per se do not exist, but that your expectation was not met.
This means that, logically, either a god of your expectation does not exist (while leaving all others unscathed), OR that your expectation is false (leaving god/s unscathed).
This is not objective empirical evidence for the non-existence of god/s, this is you voicing your opinion about what a god would be like and then claiming that it does not exist.
Definition: The author attacks an argument which is different from, and usually weaker than, the opposition's best argument.
Examples: 1. People who opposed the Charlottetown Accord probably just wanted Quebec to separate. But we want Quebec to stay in Canada. 2. We should have conscription. People don't want to enter the military because they find it an inconvenience. But they should realize that there are more important things than convenience.
Proof: Show that the opposition's argument has been misrepresented by showing that the opposition has a stronger argument. Describe the stronger argument.
quote: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 shows that your argument is just another logical fallacy, the straw man argument, rather than actual evidence of any thing other than your willingness to believe logical fallacies.
Of course this is just the dishonest theist game of retreat; where God is constantly redefined to lack whatever previously-essential characteristic was just disproven by the atheist. ...
Curiously, this is also how the scientific method works, discarding falsified concepts as you parse down understanding to find close approximations of the truth.
... Ultimately you'll reach the point where "God" is just an empty word, a cypher devoid of all intelligible meaning - yet, somehow still maintained by you to exist.
Let me know when you get there.
They taught this stuff in first grade, RAZD. Were you out that day or something?
Ah yes, the old ad hominem attack when all else fails, imply that the messenger is uneducated and ignorant.
Curiously, what I was taught was that it was proper and logical to say "I don't know" when you do not have sufficient objective empirical evidence that can lead to a logical evidence supported conclusion.
Thus when the coin is in the air, the logical and rational opinion\position to take is that I don't know.
To claim that it must land on heads (or tails) is irrational.
To claim that it is more likely to land on heads than tails (or tails than heads) is irrational.
These opinions\positions are irrational whether the other opinion\position is held.
Sure. Just as anyone of the position that God exists would have to be in denial of the massive objective empirical evidence that there's absolutely no such thing; that it's an invention of the human imagination not an actual being of magical power.
Interestingly, continuing to assert that there is "massive objective empirical evidence" does not magically make it appear.
That people make some things up sometimes is an acknowledged fact, as is the fact that sometimes people don't make things up. Assuming that one is the case and then arguing that this is evidence that this is the case is the logical fallacy of assuming the consequent:
Definition: Any argument of the following form is invalid: If A then B B Therefore, A
Examples: 1. If I am in Calgary, then I am in Alberta. I am in Alberta, thus, I am in Calgary. (Of course, even though the premises are true, I might be in Edmonton, Alberta.) 2. If the mill were polluting the river then we would see an increase in fish deaths. And fish deaths have increased. Thus, the mill is polluting the river.
Another example of this logical fallacy is brought to us most recently by Straggler (Message 300):
straggler, after asserting that because modern santa clause folklorehas been shown to include some made up concepts, that it is refuted, and then proclaiming: writes:
The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity as there is no means by which it's human conception can have been arrived at but by the internal workings of the human mind.
One poor example is then (in typical Straggler style) extrapolated extravagantly into applying to all concepts of god/s (he also messes things up by putting one of his precepts into his conclusion). To put it in the form of this fallacy:
If all concepts of god/s are made up then we would see examples of concepts that are made up We see examples of god/s (well one so far, maybe, and only if we really stretch the concept of god ...), Therefore all concepts of god/s must be made up.
Note, for the record (once again), that "empirically imperceptible" just means that any perceptions of god/s cannot be tested empirically, not that they are necessarily imperceptible as a result.
Or you are begging the question, by assuming first that your conclusion is true first, and then using that to show that your conclusion is true:
Definition:: The truth of the conclusion is assumed by the premises. Often, the conclusion is simply restated in the premises in a slightly different form. In more difficult cases, the premise is a consequence of the conclusion.
Not you, certainly; you've made it clear that you draw no distinction at all between matters of fact and matters of opinion.
Amusingly, I say no such thing. What you are arguing against is your ill formed opinion of my position (to use your term).
Can you quote where I say this? If you can't you should withdraw the statement.
And, funny you should use that word "delusional":
Ah yes, Dawkins, the shock-jock of anti-theism. Are you skeptical of any of his claims?
Are you going to argue that because he published a popular press book, that this is evidence that god/s do not exist?
Enjoy
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
It is true that there is a spectrum of confidence levels when considering a conclusion; one can be very sure something exists or not sure at all. However, everyone has a "credulity level" at which they believe the conclusion. This often varies depending on the importance/commonality of the claim: For instance I would be willing to take the word of a waiter that the clear fluid handed to me in a glass is water, but not so willing to take their word for them having Bigfoot locked in the freezer.
So the range of confidence you have is based on your subjective opinion in the concept being true, not on any actual calculation of probabilities.
Something previously in your experience is counted as likely, while something not previously in your experience is counted as unlikely - is that a fair statement of your position?
So someone with different life experiences, say your someone that believes they saw a bigfoot, is entirely rational to have a different subjective perception of the likelihood of the concept being true?
Someone who only believes Bigfoot may possibly exist is a number 2. Someone who believes that Bigfoot *does* exist is a number 1. Conversely, someone who believes that Bigfoot may possibly not exist is a number 2, and one who believes that Bigfoot does not exist is a number 3.
So do you now (as it appears) agree that 2 is not the same as 3 and that it is not disbelief in the concept? Then we are making progress.
Of course. Without any data how can they authoritatively speak about what does not exist out there?
Thank you.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
Wouldn't someone asking the question need sufficent evidence to even propose the question?
Why would the answer require such objective empirical evidence when the question was asked speculatively?
It is not the question that drives the burden of proof, but the assertion of knowing the truth (or enough about it to make an informed decision) that bears the burden.
If a question is asked speculatively, one can freely speculate in answer, but one should realize that speculation alone is just opinion.
If one speculates that the sky is green however, the reply that it is blue and that this is the truth, is what needs to be substantiated by evidence (actual lightwaves, range defined as blue, etc), which is possible to do.
Hi DevilsAdvocate, this is getting long and repetitious.
Logic dictates that the burden of proof lies with the one make a ontologically positive claim aka claim of the existance of something. Not the other way around.
And the person making the positive claim to have evidence or knowledge that they know something.
Yes, but gravitons are predicted in physics (specifically quantum field theory).
A prediction is not evidence, it is a logical conclusion that needs to be tested to see if it is true or not.
According to you, because we don't know whether they exist of not, we should by default believe that they do not exist.
It appears that you are unwilling to take your own default position.
That is not how science works. We don't just conjure up ideas like gravitons in a vacuum of knowledge and evidence. Concepts such as gravitons are derived or infered based on previous knowledge (A Posteriori). Scientists believe gravitons to exist because of previous knowledge not in spite of it.
But they do not have specific evidence that gravitons exist. Some scientists may have an opinion based on previous experience, but that opinion is not based on evidence that gravitons per se exist.
There are also several experiments currently underway i.e. LIGO (Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory) and VIRGO (Virgo interferometer) that will possibly detect gravitational waves (not invidividual gravitons) in the near future.
And when that time comes, then one can make an informed conclusion whether or not gravitons exist. Until then the default is that we do not know (but we can investigate to see, or wait for more evidence).
Working from a basis of non-existance is not a claim it is a priori knowledge. ...
An opinion that god/s may not exist is not a claim that needs to be substantiated, it is the claim to have special knowledge about the likelihood, or to have absolute knowledge of the truth, that bears the burden of proof. As you agreed in the case of gravitons.
This is the third or fourth time that I have pointed out what needs to be substantiated.
... It is the default position, not a claim. I am not claiming or asserting that God does not exist, I am inferring (deducing) he does not exist until shown otherwise, just like I deduce that teapots don't orbit Jupiter, unicorns don't exist, pigs can't fly, etc, etc ad infinitim. There is a difference.
It's your opinion, based on your worldview, life experiences and biases, it is not a default position.
And it's called special pleading when you do not take the same position on other claims, example gravitons.
Again replace the word god(s) with unicorns, vampires, werewolfs, leprecauns, yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, or any other mythological creature and see how ludicrous this sounds. Seriously. If we operated science in this way we would be in serious trouble.
The logical fallacy of consequences?
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)
Dump all those concepts in (C) and wait to see if evidence turns up. One can be skeptical of their existence, yet open-minded enough to consider that they may be true, but that there is insufficient evidence on which to base an (A) type informed conclusion at this time.
Additionally, one is free to investigate any concept in (C) to see if they can develop more evidence. This would depend on personal opinion, resources and willingness to investigate, of course.
People have scientifically investigated yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, and aliens, because they have a personal interest in finding the truth of those concepts.
And further, this category also includes all hypothesized scientific phenomena that is currently not validated or invalidated by objective empirical evidence, including gravitons.
This in no way hampers the scientific process.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
HOWEVER, the category of "not 1" includes both 2 *and* 3. This has consistently been my point, ...
And the category of "not 2" includes both 1 *and* 3 while the category of "not 3" includes both 2 *and* 3 ...
... and your failure to understand it is trying my patience.
Been there.
But I understand what you are saying, I am just pointing out that you are wrong.
While not exactly my point, I would agree that not only might they measure the probability of the concept being true as higher, but also regard it with more credulity.
Which only proves that such "measures" are purely subjective, and not actual calculations of actual probabilities.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
Sure? We are talking about what people *believe*. If you can point out how that could be anything but subjective I am all ears.
Their method of getting there can be, and in some cases should be, as non-subjective as possible, but their belief or non-belief itself is going to be "subjective".
Your forgetting a basic tenet of why we think gravitons might exist and therefor it is an invalid and useless analogy. Whether gravitons exist or not is an answer to a specific scientific question not a theology. You could have said the same about any number of sub-atomic particles which we haven't detected and yet we have empirical evidence of sub-atomic particles, therefore it is not a unreasonable supposition that gravitons might exist. If we had empirical evidence that there might be a god, then we would not be unreasonable to suggest that there might be more.
My forgettery gets better every day, thanks, but this is not the point.
You, in essence, are agreeing with my point that the default position in science is not to believe that things do not exist, but one of investigation into the possibility that they may exist.
I think a more reasonable analogy would be between god/s and my neighbors invisible pink unicorn.
Why? How does trotting out the atheist's pet straw-man demonstrate that the default position in science is that "X does not exist"?
I could also compare it to the statement that "{this post} does not exist" - which is easily falsified by anyone reading {this post}, and demonstrating that when the complete possible evidence set of (this post) is known it is possible to see that it contains a post that falsifies the statement.
Amusingly, that also does not demonstrate that the default position in science would be that {this post} does not exist.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
I think the hard part is getting RAZD to realize that we have actual data that sub-atomic particles exist (and none for god/s), and it would be reasonable to posit the existence of gravitons based on what we know about quantum physics.
And yet you still have an absolute vacuum of evidence that gravitons actually objectively and empirically exist.
Just because you can hypothesize that they exist does not magically make them exist, or cause any reason not to take the putative default position.
The hard thing for the two of you to realize it seems is that no matter how you blather on about the evidence that leads up to the hypothesis of gravitons, the claim that the default position is that things do not exist is falsified by your absolute failure to take this position on gravitons.
Special pleading hypocrisy confirmation bias cognitive dissonance epic fail
Re: Gravitons and galloping god/s versus {this post}
Hi DevilsAdvocate,
If you assume the possibility of God's existance, you must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things that the human mind could possibly conjure up as existing, including pink unicorns.
Why?
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
Hi again DevilsAdvocate, please try to respond to my actual position.
And the person making the positive claim to have evidence or knowledge that they know something.
The default position of the non-existance of something is not a positive claim.
The default position of not knowing whether a claim is true or false at this time is not a positive claim, nor is it a negative claim. It is an honest claim.
The claim that something does not exist is a claim to know the truth, or an assumption of truth without knowledge. It is a dishonest claim unless supported by evidence.
Than you must be open-minded enought to consider to not be skeptical of UFOs, Big Foot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an infinite number of supposed phenomena.
No, skeptical AND open-minded. They may be true and they may be false, at this point I am not aware of sufficient information to make an informed conclusion, are you?
In other words, you have no way of weeding out pseudoscientific claims from real science.
Then neither do you. Assuming that something is false when you have inadequate information on which to make such an assesment does not mean they actually are false - that can only be done by investigation into their validity - nor does it lead to any weeding out of your pseudoskeptical claims of knowing more than the evidence shows.
Are you fucking serious RAZD in lumping the study of gravitons by scientists with the snake-oil pseudoscience of searching for UFO's, big foot, loch ness monster and the like. Please tell me this is not true RAZD. I have admired most of your posts up until now. I am not trying to be mean or conduct an ad hominum attack, just being brutally honest.
Then you should also be brutally honest with your own position.
Until something is known it is not known.
If it is not known, then you cannot know whether it is true or false.
You can have an opinion, but you should not pretend that your opinion is true, it is just your best guess based on known available evidence, your world view, personal experiences and biases.
If you are brutally honest with yourself, then you will see this.
I've done that.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
Come on RAZD, you are more intelligent than this. Stop evading.
Evading what? I've asked you why you think I must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things. It seems to me the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.
Because if you assumed the possibility of god's existance, and there is no evidence that he does exist, than what is to say anything else could possibly exist that is created by the human mind.
But I don't assume the possibility, the possibility exists because there is a lack of invalidating evidence and no conflict in logic.
quote:Message 91: As a result of the logical analysis we have:
Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)
My logical position is (3) - Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position) If you want, I can repeat the analysis of these positions based solely on the structure of the logic involved, but this has been posted many times - with no arguments that it is false (just some comments that show it was not understood).
Message 460: It is your (and every theists/deist) job to provide good reason to accept the claim that God exists, ...
Except that I make no claim about what you need to believe.
You, however, are now making a claim about what I should believe: to do this you need to show why I must believe what you claim.
Particularly if it is something that you yourself do not believe. To argue that I must believe something that you personally do not believe, would seem to me to be intellectually dishonest.
What I believe, for clarification purposes (and so you don't misrepresent it), is that god/s exist (or did exist) that were involved in the creation of the universe.
NOTE that belief is non-rational, as it is not based on evidence or logic, it just IS:
NOTE FURTHER that this is a personal belief, and that I don't regard it as anything more than personal opinion, based on my worldview, life experiences and biases: I do not ask you - or anyone else - to believe it.
Now, if you are going to claim that the IPU fits that belief, as an entity involved in the creation of the universe, then it is already covered by my belief.
If you are not going to claim that the IPU fits that belief, as an entity involved in the creation of the universe, then you need to demonstrate some rational reason why I need to automatically believe that or anything else that is created by the human mind.
Do you see now why the IPU is a straw man argument?
... than what is to say anything else could possibly exist that is created by the human mind.
Like gravitons? Or anything else that can be conceived by the human mind based on worldview, life experiences and biases AND that someone else actually believes?
All claims are either positive or negative i.e. "God exists" or "God does not exist" and this why.
Why what? Agreed that any claim itself is either positive or negative (otherwise it is just a statement).
You can choose not to believe or disbelieve the claim, but the claim itself has to be positive or negative.
And the claim that a specific claim is more likely to be false than true is a positive claim of likelihood.
I really really don't understand why I keep needing to repeat this. I am not saying that you need to substantiate the claim that god/s do not exist, but the claim that you know enough about this issue to judge that one is more likely than the other.
Also, what is an "honest claim" or a "dishonest claim"? Claim's are either true or false. Honesty has nothing to do with it.
An honest claim is one that you believe to be true, a dishonest one is a claim that you yourself do not believe is true but you ask others to believe.
Like the IPU etc.
So, again the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim to the existance of something/anything not to the person holding the null hypothesis that something does not exist until shown evidence otherwise.
Agreed, IF I made the claim that you need to believe what I believe (and hold to be nothing more than my personal opinion based on my worldview, life experiences and biases), which I don't.
BUT that does not absolve you of bearing a burden of proof to claim that the it is more likely that the claim is false.
Certainly I can claim that the belief that the earth is young is highly likely to be a false belief, and then list objective empirical evidence that show this is the case.
True. By "known" do you mean it has evidence indicating it exists? If so than it then becomes known to exist. If not that means that either:
a. The question would not come up in the first place since this something is not known to possibly exist or not exist or b. This something would be known to not have enough sufficient evidence indicating it positively exists (i.e. big foot).
Either way it is assumed this "something" is assumed not exist until given enough evidence that it does exist. Remember this is an attempt to deduce the reality of whether something exists or does not exist. Our attempt or process (science) used to assess its existance has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not.
Do you agree with this?
No, not entirely. I agree with your (a) and (b), but I'd say either way it is not known whether it exists or not, as that way I don't need to equivocate between the "assessment" of existence vs actual existence.
Much simpler, much more concise, certainly more reflective of the actual facts, and demonstrably more logically valid, no assumption necessary.
I am and do see this. How does this support your position that we must start from the premise that anything can possibly exist and it is up to us to prove its non-existance?
But that is not my position.
My position is that if we do not know, then we need to say that we do not know. My position is that we can be skeptical of the existence when there is insufficient objective empirical evidence to show that it does, AND open-minded to the possibility of existence when there is insufficient objective empirical evidence to show that it does not, exist. My position is that this is the honest default position on any concept where there is insufficient objective empirical evidence to make an informed conclusion
You can still have personal opinions about the issue, but they are opinions that are not based on facts.
Person (A) can have the opinion that (X) does not exist, and thus they spend no time or resources on any further investigation into whether or not (X) does exist. (looking for bigfoot)
Person (B) can have the opinion that (X) does exist, and thus they can devote time and resources to further investigation into whether or not (X) does exist. (looking for gravitons)
Person (C) can be undecided at this time, admitting they do not know whether or not (X) exists due to the low level of available information. They can either wait for more information to develop before forming an opinion, or they can investigate to see if they can determine whether or not (X) exists.
What we have with gravitons is enough evidence to suggest that they may in fact exist. We just do not have enough evidence that undeniably 'proves' their existance without a shadow of a doubt.
Curiously, using evidence that leads to the hypothesis that (X) exists as evidence that (X) exists is what's known as circular reasoning.
Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean you have to be a fucking jerk and a prick.
Curious that you should say this, when all I have done is use the same "argument" used in replies to me.
And indeed, all you have demonstrated is that your opinion/s differ from mine, not that they are any more rational or logical, or that what you claim is actually true.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. Enjoy
Re: Evading? or asking your to clarify your claim?
Hi DevilsAdvocate
How is asking why you give special credance to the existance of one supposed supernatural being, God, over any other contrived being a 'hasty generalization'? Again you are dodging the question.
Because I don't "give special credance to the existance of one supposed supernatural being, God" -- you are mistaken.
Enjoy
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made. NOR am I inclined to answer any posts that are off-topic, or that display an inability to grasp what has been posted. Enjoy
™ Version 4.2