Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Subjective Evidence of Gods
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 4189 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 256 of 468 (630583)
08-26-2011 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 254 by IamJoseph
08-26-2011 9:26 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
And just who is the factory owner?

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002
Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969
Since Evolution is only ~90% correct it should be thrown out and replaced by Creation which has even a lower % of correctness. W T Young, 2008

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 9:26 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 260 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 7:27 PM bluescat48 has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 257 of 468 (630596)
08-26-2011 3:27 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by IamJoseph
08-26-2011 9:22 AM


Re: subjective appearances of the moral code
IamJoseph writes:
With regard to our thoughts after we pass away, it will be cruel to have humans retain their memories of this realm, while being sent to another totally different one: it serves no purpose. It is more plausible we go back where we came from, rather than to another place. We won't need our bodies or minds because we originally never had one and won't need them where we came from: can a sperm or egg cell contain bodies?
A wise man said, 'When we die, all our thoughts die with us' [King Solomon].
Just for the record IaJ. I don't believe that it is about going some place else. Read the last couple of chapters of Isaiah on the New Heavens and New Earth. It is about a recreation of our present world.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 9:22 AM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 7:23 PM GDR has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 258 of 468 (630612)
08-26-2011 7:23 PM
Reply to: Message 257 by GDR
08-26-2011 3:27 PM


Re: subjective appearances of the moral code
"It is about a recreation of our present world".
Yes, I sit corrected - its called going forth and correcting the incompleted world. Otherwise this entire universe won't have any purpose, contradicting the premise the universe was created in wisdom. The purpose is unknown, awaiting the advent of a Messiah to reveal this purpose. For Christianity this has already happened, yet many are still in confusion of it. But ultimately we have to return and say job done, no?
Its a big task, and I believe it is one of an accumulative process of all humanity's deeds and asset knowledge - this is also how science works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 3:27 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 7:26 PM IamJoseph has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 259 of 468 (630613)
08-26-2011 7:26 PM
Reply to: Message 258 by IamJoseph
08-26-2011 7:23 PM


Re: subjective appearances of the moral code
Hi IaJ
We have an agreement.

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 258 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 7:23 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 7:36 PM GDR has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 260 of 468 (630614)
08-26-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by bluescat48
08-26-2011 12:19 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
And just who is the factory owner?
The owner of the factory is the factory owner. The rest are appointed foreman, managers and distribution agents appointed in different positions, as in the law of delegation. I say, why not deal with the owner directly - its much cheaper that way and you get an unadultrated product.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by bluescat48, posted 08-26-2011 12:19 PM bluescat48 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by bluescat48, posted 08-27-2011 12:14 PM IamJoseph has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 261 of 468 (630615)
08-26-2011 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 259 by GDR
08-26-2011 7:26 PM


Re: subjective appearances of the moral code
Isaiah was a literary genius, his words were so powerful, his finger pointing at a bad king in Israel got him killed. I believe his writings influenced Shakespeare and a host of other writers, proving the word is the most powerful tool in the universe. Arguably, the universe was created with a word, namely Gd "SAID' let there be light, applies to speech. This is one reason that speech [the word] is said to pre-date the universe blueprint.
Its like building a house: first comes the thought of a house image, then the blueprints. Thereafter the raw material. Another view is that everything was created in an instant as a click action, and each product was changed from potential to actuality in its due time. Then again, some believe it just happened or was always there, which I admit is confounding to my small mind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 259 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 7:26 PM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 8:13 PM IamJoseph has replied

GDR
Member
Posts: 6202
From: Sidney, BC, Canada
Joined: 05-22-2005
Member Rating: 1.9


Message 262 of 468 (630621)
08-26-2011 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by IamJoseph
08-26-2011 7:36 PM


Re: subjective appearances of the moral code
In the beginning - God.....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 7:36 PM IamJoseph has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by IamJoseph, posted 08-26-2011 8:21 PM GDR has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 263 of 468 (630622)
08-26-2011 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by Panda
08-24-2011 2:37 PM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
Hi Panda.
RAZD writes:
Note that there seems to be an implicit need to reach a decision here on all these concepts, that you somehow MUST choose existence or non-existence.
Note that you are wrong.
Ah, so there are some supernatural concepts that you are agnostic on?
That doesn't sound like a 6.9999 (and why not just say 7 at that point - you're just kidding yourself that you fit in the 6 category - rounding error).
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : added

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by Panda, posted 08-24-2011 2:37 PM Panda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by Panda, posted 08-29-2011 2:08 PM RAZD has replied

IamJoseph
Member (Idle past 3668 days)
Posts: 2822
Joined: 06-30-2007


Message 264 of 468 (630624)
08-26-2011 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by GDR
08-26-2011 8:13 PM


Re: subjective appearances of the moral code
I see the opening 4 words in Genesis as a scientific premise; an incumbent statement of a writing which discusses the origins of the universe and stated in its correct place - at the opening. Whether we agree with it or not, it is an answer, as opposed no answer whatsoever of the most important question of all. It also says the universe is absolutely finite; and every person discussing this issue should place their preamble at top: is their universe finite or infinite.
I know of no counter to creationism. It does not change a damn thing though: 2+2 still equals 4; its just that we don't know what 2 means.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 8:13 PM GDR has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 265 of 468 (630665)
08-26-2011 10:23 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Straggler
08-24-2011 2:43 PM


Straggler wrong again, misunderstanding and misrepresenting again
... Straggler, still struggling with the basic concepts I see.
But RAZ the problem here is that you just don't practice what you preach. You cannot test for Last Thursdayism but you still go round telling creationists that the Earth is "Old....Very old indeed".
Once again Straggler misrepresents my position with fake quotes. Let's look at the actual posts from Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1:
Bristlecone Pines Message 2: Minimum age of the earth > 8,000 years based on this data.
European Oaks Message 3: Minimum age of the earth > 10,434 years based on this data.
German Pines Message 4: Minimum age of the earth > 12,405 years based on this data.
Lake Suigetsu Varves Message 5: Minimum age of the earth > 35,930 years based on this data.
Annual Layers of Ice Message 6: Minimum age of the earth > 40,000 years based on this data.
Ice Cores in Greenland Message 7: Minimum age of the earth = 110,000 years based on this data.
Minimum age of the earth > 250,000 years based on this NEW data
Ice Cores in Antarctica, Message 8: Minimum age of the earth = 422,776 years based on this data.
Minimum age of the earth >740,000 years based on this data.
Minimum age of the earth >900,000 years based on this data.
The Devil's Hole Message 9: Based on this information alone we can conclude:
  • The theoretical basis for radiometric dating is accurate and valid.
  • The two different radiometric methods are equally valid - at least as far back as 567,700 yr BP.
  • That there was no change in the behavior of radioactive materials in the last 567,700 years, and
  • The world is older than 567,000 years and no global flood has occurred in that time.
Talking Coral Heads Message 10: The age of the earth >400,000,000 years based on this data.
Discussion of Radiometric Correlations Message 11: The age of the earth ~4.5 billion years based on this data.
The Bottom Line Message 12: For the dating ages that are covered by these methods to be wrong -- "filled with errors" in the lexicon of the creationists -- there must be a mechanism that will cause exactly the same patterns of climatological change in each one, a mechanism that has escaped scientists, a mechanism that would have to mimic diverse complete annual phenomena within a very short period ...
Certainly scientists (and people who do not have problems with the results of science) agree that the accumulation of evidence available shows that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and that the earth itself is at least 4.55 billion years old.
So what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that the earth is old, much older than any creationist model can account for OR a mechanism needs to be demonstrated that explains all these correlations.
Last time I checked, "Last Thursdayism" does supply that mechanism, ... however that does not mean that the evidence then shows that creationism is correct -- "Last Thursdayism" does not support creationism either.
Straggler really should pay more attention to the people he debates with, as the falsehood of his misrepresentations are easy to demonstrate. The problem is that he is so pervasive with them, that it's like a Gish gallop to deal with all of them. AND he seems to behave like Hovind, content to believe in his distorted perceptions regardless of evidence contrary to it.
If I put it to you that there is an undetectable killer bogeyman in your bedroom whose actual existence will only manifest itself by killing you then it is a fact that you are just as dismissively atheistic towards this entity as I am. Not because you have tested it. You can't test for it (except by being killed). But because you know as well as I do that baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities such as this one are all but certainly human fictions.
Sigh.
I've already dealt with this type of concept with bluegenes, who also imagined a scenario involving my imminent death, and I see no reason to change my answer for Straggler.
What happens will happen whether I believe the concept or not. There are in fact a number of discrete medical conditions that can cause my imminent death, whether inflicted by some unknown generic demon or not. I am not atheistic about a single one of them, but neither do I cower in fear of them. If I die by some supernatural hand, then I will know the truth, but Straggler will still be ignorant -- and all the doctors will ascribe some natural cause to my death - heart attack (due to medication), stroke (due to blood clots caused by medication), or due to "complications arising from the long battle with cancer" (the usual suspects etc etc etc). This is what xongsmith has said as well.
... baselessly conceived unfalsifiable entities such as this one are all but certainly human fictions.
Straggler, bluegenes, etc et al, seem to have this curious blind spot in their logical makeup, that somehow a known fiction proves that any other concept they can't explain must be a fiction as well. It's the "god-did-it" explanation for these pseudoscience atheists.
This is a logical fallacy of the first order, and demonstrates a heavily biased view.
Making up "evidence" does not show that your hypothesis is valid. Making up fictional characters only proves that the fictional characters are made up, not that anything else is.
Fictional cowboy stories do not prove that all cowboys are fictional characters.
This is, however, how pseudoscience is done.
You can call it an "opinion" but unless you move out of your bedroom just in case your actions speak louder than words. ...
As I said to bluegenes, I would gladly confront such a situation, as this would be evidence that supernatural entities\forces do in fact exist, and whether or not I could communicate that result to anyone else, it would satisfy me to know the truth rather than shrink from it in ignorant fear.
So no, Straggler's ludicrous mis-characterization of my behavior based on my beliefs is (once again) wrong.
Once again we see that whatever Straggler says about RAZD is more likely wrong than right.
It's not pseudoskeptical to conclude such entities are human inventions.
Of course not, as that is not why Straggler (or blueggenes) is a pseudoskeptic.
http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Pseudoskepticism
quote:
Pathological Skepticism is closedmindedness with deception: it is an irrational prejudice against new ideas which masquerades as proper Skepticism. A person under the sway of Pathological Skepticism will claim to support Reason and the scientific worldview while concealing their strongly negative emotional response against any questioning of contemporary accepted knowledge. The primary symptoms of Pathological Skepticism are the presence of scorn, sneering, and ridicule in place of reasoned debate. In their arguments, pseudoskeptics will freely employ logical fallacies, rhetoric, and numerous dishonest strategies of persuasion which are intended more sway an audience rather than to expose truth, i.e. than to pursue science. Because it promotes a falsely scientific facade, Pathological Skepticism is a class of pseudoscience.
The terms Pathological skepticism and Pseudoskepticism were coined in the early 1990s in response to members of skeptic groups who apply the label of "Pathological Science" to fields which are actually protoscience.
Pseudoskepticism - Example Usage
  • Kaviraj2: RT @onlinerepertory: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (3) Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof - http://t.co/t1QJ7QS
  • Kaviraj2: RT @postanes: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (4) Presenting insufficient evidence or proof - http://t.co/GjiqvnW
  • OpenMinded2010: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (5) Making unsubstantiated counter-claims - http://t.co/v7qJeRg
  • Talirman: Characteristics of pseudoskeptics (6) Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence - http://t.co/96WjaKH

Straggler is a pseudoskeptic because the definitions above fit him to a "T" ... the closemindedness and the continued inability to support his position with objective empirical evidence that makes him a pseudoskeptic.
And as far as available evidence goes, the fact that Straggler (a) presents this concept while ostensibly remaining an atheist is evidence thathe did not have a supernatural experience that informed him of this being, (b) he do not provide any other source for knowing about it and (c) there is no other known information\documentation regarding this particular concept that I am aware of, so (d) I can logically conclude (form my opinion) that Straggler most likely made this one concept up.
This is what logic and the available evidence shows in this one specific case. It is not enough to prove that it is made up, but it is sufficient for me to form my tentative opinion regarding this concept.
Similar logic and evidence applies to the IPU and to other similar concepts promoted by non-believers (where a and b apply).
Similar logic and evidence does NOT apply to many religious concepts which are promoted by believers (because, curiously, a, b and c do not apply).
The failure to see\understand this rather basic and fundamental distinction here is also why Straggler and bluegenes are pseudoskeptics doing pretend pseudoscience rather than science.
I base my worldview on my experiences, education, evidence, beliefs and logic, and I base my opinions on my worldview and the pertinent available evidence.
Bluegenes admits to making up his bogus characterizations, but somehow does not realize that they prove nothing other than that he can make up fictional characters.
Your problem lies in taking this evidence and applying it to the things that you subjectively believe in.
And that would be because the logic and available evidence are not the same, as shown above.
Straggler's problem, consistently, is not understanding what he thinks my positions are, or why his logic is so wrong in so many ways.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Straggler, posted 08-24-2011 2:43 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2011 2:16 AM RAZD has replied

nlerd
Member (Idle past 3604 days)
Posts: 48
From: Minnesota
Joined: 03-03-2010


(1)
Message 266 of 468 (630677)
08-26-2011 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Straggler
07-15-2011 8:18 PM


Straggler writes:
1) What subjective evidence in favour of the existence of gods is there? Can someone provide some actual examples of this form of evidence?
Jesus appearing in my soup?
Straggler writes:
2) Is subjective evidence limited to entities that can be empirically detected or not?
Subjective evidence is limited only to the imagination.
Straggler writes:
On what basis (aside from belief) is the cause of these subjective experiences attributed to supernatural entities...
I don't think subjective evidence is only attributed to the supernatural, if I tell someone that I was chased through the woods by a orangutan with pink dyed fur and no one was there to verify that it happened that'd be subjective evidence.
Straggler writes:
4) Is belief itself a form of evidence on which we can justify belief?
Not at all, I'm pretty sure now that I think about it I only BELIEVED that was a pink orangutan at the time. I'm pretty sure it was actually cousin Bob in last years Halloween costume.
Here is a question for you though. If the only evidence that something exists IS subjective does that mean that it DOESN'T exist? What if say a group of researcher discovers a fairy that appears every 10,000 years in the sewers of Detroit and grants 8 wishes to the first person who talks to it, but the researchers die on the way out of the sewers due to a flash flood. It actually did happen but there is no record of it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Straggler, posted 07-15-2011 8:18 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2011 3:07 AM nlerd has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 267 of 468 (630708)
08-27-2011 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 265 by RAZD
08-26-2011 10:23 PM


Re: Straggler wrong again, misunderstanding and misrepresenting again
RAZ writes:
Straggler's problem, consistently, is not understanding what he thinks my positions are...
Your position is all over the place. One minute you are confidently telling people that the Earth is billions of years old and the next you are demanding complete agnosticism to anything that remains untested (e.g. Last Thursdayism). Why not clear this up once and for all by answering the following two questions honestly and explicitly:
1) Is the Earth billions of years old or only a few days old?
2) Is your answer to the above a mere opinion or an evidenced fact?
RAZ writes:
So what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that the earth is old...
Strangely what I have been saying is that the data/information/evidence show that god concepts are products of the human proclivity to invent such things.
RAZ on the undetectable killer bogey man writes:
What happens will happen whether I believe the concept or not.
So you are not taking an atheistic position with regard to the undetectable killer bogey man in your bedroom. You have not confidently concluded that this concept is a human fiction rather than a real entity. You are instead taking a "cest la vie" approach to being butchered in your bed.
RAZ this is not a credible position.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 265 by RAZD, posted 08-26-2011 10:23 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by RAZD, posted 08-28-2011 2:53 PM Straggler has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 268 of 468 (630714)
08-27-2011 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 266 by nlerd
08-26-2011 11:06 PM


nlerd writes:
Jesus appearing in my soup?
Are soup manifestaions a reliable method determining what does and does not exist?
nlerd writes:
Subjective evidence is limited only to the imagination.
Which is exactly why applying the term "evidence" creates a misnomer.
nlerd writes:
If the only evidence that something exists IS subjective does that mean that it DOESN'T exist?
Of course not.
But if that which is being described as "evidence" is functionally equivalent to imagination then the likelihood of that evidence leading to correct conclusions is no different to plucking conclusions out of one's arse.
And I would suggest that will result in conclusions that are more likely to be wrong than right.
GDR writes:
What if say a group of researcher discovers a fairy that appears every 10,000 years in the sewers of Detroit and grants 8 wishes to the first person who talks to it, but the researchers die on the way out of the sewers due to a flash flood. It actually did happen but there is no record of it.
Whether this is true or false it would be irrational for anyone to believe it to be true based on the above alone wouldn't it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by nlerd, posted 08-26-2011 11:06 PM nlerd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 269 by Dr Adequate, posted 08-27-2011 3:41 AM Straggler has not replied

Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 269 of 468 (630717)
08-27-2011 3:41 AM
Reply to: Message 268 by Straggler
08-27-2011 3:07 AM


Are soup manifestaions a reliable method determining what does and does not exist?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by Straggler, posted 08-27-2011 3:07 AM Straggler has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 270 of 468 (630720)
08-27-2011 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 250 by GDR
08-26-2011 12:56 AM


Re: Detecting Intelligent Agency Where There Is None
GDR writes:
So when you say that a case can be made for things like "objective mathematical truths" or even conceivably "some aspect of zero sum based morality" that exist apart from our physical brains, then by extension I think I have demonstrated that the same likelihood applies to theism.
So this thing you call "god" you think exists in the same sort of abstract Platonic sense that a perfect circle or the number pi can be said to objectively exist?
GDR writes:
In your post you acknowledge that there is a basis for acknowledging the possibility of mathematical and even moral truths that exist in some sense apart from physical brains.
In a Platonic sense - Yes. And be clear here that non-zero sum morality is a result of the maths rather than something in and of itself. In this little conjecture of ours morality is essentially just an inevitable by-product of maths. Nothing more.
GDR writes:
It would seem to make sense that as the mathematical truths are necessary for the existence of the universe this intelligence must have pre-dated the material universe.
What intelligence? If my conjecture is correct then intelligence itself would be a result of the blind mindless logic from which all else follows.
GDR writes:
At this point based on the assumption that we made, all we can know of this intelligence is that it is highly intelligent, it is highly creative and it has a sense of morality.
What intelligence? All we started with was blind mindless logic. You have added intelligence, creativity and a sense of morality. In effect you have anthropomorphicised the idea in a way that is utterly typical of humans displaying the psychological proclivity to invoke false positive agency at every opportunity in exactly the way we have been discussing.
Your inability to consider any question without inserting a human-like intelligent agent into it is kinda proving my psychological point isn't it?
GDR writes:
So when you say that a case can be made for things like "objective mathematical truths" or even conceivably "some aspect of zero sum based morality" that exist apart from our physical brains, then by extension I think I have demonstrated that the same likelihood applies to theism.
What you have done here is what you have done throughout this thread. What you have done is show that if you assume that your notion of god exists then you can explain everything in that paradigm and create a huge wheel of circular reasoning.
If you assume god exists as part of the premise then you will inevitably conclude that god exists. And - before you say it - No I haven't assumed that god doesn't exist. I have assumed nothing but some form of Platonic mathematical abstract existence that can meaningfully be called "objective". From this you can conceivably derive non-zero sum morality. But some supreme, creative intelligence with a sense of morality of it's own is entirely your own addition.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by GDR, posted 08-26-2011 12:56 AM GDR has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by GDR, posted 08-27-2011 9:09 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024