My Beliefs- GDR

Frankly that makes no sense. If you haven't decided anything about Tom then why are you on this forum arguing against him. You call it a subjective invention. The dictionary definition for invention that would be applicable in this case is that it is a "product of the imagination". Relativity was a product of Einstein's imagination and it proved to be true. I agree that Tom is different in the sense that he is (at least as far as we know at this point), unfalsifiable, but that doesn't make it untrue.Actually as I have also said numerous times that Tom connects with us through our hearts minds and imaginations, so I have no problem seeing Tom as an invention. Again, it tells us nothing about whether he actually exists or not. Well, of course I see life itself with all of its facets as evidence but we aren't going to agree on that.

I hadn't really considered that either lobsters or watermelon had morality. They both taste great however.

Really There is no evidence that I can point to that objectively tells us that Tom exists. My observations of the world, what I have read etc brings me to my subjective conclusion which I am quite happy to call my belief. I objectively know that I exist with my own unique personality and a sense of self. I subjectively form my conclusion of what that means on the basis of what I have cited in the last paragraph, and in more detail throughout this thread including the OP.I do not need objective evidence before considering Tom or the FSM. I come to my beliefs on other grounds. That is what I gathered from listening to the debate that is linked in my post to Straggler, however I see Ned has a study that might say otherwise but I’ll look at it later. You reject what I see as evidence for Tom so this takes us nowhere. I agree that the evidence is not scientific nor is it conclusive. I see things like life itself, morality, intelligence etc as being suggestive that there is more at play than the simply mindless natural forces that we observe. OK, so you’ll call that an argument from incredulity but so what. Maybe it appears incredulous because it really is.

I got this from This Site which seems to refute that study.

quote:

---

This commentary article reviews a recent meta-analysis of genetic influences on antisocial behavior by Rhee and Waldman (2002). The authors combined the results of 51 twin and adoption studies and concluded that antisocial behavior has an important genetic component. However, twin and adoption studies contain several methodological flaws and are subject to the confounding influence of environmental factors. Therefore, Rhee and Waldman's conclusions in favor of genetic influences are not supported by the evidence. Two additional topics are Rhee and Waldman's incorrect description of the heritability concept and their failure to discuss several German criminal twin studies published during the Nazi era.

---

Funny they don't mention the flaws. They might be referring to half century old twin studies which were so bad as to be fraudulent but maybe they have something to say. This doesn't say it though.

But we would rightly prefer any of those explanations to saying that it was dislodged by a unicorn, because in our experience nothing is ever caused by unicorns. But we do have some knowedge -- we know what usually fills gaps.The god-of-the-gapsist is like someone who says: "You can't explain how that happened. If a unicorn dislodged the rock, that would explain it. Therefore, it was dislodged by a unicorn." That would be a unicorn-of-the-gaps argument.If I reply: "Since in our experience nothing is ever caused by unicorns, it was likely not a unicorn", then it would be misleading to call this a "non-unicorn of the gaps" argument, because we're not at all doing the same thing. The pro-unicorn argument is a fallacy, the anti-unicorn argument is empiricism.

Again, you create a false dichotomy. A dichotomy where one is either pro or anti "Tom" on the basis of some sort of subjective pondering of "Tom, his nature and involvement in our lives".But I don't need to ponder any more about Tom than I do any other unevidenced entity to conclude that such an entirely subjective notion is (practically by definition) made-up.If I tell you that there is an undetectable ethereal crab living inside your underpants do you really need to go away and seriously contemplate that proposition, come to some subjective conclusion about it, before discarding it as made-up?If I told you that this ethereal crab will cause testicular cancer if you don't change your underpants in the next hour would you:A) Go and change your underpants because this is very likely to be true?
B) Dismiss the whole idea as obviously made-up and not worry about it?
C) Go and change your underpants because whilst you don't know whether it is true or not it is better to be safe than sorry.I choose B). And whist I get that you find it hard to accept that not everyone is giving Tom the same serious consideration you are I genuinely see Tom as the cause of morality as entirely comparable to the Immaterial Pink Unicorn as the cause of bumper crop harvests and ethereal crabs as the cause of testicular cancer.As soon as you tell me that "Tom" is an undetectable subjective creation I know that he is made-up and don't need to give it any more serious consideration before dismissing it. Whilst it is possible in some philosophical anything-is-possible sense that some undetectable unfalisifiable figment of one's imagination may actually exist "Tom" is in the same class as ethereal crabs in terms of how likely this is. That is like seeing genuine cases of testicular cancer as evidence of ethereal crabs living in people's underpants. It's the cart before the horse mentality again.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I'm asking if saving puppies demands something other than natural processes or not.Do you now accept that risking one's life to save a puppy (as per your example) can be perfectly well accounted for by an entirely natural account of morality without any need for "Tom" and his influence at all?Or does saving puppies necessitate some un-evolved pre-existing intelligence that is not the product of natural processes (i.e. "Tom") Yours is a false dichotomy. The reason we have language and culture is because genetics has provided us with the equipment to be linguistic and cultural (unlike lobsters and melons which is why you can't transmit cultural mems to them). Language and culture are naturally occurring. Being correct more often than one would be by blind random chance is a good starting point. Whatever method of knowing you are applying to conclude Tom - Apply it to something less ethereal and more testable. Does it ever give a demonstrably correct answer? Does it have a success rate greater than that of merely guessing?For example - If you say that you can 'subjectively feel' that Tom is there then try subjectively feeling what number a dice will land on to see if this 'subjectively feeling' approach actually has any merit.If it doesn't (or if you are unable to apply this method of knowing to anything testable) then why would anyone treat your conclusions as any more reliable or accurate than randomly guessing as to what may or may not exist? Ah - Gaps. I'll let others deal with that.

No. The analogy works. It isn’t the point that it was a man that pushed it, it was the point that it was done intentionally. We see a rock rolling down the hill and we don’t know whether there was intent involved or if it was from non-intentional causes such as erosion.We have considerable experience of things that are caused intentionally. So now, as far as the rock is concerned we have to make the choice as to whether or not the rock was pushed intentionally without any objective evidence.We have observed evolution and life rolling along and we come to our own conclusions without objective evidence, as to whether or not it was all caused intentionally or not. But you aren’t filling it with a non-Tom of the gaps argument, you are filling it with a natural causes as yet undiscovered gap argument. If there is no Tom then you are filling the gap with something else.For that matter this isn’t even a gap in the first place. For it to be a gap you require something on both sides. In this case it’s about a first cause for life.

It isn’t a case of being pro or anti Tom, anymore than it is a case of being pro or anti mindless natural forces being responsible for life. There is a reason that we exist and we don’t have any objective evidence that answers that question. The fact that we have found natural causes for the route that got us from the beginning to where we are now tells us nothing about how life first originated. In that case we all do that as there is no objective evidence that provides an answer for the reason that life exists. My subjective answer is that yes it does, and that whatever natural processes that produced the morality that causes us to save puppies is a result of that un-evolved pre-existing intelligence. We keep going on like this. Yes there are natural processes. It is my belief that the natural processes are part of the plan. Well obviously the chances of getting a roll of the dice right is a matter of odds. The chances of being right about Tom is in my view far better than being right about us being the result of blind random chance , however I can’t know it absolutely or even calculate the odds.

But we do have evidence as to whether it happened naturally. I don't see what distinction you're trying to draw here.

No we don't. We can observe natural selection at work in the evolutionary process just as we can observe a stone naturally rolling down a hill. We do not have any evidence as to whether or not evolution or the movement of the stone began with or without intent by an intelligent agent.Even if science can reproduce the chemical causes that began life it still does not resolve the issue. You are assuming a non-intelligent cause for the natural processes that we can observe.

Hi GDR, I don't have much time, but I have to just ask one question.If we see an apple lying under an apple tree, can we safely assumed that it dropped on its own, or ought we wonder if God came down from heaven and plucked it?Mutate and Survive

Do do do. Nyah. I didn't discuss whether it was intelligent, but whether it was natural. It would be suggestive though, would it not? "It is vain to do with more what can be done with less."

You accept that your beliefs are subjective, non-scientific and not backed by any tangible evidence.Every argument you present is of the 'you can't prove it doesn't' type'You can't prove that Tom doesn't exist'
'You can't prove that Tom didn't create human concsiousness'
'You can't prove that Tom didn't create morality'
'You can't prove that Tom isn't intervening in our lives to make them better'And when presented with natural processes that give explanations of how morality evolves, or how human social structures such as democracy, education and economics you tell us that we can't prove it wasn't all part of god's plan.When science hasn't yet got an answer for a isssue, such as how life started or how the universe came into existence, you place Tom in the gap.When a new scientific idea emerges, you immediately try to jemmy God into it. So Tom lives in another dimension somehow using quantum entanglement to influence us - all without a shred of evidence.When confronted by the facts that the book that is the reason for your particular strain of belief contains errors and contradictions and that science has proven the major claims of the creation plain wrong, you adapt your beliefs to suit.Surely you must accept that this is an extremely weak logical position to hold?Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.