Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9175 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: sirs
Post Volume: Total: 917,648 Year: 4,905/9,624 Month: 253/427 Week: 63/103 Day: 7/14 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Immaterial "Evidence"
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 76 of 154 (522508)
09-03-2009 5:59 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by New Cat's Eye
09-03-2009 5:56 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
And for processes that can't be repeated or replicated or that might yield varying outcomes?
Well, it would be the varying outcomes we would be testing, is it not?
As for processes that can't be repeated or replicated, why do you give them any credibility to being with? If they can't be shown to be accurate, why hold the belief that they are?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-03-2009 5:56 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:04 PM Perdition has replied

  
Straggler
Member (Idle past 152 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 77 of 154 (522510)
09-03-2009 6:04 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by New Cat's Eye
09-03-2009 5:31 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
And I asked how you're measuring the reliability to determine if its better than random guessing.
I am not measuring the reliability. You are assuming the reliability.
How do I measure the reliability to determine if its superior?
You can't. Which is exactly why assuming any reliability at all is irrational.
I'm denying that you can know enough about which answers are invented in order to make the leap that some specific one probably is invented.
The human proclivity to invent gods is objectively evidenced. The ability of the human mind to hallucinate etc. is objectively evidenced. The actual existence of gods is not objectively evidenced. Unless you require me to accept the subjective evidence of others (which you have explicitly stated you are not doing) I only have one evidenced answer available to me. Based on the evidence available to me the likelihood of human invention is the most rational conclusion.
If the fact that some gods are known to be invented is enough to convince you that all gods are invented then you can certainly rationalize your atheism that way,
No. You are not listening. I specifically said I am not making an IF SOME THEN ALL illogical argument. I am making an evidence based argument regarding the relative likelihood of two mutually exclusive possibilities.
I just think that its an irrational leap because we don't have a way to measure the reliability of the answers to determine the probability of them being invented
With regard to any claimed supernatural concept for which there is no supporting objective evidence we have two mutually exclusive possibilities.
1) The concept in question is a human invention and experiences cited as evidence (visions, voices etc. etc.) are products of the human mind.
2) The immaterial concept in question actually exists and has been detected by an immaterial sixth sense.
One possibility is objectively evidenced. The other is not. There is only one rational and evidence based conclusion regarding the relative likelihood available to me. Which part of this do you actually disagree with?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-03-2009 5:31 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 2:46 PM Straggler has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 78 of 154 (522620)
09-04-2009 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by New Cat's Eye
09-03-2009 1:04 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
there isn't objective evidence to suggest that all gods are human invention.
Just most of them, then?
On some level I can appreciate the fact that there seems to be some intrinsic part of human beings that historically draw close to the concept of a god or gods. I do think that needs to be examined closely to determine what physical or metaphysical reason exists for this pervasive phenomena.
Some particular gods, like the one that pulls the sun across the sky with a chariot, have been shown to be an invention but a non-descript high-power type god has not.
Like in Ezekiel?

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." - Samual Adams

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-03-2009 1:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:07 PM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 79 of 154 (522707)
09-04-2009 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Straggler
09-03-2009 6:04 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
I am not measuring the reliability. You are assuming the reliability.
No, I'm not. I'm allowing for the possibility of reliability.
You're the one claiming that its been demonstrated that there's no difference.
You can't. Which is exactly why assuming any reliability at all is irrational.
Or assuming no reliability. You just don't know.
I'm not assuming it does have reliability, I'm just not accepting that it doesn't.
The human proclivity to invent gods is objectively evidenced. The ability of the human mind to hallucinate etc. is objectively evidenced. The actual existence of gods is not objectively evidenced. Unless you require me to accept the subjective evidence of others (which you have explicitly stated you are not doing) I only have one evidenced answer available to me. Based on the evidence available to me the likelihood of human invention is the most rational conclusion.
I really don't have a problem with you rationalizing your atheism that way, although I don't find it convincing to me. But I don't think you can say that because you have the rational that it must be the one and only rational position. And I don't think it helps the IPU argument much at all.
I don't think that because its been shown that people have invented specifics about god means that it has been shown that some kind of god in general has been shown to be invented.
With regard to any claimed supernatural concept for which there is no supporting objective evidence we have two mutually exclusive possibilities.
1) The concept in question is a human invention and experiences cited as evidence (visions, voices etc. etc.) are products of the human mind.
2) The immaterial concept in question actually exists and has been detected by an immaterial sixth sense.
One possibility is objectively evidenced. The other is not. There is only one rational and evidence based conclusion regarding the relative likelihood available to me. Which part of this do you actually disagree with?
3) The concept in question actually exists and has been detected by sporadic objective evidence.
4) The concept in question actually exists and has been detected by a sole objective evidence.
5) The concept in question actually exists and has been detected by objective evidence that we are currently unable to identify.
6) The concept in question actually exists and has been detected by something other than an immaterial sixth sense.
7) The concept in question is a human invention and experiences cited as evidence (visions, voices etc. etc.) are actual but products of something else.
You've presented a False Dichotomy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Straggler, posted 09-03-2009 6:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Straggler, posted 09-08-2009 10:27 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 80 of 154 (522710)
09-04-2009 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Perdition
09-03-2009 5:59 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
As for processes that can't be repeated or replicated, why do you give them any credibility to being with?
I'm saying that the default state would be not-knowing. I'm not necessarily giving them credibility, but I'm not assuming they are not credible either.
With my lottery winner example where do you draw the line? That she did win the lottery (we could potentially verify that one but as of now we have not)? That she wrote the number on the paper the night before? That she knew she was going to win?
Without any measure of the reliability, I'd leave it at I don't know. But just because I haven't verified doesn't mean I'm going to disbelieve her.
If they can't be shown to be accurate, why hold the belief that they are?
I'm not jumping to believing her either. I just don't know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Perdition, posted 09-03-2009 5:59 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:24 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 81 of 154 (522711)
09-04-2009 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Hyroglyphx
09-04-2009 9:31 AM


Re: Inventing Gods?
there isn't objective evidence to suggest that all gods are human invention.
Just most of them, then?
If we're including every god concept ever, then okay.
But still, the disproving of the specifics doesn't mean that there isn't anything there at all.
You know the 3 blind men and the elephant analogy?
Some particular gods, like the one that pulls the sun across the sky with a chariot, have been shown to be an invention but a non-descript high-power type god has not.
Like in Ezekiel?
Sure.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Hyroglyphx, posted 09-04-2009 9:31 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 82 of 154 (522716)
09-04-2009 3:24 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2009 3:04 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
I'm saying that the default state would be not-knowing. I'm not necessarily giving them credibility, but I'm not assuming they are not credible either.
I guess that's where we differ. I'm a skeptic. If I'm not shown a reason to believe something, I hold it as unlikely to be true, especially when the claim being true would severely disrupt what we think we know about the way the universe works.
With my lottery winner example where do you draw the line?
BUt, that one's verifiable...we can try and replicate the outcome. We can have her write something she wants to happen on a piece of paper, keep it under her pillow, and record, before-hand, her feeling on whether it will work or not. For everything she feels strongly will work, we compare the hits and misses. We can look at the ones she doesn't feel will happen, and record those "hits" and "misses" as well. We can then compare the two sets of data and see if the percentages are statistically different from each other. If they're not, then the method isn't reliable, and is therefore to be dismissed until it can be shown to give better than random results.
I'm not jumping to believing her either. I just don't know.
Maybe in the lottery number situation...but you did just that with your belief in God. Shouldn't your default be "I don't know" rather than, "I know it's true."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:04 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:32 PM Perdition has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 83 of 154 (522722)
09-04-2009 3:32 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by Perdition
09-04-2009 3:24 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
I guess that's where we differ. I'm a skeptic. If I'm not shown a reason to believe something, I hold it as unlikely to be true, especially when the claim being true would severely disrupt what we think we know about the way the universe works.
Right. You deny it because it would disrupt your worldview, not because of the evidence. Essentially an Argument from Incredulity. Irrational in itself
BUt, that one's verifiable...we can try and replicate the outcome. We can have her write something she wants to happen on a piece of paper, keep it under her pillow, and record, before-hand, her feeling on whether it will work or not. For everything she feels strongly will work, we compare the hits and misses. We can look at the ones she doesn't feel will happen, and record those "hits" and "misses" as well. We can then compare the two sets of data and see if the percentages are statistically different from each other. If they're not, then the method isn't reliable, and is therefore to be dismissed until it can be shown to give better than random results.
But you're assuming the ability itself is repeatable, reliable, not a one-time thing, etc. That wouldn't prove that she didn't do it the time in my example.
Maybe in the lottery number situation...but you did just that with your belief in God. Shouldn't your default be "I don't know" rather than, "I know it's true."
The default, yes. But I'm taking into account the entirety of my experience which includes the things that suggest to me that god does exist.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:24 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:43 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 84 of 154 (522723)
09-04-2009 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2009 3:32 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
Right. You deny it because it would disrupt your worldview, not because of the evidence. Essentially an Argument from Incredulity. Irrational in itself
Well, since my worldview is built on evidence, I don't think you're quite correct. In fact, even my disbelief is built on evidence. My worldview, in a nutshell: "There is no reason to believe proposition A when there is no evidence for proposition A." So, my disbelief is entirely because of the evidence (or lack thereof).
The only caveat is that the necessary amount of evidence is directly proportional to the novelty/"world-changingness" of the proposition.
But you're assuming the ability itself is repeatable, reliable, not a one-time thing, etc. That wouldn't prove that she didn't do it the time in my example.
If it's not repeatable, again, there is no evidence that the answer provided is the correct one, so again, we are left with no reason to believe the claim.
For example, maybe something supernatural did happen, but it wasn't the writing down of the numbers or the feeling she had. Maybe, the universe was fundamentally predisposed to give her the winning numbers because she happened upon the perfect color of socks when she crawled into bed.
So, in the absence of evidence for one proposition, there is no reason to believe it.
The default, yes. But I'm taking into account the entirety of my experience which includes the things that suggest to me that god does exist.
This is just circular:
You: "I believe X."
Me: "There is no evidence to believe in X"
You: "I have experiences that lead me to believe in X."
Me: "There is no evidence that your experiences are accurate reflections of reality."
You: "I have experiences that indicate my experiences are accurate reflections of reality."
etc, etc, etc.
If your experiences are not repeatable and verifiable, as you claim, then again, you have no reason to believe that what you have ascribed them to is correct. SO again, your default state, as you claim, should be, "I'm not sure what those experiences indicate, nor am I sure they are external experiences versus internally generated ones." So, to be consistent, you're still left with agnosticism, according to your own logic.
At some point, your breaking your own logic...thus behaving irrationally. Being irrational is fine, I guess, but it should be acknowledged.
Edited by Perdition, : Answered the rest of the post...doh!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:32 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:52 PM Perdition has replied
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:58 PM Perdition has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 85 of 154 (522727)
09-04-2009 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Perdition
09-04-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
My worldview, in a nutshell: "There is no reason to believe proposition A when there is no evidence for proposition A."
Your worldview is a tautology.
So, my disbelief is entirely because of the evidence (or lack thereof).
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:43 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 86 of 154 (522728)
09-04-2009 3:58 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Perdition
09-04-2009 3:43 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
If it's not repeatable, again, there is no evidence that the answer provided is the correct one, so again, we are left with no reason to believe the claim.
So if I see a bird in the woods and it flys away then I have to disbelieve that I saw it because I can't repeat it... that's retarded.
For example, maybe something supernatural did happen, but it wasn't the writing down of the numbers or the feeling she had. Maybe, the universe was fundamentally predisposed to give her the winning numbers because she happened upon the perfect color of socks when she crawled into bed.
Regardless, we're left with the claim that she wrote it down the night before and new she was going to win.
So, in the absence of evidence for one proposition, there is no reason to believe it.
Tautological.
If your experiences are not repeatable and verifiable, as you claim, then again, you have no reason to believe that what you have ascribed them to is correct.
Not necessarily.
If I see a bird one time then I think I can believe that I saw it. And in practical purpose, this is exactly how people behave. Nobody denies everything until its repeated and verified.
SO again, your default state, as you claim, should be, "I'm not sure what those experiences indicate, nor am I sure they are external experiences versus internally generated ones." So, to be consistent, you're still left with agnosticism, according to your own logic.
that's not my logic...
At some point, your breaking your own logic...thus behaving irrationally. Being irrational is fine, I guess, but it should be acknowledged.
I'll acknowledge it when you show me it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:43 PM Perdition has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by NosyNed, posted 09-04-2009 8:46 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 87 of 154 (522729)
09-04-2009 3:59 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2009 3:52 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
Your worldview is a tautology.
Not quite. There are reasons that are not based on evidence...but here we get into quibbles about the definition of evidence again. I don't think anything that can't be replicated and can't be as removed from human biases and fallibilities as possible constitutes evidence.
So, what I'm saying is that without evidence I find no reason to believe, whereas, under my deifnition of evidence, YOU do find reasons to believe that are not evidentially-based.
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
No, but it is indicative and a prerequisite for it. I know that there may be things that exist for which I have no evidence (absence of evidence) but I don't see any reason to believe in them until I do.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 4:03 PM Perdition has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 88 of 154 (522730)
09-04-2009 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Perdition
09-04-2009 3:59 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
we're cross posting now because you edited while I was replying. I'm getting ready to run out the door so I'll just wait for you to reply to my other reply and then I'll combine them into one next time I get on.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 3:59 PM Perdition has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by Perdition, posted 09-04-2009 4:07 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Perdition
Member (Idle past 3324 days)
Posts: 1593
From: Wisconsin
Joined: 05-15-2003


Message 89 of 154 (522733)
09-04-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2009 4:03 PM


Re: Inventing Gods?
Sounds good. I hit submit too early and realized I had only responded to your first point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 4:03 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 9006
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 90 of 154 (522781)
09-04-2009 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by New Cat's Eye
09-04-2009 3:58 PM


degrees of acceptance
So if I see a bird in the woods and it flys away then I have to disbelieve that I saw it because I can't repeat it... that's retarded.
If you saw a crow in the woods around here contextual information would suggest a high probability of you being right.
Accepting said crow would not cause any upturning of current understanding of the natural history of the area; ie, it makes little difference if I erroneously accept your statement.
I would, without further effort, give it a pretty high level of acceptance.
If, however, you saw an Ivory billed Woodpecker in Arkansas you would get only a moderately low level of acceptance without further support. The context of information that we have is far different and the consequences are vastly different (there is a large reward for finding one and proving it).
Assigning different levels of acceptance is not retarded. It is exactly what we do everyday. It is the only rational behavior.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-04-2009 3:58 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-06-2009 12:45 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024