Pseudoskepticism and logic

Are you sure you want to use the word "rational" in regards to an idea that cannot be differentiated from pure human imagination?That's a strange definition of the word "rational" you've got there.The first step is to make sure that what you're talking about isn't pure imagination. Once you do that, then we can start discussing the "rational" possibilities of existence.Before you take that first step, you're not doing anything remotely rational.

You claim there is a difference? What, specifically, is the difference between an idea that "is made up" and one that "cannot be differentiated from the human imagination?"Especially since I can just say "Actually, maybe someone's just saying it's made up when it actually isn't" and then they are exactly the same. Or, if you'd like, sometimes "known to be made-up" things are actually real. Like black holes. They were imagined and made up by science-fiction writers and it turns out that they actually exist in reality.So what, specifically, is this difference you're talking about? I'm not sure what you mean. That response washes perfectly with me. In exactly the same way as how the response of "but your concept of The Christian Bible God is just silly and we all know it" is also acceptable to me. Or how the response of "but alternative medicine is just a bunch of bullshit and we all know it" also washes with me.I think the problem of responses "washing with you" in a consistend manner is on your end. The problem isn't specific circumstances. The problem is one of staying consistent. You are actually right, it is a valid position to be 50/50, but it's not rational unless you are consistent. To be consistent, you must then be 50/50 on ALL evidenceless ideas that cannot be differentiated from imagination. Since you continue to move around, and it's an unevidenced idea that your very next move will immediately lead to your death (regardless of past movements)... then you are being inconsistent by not giving that evidenceless proposition a 50/50 chance. That is not imagination, it very well could happen.I'm not calling your position irrational because it's agnostic. I'm calling your position irrational because it's inconsistent.Atheism isn't rational because it's atheism as opposed to agnosticism. Atheism is rational because it's consistent. With atheism, I can consistently reject all unevidenced propositions, regardless of them being "known to be imagination" or "unknown to be imagination, but there's no difference between it and imagination anyway."Agnosticism is certainly valid (logical). It's just very hard to keep it consistent when dealing with every and all possible non-evidenced ideas that cannot be differentiated from imagination.Do you think that being rational should include staying consistent?Or do you think that picking and choosing when you should act one way and when you should act another based on personal whims for identical situations is somehow "rational?"Edited by Stile, : Finishing touches

I agree.The problem is, that that almost everyone agrees. I'm sure CS, LL, RAZD and probably everyone else also think this seems pointless... just from the other side.Why is it that you, me, Straggler and others find this so simple/pointless/basic/the-way-things-are on one side, but those like CS, LL, RAZD and the similarlily-minded can find it so simple/pointless/basic/the-way-things-are on the other side?It doesn't make sense, really.This is by far the most popular thread. And one of the fastest growing I've ever seen at EvC. Why is that? There has to be "something" for it to be such a hotly-debated topic. What is this pointless thing that's at the heart of all these descrepencies?Is it (as Larni says) nothing more than how different people deal with varying levels of doubt-acceptance?Is it possible to identify the specific "something" that's at the centre of this debate and have someone change their stance in understanding it? Or is it something that's subjectively-hardwired (like a favourite taste or colour), and we just have to deal with however we are?I've seen people change their stance regarding beliefs in God or beliefs in other things... but that's more from gaining understanding about what they actually believed in rather than actually identifying the "something" that causes them to believe the way they do.I agree, it's pointless. I just wish it wasn't also indescribable

No. I'm claiming that to say "I don't know, I don't have any information that could differentiate this idea from imagination, therefore there is a 50% chance that it is a part of reality" is irrational.Are you attempting to say that it's rational to assign a 50% probability of existence (or any probability above the most miniscule) to an idea that appears to be exactly the same as pure imagination? No. I'm not claiming such a thing. I'm claiming that it's not rational to discuss the possibility of existence for something that cannot be differentiated from imagination. I'm not claiming that it is imagination, I'm claiming that it can't be differentiated from imagination. If someone thinks there is a difference, then that is their claim.My point is that if someone wants to start talking about the possibility for actual existence for an idea, their first step is to identify something that differentiates their idea from imagination. If that's impossible, then there's nothing rational going on.Or are you attempting to say that it's actually rational to take ideas that are identical to pure human imagination, and study their possibility of existence before there's any factual information to use at all? Now that would be curious indeed, for what would there be to study? Exactly. Therefore there's nothing to do except gain more information (either by actively looking, or passively waiting). It isn't rational at this point to jump to a conclusion that there's a 50% chance "it" actually exists. Nor is it rational to make any important decisions based on some possibility of existence. No possibility of existence can be determined in any way while there is a complete lack of factual information.Therefore, the only rational (and consistent) thing to do is ignore basing decisions against such propositions. Essentially -> atheism.If a decision is made based on a "what if it actually does exist?" type of fear or hope, while there is absolutely no factual information pointing towards such a conclusion... then it becomes impossible to remain consistent.In order to remain consistent after succumbing to such a doubt, one would have to succumb to all doubts (fears and hopes) for which there are no factual information pointing towards such conclusions. Since such a realm is infinite, it is therefore impossible to acknowledge all these unsubstantiated issues. In order to proceed in one's life, one would therefore have to be inconsistent and begin picking and choosing which baseless ideas are acknowledged and which are not.To me, being consistent is a part of being rational.However, there certainly are negatives to being strictly rational.
-it can slow progress (irrational exploration can be quicker than a strictly methodical approach).
-it's not much "fun"Personally, I myself even find it "not right" to ignore some things that I would like to be true, or just "feel" to be true. But, I acknoweldge that doing so is irrational, and inconsistent. I purchase video games irrationally all the time. "Hey, that looks cool!" Sometimes it is. Usually it is not.However, when important decisions are concerned such as what I want to do with my life, what sort of person I want to be, how I can support my friends and family... I find it only responsible and reasonable to take a strictly rational approach. It may be a slower-going, but I find it important to reduce errors as much as possible when dealing with important issues.When we stop acknowledging when we're being irrational, it becomes very easy to use those same irrationally-based methods on unimportant and important tasks equally. This is where the trouble begins.

"That's a good point, Boomhauer, but it's not what we're talking about."
-King of the HillIf there is an absence of evidence for keys in my pocket, then this is evidence for the absence of keys in my pocket.If I check my pocket and no keys are found, it is not a logical fallacy to conclude that there are no keys in my pocket.If I check the recorded history of mankind and no real Gods are found (just stories), it is not a logical fallacy to conclude that none of the Gods from those stories actually exist in reality.Just because it sounds similar to the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" fallacy doesn't mean that you can conflate the context.

I don't think you understand.No one is saying that the fallacy doesn't exist.It's just that the fallacy doesn't apply to this context.The fallacy doesn't apply when looking for keys in my pocket.
The fallacy doesn't apply when looking for Gods in the recorded history of humans.You need to make sure that the fallacy actually applies to the concept being discussed before you claim that the fallacy is actually disrupting the logic behind the statements.

Yes.It only applies in those examples where it is possible to test, but the test hasn't been done yet.Like your example of water on the moon. It is possible to test (we go to the moon and see), but the test hasn't been done yet (as far as I know, anyway). Which means that (as far as your example is concerned) the fallacy does apply.However, once we actually do go to the moon (or learn information about it by any other reliable means), and scan the entire structure for water, and don't find any... then it's no longer an applicable fallacy. There is still an absence of evidence, but now it is evidence for absence because we did the test.Same with keys in my pocket.
Same with God being a part of reality.With God, either the test has already been done (examining recorded human history). Or the test is impossible (God hides whenever anyone looks for Him).Both scenarios result in the fallacy not applying. Especially if the test is impossible. If it is impossible to test, then it is impossible for there ever to be anything but an absence of evidence. Therefore, if the evidence must always remain at nothing, then there's no rational reason to consider the phenomenon since there's absolutely no possible way to ever identify such a phenomenon interacting with reality. And therefore, again, an absence of evidence is evidence of absence.

Definition of skepticism? Why did you bring that up in regards to what you quoted and replied to? I think you're sticking to the definition of skepticism in the OP just fine. What you're not doing, is staying consistent, which is why your position is irrational. I'm not saying that being inconsistent is wrong, or doesn't work. I'm saying it's not rational. That's all.With alien rayguns and erupting Morlocks... you ignore them until "it happens."However, to be consistent (and therefore rational), you should also ignore God until "it happens." However, you do not. This is the inconsistency. Atheists ignore God until "it happens." That's the exact definition of atheism for all atheists participating in this thread.Perhaps you have a hard time identifying the difference between "it happens" and "I think it happens." That is, you never "think" that aliens or Morlocks are attacking you. However, you do seem to think that God does indeed happen. Regardless of the fact that all three are equally unevidenced propositions. This is your inconsistency. Realistically, your thinking that God happens can very well be replaced with thinking that aliens or Morlocks actually happening and you'd have the exact same defense for any and all of them... that you "think" they happen.Try not to confuse "thinking" something happens with it actually happening. That's the first step to removing the inconsistency. That is, if removing the inconsistencey is even something you'd like to pursue. No one ever said that consistency was the only criterion, LindaLou. Please try to remain focused. All I'm saying is that if you are inconsistent, then you are not rational. Yes, I understand how you are consistent with those ideas. But that's not what we're talking about.IPU (evidenceless proposition)
-an Atheist ignores it and doesn't consider it in their actions until evidence is discovered
-LindaLou ignores it and doesn't consider it in her actions until evidence is discoveredFSM (evidenceless proposition)
-an Atheist ignores it and doesn't consider it in their actions until evidence is discovered
-LindaLou ignores it and doesn't consider it in her actions until evidence is discoveredLast Thursdayism (evidenceless proposition)
-an Atheist ignores it and doesn't consider it in their actions until evidence is discovered
-LindaLou ignores it and doesn't consider it in her actions until evidence is discoveredSupernatural things (God, ghosts...) (evidenceless proposition)
-an Atheist ignores it and doesn't consider it in their actions until evidence is discovered
-LindaLou takes notice and considers certain aspects when making decisions, without the need to wait until evidence is discoveredThat is the inconsistencey, LindaLou.
All of them: the atheist, the agnostic, you and me, we all say "I don't know" to all the questions. But you seem to act differently in response to identically evidenceless situations. That is the inconsistency and irrationality.This doesn't mean you're "wrong" or "bad" or that you "lose the game of life" or something. It's really not that big of a deal, pretty much everyone is inconsistent (and therefore irrational) when certain aspects of their lives come up.The difference is that I acknowledge when I'm being inconsistent and irrational so that I can ensure that I can be rational and consistent for important tasks.Perhaps that's not important to you (again, there's no "right" or "wrong"). But it is incorrect for you to claim that you are being consistent and rational when you're simply just ignoring your inconsistencies.

Exactly. Your reasons for leaning towards the possible existence of the divine are:1. Personal Interest (Subjective)
2. Possible Personal Benefit (Subjective)
3. That "you think" there's enough evidence (even though it's evidenceless). (Subjective)Therefore, all your reasons for leaning towards the possible existence of the divine are all subjective. Therefore, this "leaning" is not based upon a rational approach. Exactly. These ideas subjectively "are of no interest" to you.You cannot claim that your subjective method for leaning or not leaning towards the existence of equally evidenceless ideas is somehow rational.If it makes you feel better, or you gain other benefits... those are excellent subjective reasons for you to continue with your beliefs. But, it is important to understand that such reasons are not rational. When someone doesn't understand this difference, then it becomes very easy for them to use a similar subjective system to make decisions for very important things.It certainly works for most unimportant decisions. And no one can call it intrinsically wrong. But it's also irrational because it is subjective and inconsistent.I'm not trying to sway you one way or the other in your beliefs. I really couldn't care less what you believe in. All I'm trying to do is get you to see your methods for what they are. Then you will be able to understand if you want to keep them or change them for yourself.I have no issue with someone who believes in the divine, and understands that such a belief is subjective (and therefore not rational).I have an issue with someone who believes in the divine (or any other evidenceless idea), and also thinks that belief is somehow rational. And therefore thinks the same method can be used for other important decisions. This is what drives ignorance and creates a field day for con artists. It's a very damaging cognitive issue to have unchecked.The only reason I started all this was because you mentioned something along the lines of "because there's no evidence, then there's a 50/50 chance it could be real." Now, I'm not sure if you actually believed that or if you just said it as the conversation was going along. All I'm trying to point out is that such beliefs, in relation to things based on no evidence, are not rational.

Except then you get into the problems of consistency, which I've already explained. If you don't want to acknowledge them, that's fine. Instead of just saying I'm incorrect, it would be helpful if you could explain why you think so. So far, you haven't been able to give any rational reason for why you are being inconsistent (and therefore the agnostic position is not rational).The subject of this thread is about showing why the burden of proof is on those who claim "100% false" to evidenceless ideas. This has already been answered many times over... no one here claims "100% false" to evidenceless ideas. And it's agreed that for those who do, a burden of proof does fall upon their shoulders. However, all people here claim is that while there is no evidence, it is more rational to ignore the concept.You seem to agree with this for aliens and Morlocks. But when God is concerned (an equally unevidenced idea), your inconsistency shows and you defend special treatment.Just because something is rational, doesn't mean that it's a 100%, undeniable description of reality. It's quite possible that God does exist. However, it's not rational to acknowledge such (above the most miniscule of levels) without any evidence to point towards such a conclusion.Like with Black Holes. They were entirely made-up and fictional. It turns out they are real. However, before there was any evidence to point towards them being real it was rational to ignore the concept. Turns out that being rational at this point temporarily resulted in an incorrect description of reality. No (known) system is perfect, but being objective and rational is the best system available. It destroys the competition completely and utterly in a "what works best to eventually discover the real world and not be fooled" arena.Temporarily being wrong is much better than fooling yourself forever.
This is the trade-off that being rational provides. It allows you to never be in an unreconcilably lost position. However (as all systems do) it does have the chance for temporarily being incorrect. Of course, it minimizes the chances of these temporary errors way better than any other method.So, it may very well be that we'll find some actual evidence of the supernatural at some point. However, until such a point comes, it is rational to ignore the concept. It is also irrational to believe in the concept.Exactly like how it is rational to ignore aliens and Morlocks until any evidence pointing in their direction is found. It's equally possible that we may one day find evidence of aliens or Morlocks.This method is the only one that retains consistency. When we break that consistency, it is only prudent to be honest with ourselves so that we do not create a fantasy world in our own minds. It certainly can be beneficial to us to break this inconsistencey. As you mentioned, we certainly can gain personal happiness, solace, and other benefits from irrational decisions and beliefs. And I have absolutely no problems for anyone who wants to pursue happiness in this fashion. I do it all the time myself when dealing with unimportant decisions like what video game I want to buy or what movie I'd like to go and see. However, it gets dangerous when we fool ourselves into thinking that this is actually rational. That's the beginning of confusing the objective and subjective, and that leads to living in a fantasy world.Only you can decide if being rational or being irrational is best for you in this situation. But it is dangerous to take an irrational position and think that it's rational... this is what leads to insane decisions.

And, again, no one is making such a claim. I'm only saying that any claim that has no evidence is highly unlikely to be true. Therefore, I'm ignoring any claim for which there is no evidence until such a time that evidence is found. No one is saying that such evidence proves God does not exist. I'm only saying that such evidence is valid for concluding that God is highly unlikely. As highly unlikely as any other evidenceless proposition.I may be wrong. It may be that God actually does exist. But this position of ignoring the God concept until evidence is presented is based on evidence (as given above) and it's also consistent and rational.Perhaps you're trying to say that the God hypothesis is "larger" in the sense of not being mutually exclusive with the rest of the infinite number of unevidenced possibitilies? And, if so, the God hypothesis should then be considered more of an either/or... like a mundane explanation or one including God? Thereby increasing it's relatively likelihood amongst the other unevidenced ideas?There are problems with this though. Bascially, it's impossible.1. God may not be mutally exclusive with a lot of other unevidenced possibilities. But the problem with the unevidenced possibility pile is that pretty much anything goes. As such, there is always an infinite number of unevidenced possibilities that are by very definition mutually exclusive with the God idea (or any other proposed, unevidenced idea). That is, things like "There is no God, but there is a _____" type of ideas. Strictly mutually exclusive to the God hypothesis, and yet still an infinitely large number of possibilities.2. Or we can attempt to redefine what is meant by "God" to be more of a "anything that isn't a mundane explanation" type of unevidenced idea. This would seem to increase the "God hypothesis pile" to something more approaching 50/50. However, this only actually results in moving the goal posts. The first question would be a near 50/50 between "is it a mundane explanation or is it an unevidenced God (not mundane) explanation?" And this trivial totallity is quickly identified and replaced with the real question. Which is: "if it is an unevidenced God (not mundane), what is this not mundane thing? And the possible answers are, again, the entire pile of infinitely unevidenced ideas. Therefore, the "highly unlikely" issues of any particular one are equally valid as above.There's no way to get around it. As soon as we start considering unevidenced ideas (regardless of it being God or not) there is always a valid infinitely large pool of other mutually exclusive ideas that are all equally unevidenced. There may be even more unevidenced ideas that are not mutually exclusive, but that doesn't negate the ones that are.

As RAZD implied, my views aren't signifcantly different from others' here. Which is why I attempted to show how all here are providing evidence for whatever claims are being made.I think everyone in the thread (yes, everyone) agrees with the OP in the sense that positive and negative claims must be followed with evidence. The idea that all claims must be followed with evidence is not anything that any rational person would disagree with.The confusion grew as all those views that didn't differ significantly from my own continued to state that no one is making a negative claim (eg - there are no god/s), we are only making positive claims of probability (god/s are highly unlikely) and giving evidence for such a claim (see Message 509 by Modulous).I am befuddled as to why this thread wasn't less than 10 posts.I am pleased that something good came from this thread after over 500 posts. Specifically, that I got to use the word "befuddled."