Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hey Straggler,In Message 3 you wrote:

quote:

---

It isn’t really negative evidence as such (although I have used the term myself previously). Rather it is positive evidence for a mutually exclusive alternative to the "unusal" explanation being proposed.

---

and in Message 11 you wrote:

quote:

---

Every single time that you assert that atheism equates to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence" you are denying the mass of objective evidence that many atheists, myself included, would cite in favour of the possibility that gods may just be human inventions.

---

I think your misunderstanding the opposing position. First of all, that some gods are made-up is not mutually exclusive to gods existing so your first quote is already off. And that you use the fact that some gods are made up to support the position that gods do not exist is why you are being accused of the some=all fallacy. When that 'support' for your position falls away you are left with the absence of evidence.Or at least, that's how I'm seeing it.Explain to me how some gods being made up is mutually exclusive to any gods existing.

There is evidence that the IPU was made-up to parody religion.

The IPU website(s) and wikipedia article explain it rather well. Yes, just like for some other specific descriptions of gods.But its irrelevant to the idea of a nondescript god existing.

Because nondescript doesn't mean "no description", its means "not well defined".Nondescript Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

quote:

---

God is a deity in theistic and deistic religions and other belief systems, representing either the sole deity in monotheism, or a principal deity in polytheism.[1] God is also the creator of the universe including man.

​

God is most often conceived of as the supernatural creator and overseer of the universe. Theologians have ascribed a variety of attributes to the many different conceptions of God. The most common among these include omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence, omnibenevolence (perfect goodness), divine simplicity, and eternal and necessary existence. God has also been conceived as being incorporeal, a personal being, the source of all moral obligation, and the "greatest conceivable existent".

---

God - Wikipedia Its conception evolved over the millennia.

---

You get the cruiseship contract?

I dunno. I suppose it is like a continuum and we could talk about however descript you want to get. The ones that have been shown to be made-up; Apollo pulling the sun across the sky with a chariot, for example. Nope. I'd bet there's some specific descriptions that haven't been shown to be made-up.

No, they have not been shown to be made-up. But since they follow the adjective-adjective-noun format of the IPU, I'm thinking that you just made them up but weren't creative enough to go with a different format to hide it (or left it obvious on purpose). Well, I don't know if they exist or not but I doubt it because 1) it looks like you just made them up 2) they are self contradictory and 3) that they just seem ridiculous to me and are in no way consitent with my worldview. I'm not catching what you're hinting at.

Really, its because they are obviously made-up. That, and that those ones are self contradictory. Nope, those really aren't the reasons for me. And none of that really applies to the god I believe in. Because I have doubt that someone could have made it up, or make up ten of them before breakfast, nor do I see a motivation for the invention, nor do I see the past inventions of gods as relevant to my currently believed god, and I don't seem my concept of god as being silly. None of your justification for atheism towards the IPU are applicable to the god that I believe in. I don't think so. Not really any of those questions you wrote had anything to do with my atheism towards the IPU. So, no... I'm not special pleading. Its a totally different case. Okay, I can grant you that.But your conclusion doesn't follow from your argument so the only adequate argument you left with is the absence of evidence. Nah, I don't think so. Well, maybe possibly, but not really all that much. Its not as if any god concept has been shown to be human invention. Some of them most certainly have, and some of them have not. The possibility is always there though, so what?You're conclusion that any god concept is more likely to be made-up than not doesn't follow from the fact that some of them have. Its not really that profound.

The concept of god, in general, exists even without all the specifics that various cultures have ascribed to it. No.I'm sure a lot of the concept emerged from people's objective experiences as well.

---

I've worked on 4 different cruiseships over the last year. A lot of those Second City folks were fun and cool. Meet any? Nassau? I was there. They tried to sell me drugs too. I'd never buy drugs off of a stranger though. Yeah, it just doesn't work. We either got to do it so out in the open that we'd get caught or so secretively that I could easily get screwed over. I was curious because I had been on those ships. How'd you like the crew quarters? Or all those oriental people eating that nasty fish and rice that they make in the crew mess?I thought it was cool to see all the behind the scenes stuff that goes on in a cruiseship.

Why can't their be collective ambiguous concepts? Cough-Deism-Cough. That's all fine and dandy. Oh, you mean the details of the concept... After I tell you all the details! free HTML tip....use:‹hr›and it becomes:

---

Ah, that's nice you had a cabin. I had one on one ship but the other three were crew quarter with bunk beds. Yeah it was. You didn't get a taste of the goat curry, did you? Oh shit some of them were hot. I met a few dancer girls working out in the gym and that alone was reason enough to come back and pretend like I was working out They're fit and flexible.

But its not that ability and proneness to invention that leads me to believe the IPU was made-up. Its the websites and absurdity of the claims that suggest it. I disagree. A person could be describing a real entity and also add specifics that are a product of their mind. How could an immaterial entity's possibility of existing be directly objectively evidenced?Indirectly though, and this makes the claim not completely unevidence; Most people do believe in god and it is more likely that a god exists than all those poeple being deluded. This is objective and suggests a possibility of god existing. The websites and the absurdity. That the ability is the main requirement. They could be but we were talking apecifically about the god I believe in which was arrived at without those 'very human needs, desires, wants and fears'. Because you're using the human ability to invent to justify disbelief in gods and I'm not using that for the IPU, and because my god concept is not something that is easily made-up. As I said in Message 58:

quote:

---

None of your justification for atheism towards the IPU are applicable to the god that I believe in.

---

Its simply a different plea.

But I'm not going to effectively be an atheist towards it... X = a nondescript god
!X = specific gods that are likely, or shown to be, the product of human invention I think its unlikely for so many people to have been so wrong. No, because I think it falls into the agnostic position that I have been advocating as the rational one since the beginning. Oops, sorry, I see the ambiguity now. I was answering "what exactly are you disagreeing with?" I was disagree with you that the ability to invent is the main requirement for my disbelief in the IPU. Do you really put the IPU on the level of "very probably a human invention" or do you actually take it as far as to say that you're certain, albeit not absolutely, that the IPU doesn't exist?Because it really seems that you're retreating a little here, and allowing for more possibility of god existing, and bringing yourself into the realm of agnosticism that I've been advocating the whole time.

Wow! You mean that pink elephant was real? « Oldster's View

I think this is a False Dichotomy. The god could be a real entity with some of the concept being a product of the human mind.And actually, although this is a little absurd and extraneous to my argument, perhaps the human mind can produce real entities But, what I was trying to get at in the other thread was that when you use this dicotomy with the fact that some of the specifics of the concept have been shown to be a product of the human mind, you are not showing that the concept is not a real entity. Do you see how my argument remains undestroyed even with a "no" here?

Its relevent because your two possibilites are neither the only two, nor exclusive. Whatever particular god concept you are discussing that has specifics that have been shown to be the product of human invention. I know what I believe in... And what I'm saying is that the possibilities aren't really competing. That argument could be used on anything that hasn't been objectively evidenced...I just saw a bird outside. yeah? well, the possibility that you just made that up outweighs it actually existing because I didn't see the bird too. You're not doubting that you could make up a bird, are you?The flaw is in comparing probabilities that don't affect each other. The objectively evidenced capacity for human invention and the possibility of a god concept being invented don't have anything to do with the possibility of a god concept actually existing. That you have a False Dichotomy, not two mutally exclusive positions, and that the possibilities for the positions you outline are unrelated. No, I don't know what you're typing about there.

Now that you have adjusted the statement to be tautological, your objective evidence no longer supports it. We don't have objective evidence that a particular god concept is entirely a human invention, not even for Apollo.Plus, an individual belief couldn't be entirely an invention unless it was unique. I don't know. Of course it's possible, but the plausibility is inversly proportional to the variety of different cultures across different times that have come to the same conclusion. Don't you think that an aboriginal australian 1,000 years ago is different enough from a 20th century Hindu to doubt that their conclusions that a god exists comes from shared aspects of their psychologies? It could be. This explanation fits better with my experiences and understanding of reality. And for this, I don't think a belief in god has to be irrational nor that it can't be supported by evidence. I don't think either are evidenced that much better than the other. Although the first one is better from a materialistic assumption. That's fine. I'll give you that. But I still don't think the argument you presented is sound because your conclusion doesn't follow from the evidence unless you present a false dichotomy. No, I'm saying that my observation of that particular bird has not been objectively evidenced so the possibility of me making it up outweighs the evidence we have for me actually seeing it. I'm trying to exemplify the flaw in your argument.