|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Pseudoskepticism and logic | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
RAZD writes:
Right, you don't let the claim impinge on your behavior. You behave as you did before the claim was made, before you knew of the existence/non-existence of the pit. You behave... as though it was not there.
No, I am "treating it" as if it just doesn't matter right now, or at any point in the future until more information is available. RAZD writes:
It seemed uncouth at the time, and your position on the subject is rather unique. But since you asked: RAZD, will you kill yourself in the interest of science and the advancement of knowledge? For instance, you could figure out if ghosts exist.
Have you asked? RAZD writes:
No, it isn't evidence. Do you have a problem with the principle itself?
Occam's razor is not evidence. Occam's razor is not a logical proof. RAZD writes:
That is because the YEC's are making an assertion. I am not, I am simply dismissing their assertion as unnecessary.
And, curiously, YEC's don't get to use that assertion for the origins of life to get out of the burden to demonstrate their assertion. RAZD writes:
The claim of theism is a positive claim that requires evidence to support it. In the absence of evidence to support the claim, it is reasonable to ignore the claim as unnecessary complication.
So what makes you a predominantly atheist rather than predominantly agnostic? quote:See that part where the claim is not incorporated as a new fact? If the claim of theism is not incorporated as a fact, then the skeptic lacks theism in their outlook. They are: Atheistic. Atheism is not a positive claim. It is the *lack* of belief in a positive claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi RAZD,
Which is not a get-out-of-burden-free card. The need to support a negative hypothesis is independent of any positive hypothesis.
"Get out of burden free card," that's funny since I feel the vague description of god is trying to do just that; getting out of estalishing a definitive description, which we could then progress forward and find out if one actually holds a negative position or not. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Bailey, hope things are well too.
It seems that oni is suggesting that, without the basic premise as to what defines an individual's perception of a god, the logical conclusion is unknowable whether theistic, agnostic or atheistic, etc.. For instance, perhaps - may one claim their car is red, without first laying out the premise of what color defines? Well said, a lot better than my mess - lol. You've understood my point perfectly. Lets take your color analogy as an example: If you claim red, yet can't define what red is, how do I even know that you're actually talking about a color? Maybe you're defining something completely different, and I would be falsely, and unnecessarily, holding to a position that's not even relevant to your definition of color - or, in the case of this thread, god.
In this light, there is the sense that - without at least a general concept of what a particular god may be, a god maybe nothing, everything and anything. With this definition - god is nothing, everything and anything, can one find a logical conclusion in agnosticism?
Exactly. Whats the point of being a theist, agnostic, or atheist, to something that has yet been defined. RAZD told Linda lou that he's satisfied with the common definition of a diety. Has anyone looked that up? I did, here's what I found.
source:
quote: IOW, a thing that exists. Here's the link for Deism; look through it and see if any description of god is given...? None. Still vague and indescribable. They claim (deist) to believe in the Supreme being, here's the link for Supreme being... no description of said Supreme being is given. Still vague and indescribable. As you asked so eloquently: "With this definition - god is nothing, everything and anything, can one find a logical conclusion in agnosticism?" - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2978 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Hi Razd,
I won't make it long.
What is needed for the hypothesis that all human concepts of god are made up is evidence that indeed all the concepts are made up. No. All I need to show is that the word "god" is a meaningless word (especially when used by a deist) that lacks any description or characteristic. The word "god" has no value until it's used in context, with supporting evidence (outside of the human mind). If I can prove that the word god is a meaningless word that describes absolutely nothing, then I show that no position (negative or otherwise) actually exists for this vague description. - Oni
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2505 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
RAZD writes: bluegenes writes: RAZD writes: Hi bluegenes, it seems we have a comprehension problem here. I'm complimenting you in suggesting it's a six. Sorry, but I don't see it that way. Why? because I'm a 4 -- agnostic. I'm curious to why you think anyone has to be a 6. Hi RAZD. Yes, we certainly have a comprehension problem. Obviously I need to explain further about mutually exclusive propositions. Thanks for committing yourself on omphalism. That's what I wanted. Here's the 1 to 7 on the Dawkins.org survey that you posted earlier.
quote: We've now established that you are "higher than 50% but not very high" for the general proposition of a god. You are also "exactly 50%" for omphalism. The 50% for omphalism means that you've only 50"% points left for all other propositions relating to the origin of the universe. The general monotheistic proposition and omhalism aren't mutually exclusive, so, currently we've got you at ~50% for omphalism, ~10% for other monotheistic possibilities, and ~40% for "all non-monotheistic possibilities." Fascinating. Now, perhaps you understand my suggestion of a "6" for omphalism. A six means, to paraphrase: 'I cannot know for certain but I think omphalism is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that it didn't happen.' Now, let's talk about agnosticism. It's about things we cannot know. We cannot know the ultimate origins of the universe (at least, at present) and what it really is. That's a strong agnostic statement, and it has nothing to do with the probabilities of any particular proposition like: the universe was created by hoards of elves in the ninth dimension. Because we cannot know, it is always reasonable to reply to any proposition on ultimate origins with the "6" answer; to paraphrase: 'I cannot know for certain but I think ninth dimensional elves are very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that they are not there.'
RAZD writes: Because you assert that they are not true. You've made a claim: that claim requires evidence to support it or you are just making an assumption based on faith in your personal opinion. I claim that they are mutually exclusive. Make 1001 mutually exclusive god propositions, and at least 99.9% must be false. Is there something about "mutually exclusive" that you don't understand? Biblical omphalism and last Thursdayism are mutually exclusive. If you're 50/50 on both of them, you've left room for nothing else. Many different mutually exclusive "One true gods" in human cultures demonstrates our tendency to make them up, and most (or all) must be false. Believing in false gods is, therefore, a statistically provable human norm. The "six" position is "very improbable", not "not true". This is always easy to support. As I've explained above, the statistical probability of any specific proposition about the ultimate origins of the universe is always very low from our perspective because, as true agnostics, we admit that we have no knowledge in the area. You cannot, RAZD, be 50/50 on more than two mutually exclusive propositions, and if you're 50/50 on two origins propositions, you're a 7 on all the rest. This, according to your arguments on this thread, makes you highly prone to pseudo-skepticism.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17827 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3
|
quote: So now, NOT changing the subject is ""an excuse". I think that any rational person would think that a change of subject - especially such an aggressive one as you have attempted here is a fairly obvious diversionary tactic. RAZD, it's pretty obvious that this issue is too emotional for you to deal with it rationally. A shame then that you keep brining it up.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3945 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
RAZD writes: Minnemooseus writes: Thus I find the "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" to be illegitimate. The phrase mutates into "TOTAL absence of evidence IS evidence of absence". Which just means that you have assumed you know everything, or have investigated every corner and niche inside and outside the universe. Almost all the concepts of god that we deal with involves a god that has and/or has had some direct influence on the state of things Earth. The exception seems to be your deistic god who, as I understand it, hasn't done a thing since that little matter of starting the up universe some 13.5 billion years ago. For me, a god 13.5 billion years removed transcends theistic/atheistic considerations. I'm flat out "apathistic". Now, we have done a pretty rigorous exploration of the past and present things Earth, without finding compelling evidence in support of gods existence. You, being a deist, apparently have the same viewpoint. Thus my statement in the above quoted. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD responds to me:
quote:quote: Since you agreed that it is not rational to think that there is an invisible, undetectable salamander heating my oven, are you saying that it is also irrational to think that god exists?
quote: You mean there are common examples of objects akin to god that we can then use to examine the possibility of a variation of the concept? Again, we know that life exists in the universe. We also know that space is traversible. Therefore, there is positive evidence that there may have been life that has traversed space.
quote: Yes. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra?
quote: Asked and answered: The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something extra? Now that I've answered yours, it would be nice if you answered mine: Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything. There really is a point to that question and it is precisely on topic. It has to do with the concept of "evidence." You have gone on and on about the need for evidence, but you ignore all the evidence that is surrounding you. To skip to the end: Why is this time different?
quote: (*chuckle*) You do realize that you just proved your own point to be a load of crap, yes? You're making a positive claim. Therefore, you must provide justification for it. Ah, but your rules don't apply to you, I guess. The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that there is need for something more? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined:
|
LindaLou responds to Straggler:
quote:quote: So you claim there is no objective evidence that people make stuff up? That is the criteria upon which you were asked to make your conclusion: "On the basis of the objective evidence alone." Don't you think that you should include the fact that people make up stuff all the time? That many of the various beings that have been put forward as "god" were made up? What makes this one any different? And if you can't even define what "god" is, then the problem is not with the atheists who claim your undefined entity doesn't exist. It's you for insisting that something that cannot be defined has a possibility of existing. If you don't even know what it is, how could ever hope to know it should you see it? If the position is, as RAZD has said, to "wait for more evidence," what possible evidence could there ever be since you don't even know what it is to look for or how one might go about finding out? There's a reason that the null hypothesis (what you are trying to show isn't true) is the default position. The default position is always that the thing that is claimed to exist actually doesn't. This is even more important when all you have is a label and nothing to actually attach it to. Defining "god" as a "force" is just a change of letters, not an actual definition because it doesn't explain anything. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: But the null hypothesis (the thing you are talking about existing) does not need justification. It is the default position. Therefore, it is always the burden of those claiming god to provide justification, not for the ones presenting that this "god" thing doesn't. This is even more important when this word "god" remains undefined such that there can never be evidence. The model works. Why do you need chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidnece of something missing? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: Exactly backwards. What is needed is evidence that any concept of any kind isn't simply made up. The null hypothesis is always assumed to be true unless there is evidence to deny it. If you're going to claim something exists, then you're the one that needs to show it. It is not up to the one denying it to demonstrate such. The model works. Why do you insist upon chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence of something missing? If you can't even define what it is that is missing, how do you know that there might be something missing in the first place? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes:
quote: It isn't difficult. It's very easy. You just don't like it. The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise. Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Otto Tellick Member (Idle past 2358 days) Posts: 288 From: PA, USA Joined:
|
It's hard for me to pick out which of your many posts on this thread I should reply to. You didn't reply to the last thing I said, but Onifre has been carrying the same basic line of thought, so I'll jump in here...
RAZD writes: What is needed for the hypothesis that all human concepts of god are made up is evidence that indeed all the concepts are made up. Without that specific, empirical and objective evidence the claim that "people make things up" is not evidence of anything. So now you want evidence that all human concepts of god are made up. Well, at first blush that seems reminiscent of the Creationist who demands that all details of all evolutionary steps from fish to human be explicitly demonstrated with observable evidence, otherwise no evidence whatsoever can be deemed sufficient -- but that's just a knee-jerk reaction on my part. Moving on... Shall we look again at steps 9 and 10 of your epistemological algorithm? Or maybe it will suffice to consider that hypotheses, theories and similar assertions may justifiably be held when they are supported by / consistent with available evidence, and can be considered the better alternative in comparison to other assertions that are not consistent with the available evidence. We have an assertion here that human conceptions of a deity are all made up. Daily observations of various people asserting the existence of a deity, and describing its attributes, leave no doubt that these individuals are indeed making this stuff up -- they make claims that directly contradict their own previous descriptions, descriptions provided by other people, and various written records that describe attributes of deities. And of course, these written records all conflict with each other, and many of them contain internal inconsistencies in their various descriptions of deities as well. We could (as I suggested earlier) rely on just the logical and philosophical steps of your "algorithm", and observe that the notion of a "deity" has intrinsic properties in its "definition" that make it a "pseudo-entity", whose essential property is its lack of any objective property. A deity is an entity with willful intent, responsible for the creation of reality as we know it, and this attribute in itself means that we cannot observe it directly in any objective sense, let alone have any direct, verifiable knowledge of its intent. But allow me to propose an alternative explanation (a theory, perhaps) about deities, which is consistent with the available evidence, and will (I hope) lend some support to those of us at position #7 on the Dawkins scale. I'm sorry I cannot go into rigorous evidentiary detail, but I hope most of the steps will involve topics familiar to you, so you can assess the availability of relevant evidence on your own. My hope is that given this explanation, we can cover all known instances of posited deities, and explain quite a lot more in addition. Reviewing what we are able to deduce about the past 3 billion years of known life on Earth, based solely on objective evidence and plausible natural processes, we see a progression in the nature of "awareness" (knowledge of environment) attributable to life forms. For the multicellular forms that develop mobile behaviors and specialized cells for perception and movement, the development of awareness shows an increase in the acuity and diversity of perception, a broadening of the range of movement behaviors, and a progressive elaboration of the cells that mediate between perception and movement:
That culminating ability is a natural by-product of a skill that offers obvious advantages for language users whose vocabulary lacks specific terms for describing or making assertions about novel objects or events. One of the essential functions of science is to create or adapt vocabulary as needed to meet specific needs for the communication of objective knowledge, and part of this process is to carefully delineate what a given term does not refer to, as well as what it does refer to. But when it comes to assertions about a deity -- a willful entity whose intentions are somehow served by the creation and progression of this physical reality that we occupy, whose nature and intentions are unknowable but are supposed to be relevant to us somehow -- we might as well be talking about those "colorless green ideas" made famous by Chomsky. The idea of a deity's willful intent is really an extension or projection of our own innate sense of planning activities to achieve desired results, and the deity itself is nothing more than a slot in a syntactic structure, serving as the subject of the verb "create", with "universe" as the object of the verb. It's just one of an infinite number of syntactic constructions having no particularly practical semantic value. If you want to assert that I have not presented an adequately rational and verifiable account for the conclusion that "all human conceptions of a deity are made up", I hope you can describe what is lacking here. If you are going to also assert that, because of whatever I may have left out, I must call myself an agnostic, meaning that I must allow some possibility for the existence of a deity, our discussion might be left in an odd state: your assertion entails some sort of description for a possible entity, and this description, in my view, must be made up, especially if it involves any attribution of willful intent, and more so if this intent is supposed to have direct relevance or impact on my day-to-day life. Conversely if you want a maximally "generalized" entity -- this deity is simply the thing that accounts for everything we can't explain on objective, naturalistic grounds -- you're just pushing a god-of-the-gaps idea, and I don't see any value in that. Bear in mind that if there is any basis at all for the opposite position ("not all human conceptions of a deity are made up"), this would need to be followed up with how these non-made-up conceptions were formed, (Be specific, so we know how to recognize the difference between made-up and not-made-up!) And then there's still the separate issue of whether any human conception of a deity is (can be) correct, as opposed to being wrong, regardless of its provenance. Wouldn't that entail that there can only be one correct conception, or will you want to assert that multiple incompatible conceptions can be true? Is that the sort of entity we're supposed to be agnostic about? Bottom line: Onifre and I (and some others here, presumably including Straggler) will continue to allow that you may hold any personal (internal, subjective) notions you like regarding the possible existence and attributes of deities, according to your own "idiolectal" gyrations of entities defined only by negations, but we won't agree that your personal notions are sufficient reason to label us as "agnostic", because the only basis for that label is your own personal notion of a deity. One last point to elaborate my evolutionary explanation of awareness, for those who are concerned about the notion of purpose: The development of intentional behavior brings with it the ability to form a sense of purpose, and to perceive purpose in the actions of others. Purpose is an "emergent property" of Sapiens, and (presumably) of any other organism that might happen to follow a similar path of cognitive development. As members of the Sapiens species, we establish purpose. We create it. As Dawkins would say, there is no need to posit a deity. To the extent that our sense of purpose leads to behavioral patterns conducive to our continued existence as a species, natural selection favors this property of our current evolutionary status. We have some ability to mold our sense of purpose -- and our particular intentions -- in order to achieve the best overall result for survival as members of a dominant species living in a highly interdependent network of countless species on a finite planet. We are learning that natural selection can (and often does) produce better results than intentional design, and that greater diversity is generally better than reduced diversity. In this context, something that essentially amounts to the golden rule is our best first intention, applicable not only to other people but to life in general, as far as this is possible. Ultimately, "do unto others..." isn't a religious doctrine; it is an ecological imperative. Edited by Otto Tellick, : adjusted the subtitle Edited by Otto Tellick, : improved the introduction to the list of developmental stages for awareness; added a sentence about Dawkins in next-to-last paragraph. Edited by Otto Tellick, : added a bit to last paragraph Edited by Otto Tellick, : No reason given. Edited by Otto Tellick, : minor stylistic tweaks autotelic adj. (of an entity or event) having within itself the purpose of its existence or happening.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined:
|
Hi RAZD,
Which only shows that it is unlikely for someone to draw something that they don't know. Or to successfully communicate its properties through any medium (and I think we can say it is unlikely for someone to even imagine a creature, significantly different from known ones, accurately). We know that creatures exist. Therefore, it must be even less likely for someone to successfully imagine, conceive or describe an entity the likes of which are not only unknown but who is inherently unknowable.
And yet being skeptical that a positive position is true does not mean that you must consider the negative position to be true. This is where I am having the trouble: getting beyond a purely skeptical position to one that asserts a negative hypothesis without any evidence that the negative hypothesis is true. I don't consider the negative position to be true. I consider it is more likely true than the positive position.
And I'm still having trouble with understanding the distinction between 5 and 6 with this argument: if you don't feel you have sufficient evidence to convince other people of your claim then (a) why are you making it, or (b) why don't you admit the uncertainty and take a 5 position instead? As I said, if you want to consider me a 5, go right ahead. But I'm a 5 that believes that the probability of a god existing is low and I live my life as if a god does not exist. I am making the claim because it is sometimes asked what I believe, and at other times my position is erroneously understood and I'd like to help rectify that.I do admit the uncertainty. Which is why I agree that the position should include a phrase such as "I cannot know with complete certainty but..." Great. So if you are skeptical of the negative hypothesis, then what is the problem with being an agnostic? Do they have bad breath? I am an agnostic.And I don't believe a god exists. And I believe it is unlikely that a god exists. And yet you still assume the negative hypothesis rather than the "I don't know" hypothesis. No RAZD, I conclude that the negative hypothesis is more likely than the positive hypothesis AND that "I can't know", by virtue of the entity in question having properties and actions that are 'unknowable'.
No, I don't think it is a matter of my understanding, nor do I see how my being determined to misunderstand would mean that you are somehow providing objective empirical information to justify a negative hypothesis. This is the issue of the thread. The issue of the thread is about Pseudoskepticism. You seem to be of the opinion that position 6 on the Dawkins scale qualifies as Pseudoskepticism. That is to say, we are debating whether or not I am making a negative claim and whether or not I have provided evidence that supports the claim I am making. Think on it like this, person X has a religious experience which they say came from God Almighty. Person Y comes along and says, "hmm, I wonder what caused that religious experience." Person Z says "It might have been a temporal lobe seizure." "Maybe, ", says Y, "but I'm not sure that is the most likely result. It might have been a moment of temporary but dramatic elation that was interpreted by the brain in the only way it was able to make sense of it." "Hey,", says X, "Maybe it was God!" "Well, of course it might have been", reply X and Z, "but we have no evidence such a creature exists. Why postulate that it does in order to explain your experience? Your hypothesis is no better than any other unverifiable and unfalsifiable hypothesis someone could come up with. It might be true, but it's not bloomin' likely, mate."
The creationist asserts that the spontaneous formation of life is "highly improbable" and they are asked to justify their calculation. Why should an atheist that claims that god/s are "highly improbable" get a free pass from demonstrating evidence to show exactly how improbable it is? Creationists often do show their calculations. The correct response is to show that they are not good calculations, and to point to how scientists have determined that certain pathways happen with a high probability etc etc. So, having provided the assumptions of my calculation you have the information you need. It is up to you to decide how many possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable entities there are that are not 'god' and then we can determine what the chances are that if one such concept exists, that it is god that is the one. It seems to me, that the number of things which would not qualify as a 'god' but are univerifiable and unfalsifiable is rather high.
Clutching at straws - perhaps the flaw is not in my reasoning but in the scale that Dawkins provided that was used as a reference of relative positions. PaulK made the same argument. Curiously this STILL does not absolve you from providing evidence for the negative hypothesis. I wasn't trying to refute you RAZD. Just pointing it out. You didn't seem so worried about all the other probability statements in the scale, but according to your own argument you should have taken issue with all of them. I'm glad to see you agree.
So you believe that atheism is most likely true, with a sprinkling of agnostic for tentative flavoring. You think that an entirely subjective explanation is sufficient evidence to support this position, but that an entirely subjective explanation is not sufficient evidence to support a predominantly theist position. Why? I don't feel an entirely subjective explanation is sufficient. However, whether one feels compelled to accept an argument or proposition by any set of evidence and reasons is ultimately a subjective judgement on their behalf. However, we are dealing with philosophy here - so a bit of care about exactly what is being claimed, and the argument in favour of that claim is needed. Here is my claim: For any given phenomenon, there exist many hypothesis that might explain it. Some hypotheses can be whittled down (somewhat, but not entirely) by falsification (of course, the falsifying evidence might itself turn out to be erroneous so we can never technically 100% reject a hypothesis). Then there are some hypotheses for which no evidence exists and an attempt is made to gather such evidence (one way or another). Then there are those hypotheses that cannot be verified or falsified. There are countless such hypotheses. The one that you (or someone else) propose might be true, but then it might be any of the other countless possibilities. The probability of drawing into that sea of possibilities and drawing out the one(s) that happen to be true is very low. If you want evidence that the number of unfalsifiable or unverifiable entities is high, I can try to provide some evidence and an argument as to why that is sufficient. If you want evidence that satisfies other hypotheses for the phenomena that people associate with a god, I can try to do that, though some has been presented already. So - what is it you want, if it has not been provided already? Or - what is lacking in the reasoning behind the evidence?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined:
|
Hi Phage0070, still playing word games.
It seemed uncouth at the time, and your position on the subject is rather unique. But since you asked: RAZD, will you kill yourself in the interest of science and the advancement of knowledge? Curiously I am not one of the #2+ theists that claim that there is an afterlife, so you would need to ask them. I'm undecided and there is no need to rush when the answer will be coming soon enough anyway. Do you know what it means to face death? You've asked if I would willingly place myself in jeopardy of falling into a magically invisible chasm in your hypothetical scenario, and the answer is yes, for the reasons provided, plus the fact that it would be unreasonable to think that you could magically avoid such a fate. You've already made it a supernatural event with my name on it. Such an instance would absolutely demonstrate that the what-was-known rules of behavior of objects was now falsified. At which point you would then -- if you were a true skeptic -- need to question the validity of all those what-was-known rules of behavior, you could not just assume that they would still apply. Including the effect of gravity, and what is life. Perhaps what I fall into is my personal heaven - how would you know? So no, I don't live as if it is false, I live as if it doesn't matter whether it is true or false.
That is because the YEC's are making an assertion. Correct: they are asserting that X does not exist.
Atheism is not a positive claim. Correct, it is a NEGATIVE claim. Atheism is an assertion that X does not exist, just like the YEC's above.
It is the *lack* of belief in a positive claim. That the positive claim is false.
I am not, I am simply dismissing their assertion as unnecessary. That is being agnostic, not atheistic. 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) • • •
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024