Pseudoskepticism and logic

Hi Modulous,

quote:

---

If God exists, then he is a natural process of reality. And if it happens as part of the natural processes or reality, that doesn't necessarily imply 'chance'.

---

Fair enough.

quote:

---

No, by this logic we get a 100% chance that the universe happened by the processes that are 'natural' to reality. The question then becomes 'what processes specifically?'

---

With you.

quote:

---

If you propose some entity or process for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way, the chances are you've proposed wrongly. It is possible you are right, but not likely.

---

If we're looking at it this way, I would say that without any evidence, it's really an impossible task to assess likelihood at all. If we have absolutely no idea what existed before the big bang, if indeed anything existed at all, then it's impossible to say that "x" is more likely than "y", though that doesn't stop us from making interesting guesses.

quote:

---

I would find it unlikely that the memory she has of her visual experience was as a result of actually experiencing an actual fairy entity if that fairy entity was unverifiable independently of human vision.

---

Would you be willing to say, with any degree of honesty, "I'm not sure"?

Hi LindaLou RAZD and CS believe in hypothical creatures. If no-one did, the thread wouldn't exist. We atheists are happy to leave out all such evidenceless hypothetical beings, and ascribe our existence to nature, a phenomenon for which there's overwhelming evidence. Yet we're being asked to present evidence against the evidenceless!It's like a debate between those who assume that pigs only walk, and those who claim that they can fly, with the flying factor demanding that their proposition should be conclusively disproved. The premise is false, and was made by someone who didn't realise that it is impossible to be a 50/50 agnostic when faced with more than two mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions. And we can make up billions of evidenceless propositions once the supernatural is allowed.I've been illustrating this by using mutually exclusive supernatural propositions on origins, but if the real debate is between the supernatural and the natural, there's only one evidenceless position involved.

Probably a wise choice. Speaking of which, I think we are nearing the end here since I'm not sure we're marching forwards. We'll see, I have faith And how would we know if confirmation bias is in play? If it supports your argument rather then mine? If you want to criticise the argument please don't just absent mindedly say skeptical sounding catch phrases. No, that is not my default response. It is my view that anything which is proposed to explain a phenomena but is itself impossible to verify is both unknowable, unknown and unlikely to be true.That is not even close to being 'necessarily false'.If we don't currently have the technology to detect it, then it isn't unverifiable in principle, only in practice.If you will excuse the anticipatory counter-pun: I will leave the branch of thought about things which are only currently unverifiable in practice until later. Agreed. Unverifiable and unfalsifiable hypothesis are not testable. I agree. Which is why I keep repeating that the god claim has not been disproved, and nor is it my position that it has or can be. In fact my entire argument is focussed on the fact that it cannot be disproved so my claiming that it has been disproved would undermine myself!You keep bringing up that it is not logical, or rational or 'truly skeptical' to say that the claim has been 'disproven' without evidence. And I keep saying that I'm not saying that claim has been disproven. Can you acknowledge that we both agree that the god hypothesis has not been disproved? Agreed. But I am not talking about things that could be tested, but haven't. I'm talking about something which has been defined as untestable. Hence my repeated references to it being unverifiable and unfalsifiable. You'll need to explain what the difference is and why it is relevant. As I explained in my previous post I need do no such thing anymore than any scientist needs to show that his hypothesis applies to every single instance. I just point out that there is evidence for religious experiences being purely neural events caused by the vagaries of the brain, and there is no evidence for any unverifiable and unfalsifiable external process or entity being the cause of religious experiences. Since there are many such possible processes/entities, that any given one of them is true is unlikely. And it is. Wow, I guess I picked the wrong day to quit amphetamines. There is empirical study as to the causes of religious experiences. But it's like studying the causes of schizophrenia - you can't definitively say that every single individual's schizophrenia was caused by drugs/genetics/whatever. It could be the case that the feelings are representative of reality and that a malicious external force (eg the CIA) are secretely trying to poison them in some kind of handily untestable or unfalsifiable fashion. If you think the rational course of action is to shrug and say 'maybe they are', then you go right ahead.Personally, I think it is far more rational to say 'It is unlikely the CIA are trying to poison you and more likely that you should take this medication because the evidence suggests you are likely having an abnormal brain event that is causing you distress'. Yep. I can induce personal religious experiences too. So? X is an integer. I defined it as 'the number of possible unfalsifiable and unverifiable hypotheses that can explain any given phenomena that is sometimes attributed to 'god'.' If you want the given phenomena to be 'religious or spiritual experience' then that's fine. What number do you think x is? We could do that, but why and what relevantce is it to the topic at hand?Now - what might comparable is if a two blind men walk into the forest and one picks a random leaf and declares "Upon this leaf is written 'RAZD was right, after all'"Now - we both agree that he might be right. However, he is making his claim based on no evidence, and even if one leaf in the forest did contain such a leaf the chances of the blind man picking it are very slim.This is similar to what I am trying to express here.But, in this case, at least the blind man is making a claim that is in principle, testable. He could go to a sighted person and ask them, or he could use other instruments that record visual information and have it translated into a medium that a blind person could experience.Which leads me to things that could be verified but have not yet been so. A classic example to date being the Higgs Boson.Now it seems to me that there is good reason to think that a Higgs Boson could exist, but it is not necessarily the case. When it comes to the Higgs Boson, using Dawkins' terminology, I am TAP (temporarily agnostic in practice) and I simply refer the argument to the experts as to whether there is a strong case either way. I hear there are good reasons to think there is such a thing. The Higgs Boson is a well defined entity with potentially testable properties.If you think we are discussing such an entity when we are talking about a god, then I am eager to hear the strict definition about its proposed properties.I feel, however, you don't have such a vision. If what you are talking is about a vague thing the properties of which which you won't comment on it becomes impossible to say what the probabilities are for obvious reasons. If it is well defined as something that is unfalsifiable and untestable then my argument so far provided applies. If it is well defined in some other way that is testable (but not practically or presently so), then I'd like to hear about it. If it is not defined well enough to say if it is testable or not or anything about it really specifically at all...then I have no belief in it nor do I assign any probability because I have no idea what you are talking about to have an opinion either way (ie., 'truly' agnostic). I am sure that unverifiable/unfalsifiable concepts are necessarily unverifiable/unfalsifiable. As above, if you are talking about something else, let me know. eh?
If it is verifiable in principle then that is part of the description of the hypothesis. Do you even know what the hypothesis is, exactly? No. It means that it is falsifiable. I asserted it that unfalsifiable/unverfiable entities and processes are many AND offered to demonstrate that this is true if you wanted. I would have though it was self-evident, but I can do it if you like.I asserted that with a collection of objects, where one of the objects is the 'winner' - and there is no evidence whatsoever as to which object is the right one, any method of picking has as much chance as any other. It is essentially a lucky dip.If you have any issue with this argument, speak up. If you think the probabilities of all unfalsifiable entities is not equiprobable or there are only a small number of them - then make your argument. Don't just dismiss it as an assertion no better than a creationist calculation. I don't dismiss creationist calculations as merely creationist calculations. I can actually show the problems. So do that. Then the debate might move forward. The kernels of commonality do not indicate a possibility at all. They are possible with or without those commonality. The commonality of experiences is evidence of a commonality of causes. I have evidence that some causes are common to human physiology. Do you have any evidence that an entity you term 'god' is such a cause? If not, why is it more likely that it is 'god' than it is that it is undetectable rays being beamed from the moon, secret CIA poison, malicious time travelling scientists setting up (undetectable) interference patterns that interfere with a quantum gravimetric matrix causing a theta wave cascade resulting in a religious experience, etc etc etc etc ad infinitumIf the 'god did it' hypothesis is more likely than CIA agents or moon beams then explain how you have made this determination.As it stands, the way I see it, the evidence available to us would suggest they are all share the same likelihood of being true. And there are many many many of them. And the chances of picking one correctly, assuming one of them is true, is low. Agreed - but at this time we can also say that not only do we not know, but that the chances of it being a moon ray causing religious experiences are very low. The chances of it being CIA toxins or communist plots to sap and impurify our bodily fluids are also low. I see no reason to suppose that 'god did it' is any more likely. Do you?

I'm sorry, you'd probably gone over just that question before.The point is (and you seem to agree) that you think those questions "silly" - you don't believe in those maybe's. By a similar token, it sounds as if believing in god could be just as silly, ergo non-belief is a rational stance.It's possible, but not very likely, ergo disbelief is logical.I don't think there's a contradiction with saying both "I don't know" and "I don't believe".I'm not well-equipped enough with the vocabulary to debate how near to sure you have to be before you can "know" something that is an unproved negative.I think you could say you "know" we won't suddenly go flying off into space, but you would probably admit you can't be 100% sure. 99-point-lots-of-nines sure, yes - so where on that scale can you be about an unproved negative?Anyway, you don't have to respond.Cheers.

You seem to have reached the stage where you are actually in denial of facts. Oh well. That aside. You actually seem proud of your ambiguity and evasiveness! I would suggest that your ambiguity is borne from a desire to make whatever it is we are talking about here as irrefutable as possible. Unfortunately it still falls foul of reason and evidence unless either your god exists only in your mind or you genuinely have no more idea of what you believe in than we do (in which case how can you believe in it?) Talking of negative claims..... How can you possibly know enough about something "unknowable" to know that it is definitely unknowable? Why isn't it at least potentially knowable? How do you know it isn't? Contradictory nonsense RAZ. You really haven't thought this through very well have you? "Unknowable"? "Outside the universe"? "Off doing other things"? Good grief RAZ this is truly ICANTian. But then given your current position on evidence you are in appropriate company.Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotesEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Exactly! You've encapsulated the Invisible Pink Unicorn argument perfectly and many atheists and a few others have been trying to drive this point home for so long its nice to see it sinking in.It is impossible to say that 'x' is more likely than 'y'. It is impossible to say that 'a god exists' is more likely than 'an IPU exists'. And yet theists and deists and agnostics and more have been arguing for some time that this is not the case - that a god is more likely. I'd go further than that. I'd insist that I'm not sure with complete honesty.

I have no problem with saying "I don't know" at all. That is the first part of my answer to the question of every single irrefutable concept imaginable. Closely followed with "but the evidence suggests it very unlikely". What is your problem with recognising that any given wholly unevidenced claim is relatively unlikely to be true? Hallelujah LindaLou! Welcome to the dark side you old "pseudoskeptic" you. Welcome to the atheist point of view. It is frustrating being confronted with an endless array of irrefutable entities all of which you consider deeply improbable isn't it? The only difference between you and I is that you special plead those unevidenced entities and concepts which you feel for whatever wholly subjective reason are "sensible" rather than "silly".But if you or RAZD or anyone else cannot demonstrate why by the definition of the OP you are not psudoskeptics with regard to any of the concepts that we all agree are "silly" (your word not mine BTW) then you cannot legitimately require that anyone else meet these criteria with regard to anything more contentious.Could it just be that the criteria being requested (i.e. to refute the inherently irrefutable) are bogus, pointless, ill considered, self defeating and "silly"?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Rrhain, still insisting on applying mathematics to metaphysics? Mooseus seems to be having doubts about doing so.

quote:

---

Are you seriously saying that it is apparently valid but actually invalid to use science to study reality?

---

Ontology

quote:

---

Noun
ontology (plural ontologies)
(uncountable, philosophy) The branch of metaphysics that addresses the nature or essential characteristics of being and of things that exist; the study of being qua being.
(countable, philosophy) The theory of a particular philosopher or school of thought concerning the fundamental types of entity in the universe.

---

You're being slippery about how you use the term "reality." Sure we can use science to obtain information about a rock's composition, age, history, etc. Ontology, as I'm sure you're aware, would look at what it's like to "be" a rock. Not very useful maybe, but "being-ness" is not something that the scientific method can really describe.Your example of the null hypothesis only serves to explain what it is and how it can be useful in the scientific method. In a way, this very example shows why you can't apply it to ontological investigations:

quote:

---

the null hypothesiswhich is typically a statement reflecting the status quo

---

The problem is, when we look at metaphysics, it's all about defining the status quo -- i.e. determining the nature of reality. The statement above supports what I said about us needing some understanding of, or belief in, that before rationality and the scientific method can even be applied. The question, "Is there a god?" is not on the same metaphysical ground as "Does three 'heads' in a row when I flip a quarter mean that I have a two-headed coin?".

quote:

---

Complete non sequitur. The null hypothesis has nothing to do with solipsism. It has nothing to do with you. It has to do with processes and expected outcomes.

---

I can't prove that anything exists outside of my own consciousness, can you? This is the null hypothesis until I have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise. Since I believe that evidence either doesn't exist or is unobtainable by me, now, then I live my life on the assumption that what I'm experiencing is real. No one can claim any differently.Now if you believe as you say above, that this has nothing to do with the null hypothesis, maybe you should stop trying to apply the null hypothesis or other mathematical or empirical epistemological tools to areas where they don't work. I believe this is what Mooseus was suggesting in his recent post. Once some empirical evidence emerges, then you've got something to use them on.

quote:

---

Have you not read the work of Descartes and Popper and Kuhn or any of the other scientific philosophers?

---

Maybe you can cite some evidence from those sources that is appropriate to this topic?

quote:

---

The entire point behind this discussion is that we are pointing out that the claims made in the original post are bogus.

---

And yet, accepting the truth of a null hypothesis (until shown otherwise) can make one prone to error. There may be some truths which are unevidenced, unprovable, or which we cannot investigate without the right tools. This frame of mind excludes all these possibilities by default, refuses to consider them. It excludes, or considers irrelevant, many ontological questions because they are not empirically based. Surely the more rational position to have in such circumstances is "I don't know for certain."Maybe you can explain to me how it's rational to reject an idea with no evidence for or against its validity with the statement, "That's ridiculous," when such a statement has no iota of support?Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.

Hi again Bluegenes,

quote:

---

RAZD and CS believe in hypothical creatures.

---

I think that's a misstatement of their beliefs. But what hasn't been mentioned here for a while is that humans have a long history of spirituality. The deities they've worshipped have had little in common with the IPU, FSM or other entities invented for the purpose of satire. You might like to re-visit RAZD's excellent Message 377 with the link to the story about the human brain being hard-wired for religion. There are spiritual commonalities at the base of any religious beliefs you care to examine and it seems that such beliefs are innate to us. While this evidence is still tenuous at best, I think it's enough to differentiate G(g)od(s) from "hypothetical creatures" such as the IPU.

quote:

---

We atheists are happy to leave out all such evidenceless hypothetical beings, and ascribe our existence to nature, a phenomenon for which there's overwhelming evidence.

---

And you are free and welcome to do so, as long as you recognise that this is still a belief. Though you could start thinking like Modulous (and maybe me) by equating the divine with the natural.

quote:

---

Yet we're being asked to present evidence against the evidenceless!

---

Only if you're claiming to be certain that the divine is non-existent. I and others are arguing here, quite reasonably it seems to me, that claims require evidence to support them.

quote:

---

It's like a debate between those who assume that pigs only walk, and those who claim that they can fly, with the flying factor demanding that their proposition should be conclusively disproved.

---

Well this shouldn't be difficult because the existence of pigs is empirically verified and they can be studied.

quote:

---

The premise is false, and was made by someone who didn't realise that it is impossible to be a 50/50 agnostic when faced with more than two mutually exclusive evidenceless propositions.

---

When we're looking at theism, we can say, "Does the divine exist?". All of the deities you can conceive of are encompassed in the phrase "the divine," because we're looking at the possible kernel of truth in all spiritual beliefs. I think that is more ingenuous but also more difficult for some atheists to agree to, because laughing at Zeus or Vishnu is such a fun distraction for them.

For how many unexplanied but ultimately testable phenomenon has humanity invoked the supernatural throughout history? How many times has the supernatural answer turned out to be the correct one? How many times has the non-supernatural answer turned out to be the correct one?Why do you think the answer to the question: "Why do humans seem determined to invoke the unknowable to explain the unknown?" - will be any different? Are you saying we should not expect naturalistic answers over supernatural despite this past record? Are you saying that there is no evidence to suggest that the naturalistic answer is more likley than the supernatural answer to such questions?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Greyseal, thanks for the mercifully short post -- it's hard keeping up with things here.I hope Straggler is reading this because what I'm saying here addresses his recent post to me too.

quote:

---

The point is (and you seem to agree) that you think those questions "silly"

---

This is really interesting. Now that I've made it clear that my answer to any claims about immaterial unevidenced entities is, "We don't know," both of you seem to have got into my head and found thoughts along the lines of, I really, honestly think this is nonsense but to save face and be consistent with my arguments, I'm gonna tell those guys that I'm a genuine agnostic -- they'll never know haha! I guess you'll have to take my word for it that I'm telling the truth. I might decide on the likelihood of something depending on what we understand about reality; for example, the fact that people make teapots, and people haven't been to Mars, therefore it's unlikely that there's a teapot at Mars -- this is simple logic. But no, I don't know for sure. I can't think of any metaphysical question (and the teapot at Mars is not a metaphysical question) to which I feel really sure that I know the answer, and I think such certainty can be a dangerous position to take because it can prevent one from being open to genuine new experiences or knowledge. It's pretty arrogant of us to think that we understand a lot about reality and how it works. I think we know rather less than we think we do.

quote:

---

I don't think there's a contradiction with saying both "I don't know" and "I don't believe".

---

Agreed, as long as it's understood that belief is a personal decision. One could do the opposite and choose to believe, even though empirical evidence is lacking.

quote:

---

I'm not well-equipped enough with the vocabulary to debate how near to sure you have to be before you can "know" something that is an unproved negative.

---

It seems to me that's a blurry line that none of us are agreed on.

quote:

---

I think you could say you "know" we won't suddenly go flying off into space, but you would probably admit you can't be 100% sure.

---

The existence of gravity is empirically evidenced. If the Higgs boson is found then we will have a better idea of how it works. We have no such evidence to guide us with belief in the divine.Cheers to you too

Hi Modulous,

quote:

---

It is impossible to say that 'x' is more likely than 'y'. It is impossible to say that 'a god exists' is more likely than 'an IPU exists'.

---

We've been talking about the origin of the universe. I would not claim that the IPU is equally likely to have caused it. Please have a look at my message to Bluegenes: Message 399. You're being a little sneaky, truth be told: you asked me to try equating the divine with nature, and then you bring the IPU back into it.

quote:

---

I'd insist that I'm not sure with complete honesty.

---

No arguments there.

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.

Hi Stile,I think we need to establish one thing. Being interested, or not interested, in something has got nothing to do with verifying its reality.If you look at Message 399 you will see some reasons why I lean on the side of possibility for the existence of the divine. I also personally find it interesting and possibly of benefit to me.Alien rayguns, the Morlocks attacking, the IPU, omphalism and all those things are of no interest to me. My true position is "I don't know" but my lack of interest doesn't affect my certainty one way or the other. Edited by LindaLou, : No reason given.Edited by LindaLou, : Wrong message ID

You don't think that the IPU is equally likely to have caused the universe (or have existed 'before' it) than any other similarly specific proposed unverifiable entity? I'm confused. What did you mean by x and y when you said 'if...anything existed at all, then it's impossible to say that "x" is more likely than "y"'You seem to be saying that 'y' is less likely than 'x' which is also saying that 'x' is more likely than 'y' which you just said was an impossible thing to say. I wasn't being sneaky, honestly.I didn't ask you to try equating the divine with nature. I just said that if divinity exists then it is a natural part of reality. I then went on to say

quote:

---

If you propose some entity or process for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way, the chances are you've proposed wrongly.

---

So no sneaking it in there, it was there all along, under the set of all entities that can be proposed and for which we have no evidence and which cannot be tested in any way. You agreed that looking at this way '...it's impossible to say that "x" is more likely than "y"'.Is it impossible (by which I assume essentially mean 'rational' or 'logical' or the like, because obviously it is possible to write or verbalize the words)? Or is it possible?If it is possible, you've found a way to undermine my argument. If it is impossible you need to work out whether to eat or have the cake.