Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8929 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 08-26-2019 2:55 AM
31 online now:
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Jedothek
Post Volume:
Total: 860,465 Year: 15,501/19,786 Month: 2,224/3,058 Week: 82/516 Day: 3/79 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
38Next
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 481 of 562 (528366)
10-05-2009 10:53 PM
Reply to: Message 477 by xongsmith
10-05-2009 10:04 PM


xongsmith responds to me:

quote:
...well some might regard that as Absence of Evidence for chocolate sprinkles..."it isn't there"

Huh? How is "it isn't there" not "evidence of absence"? If you look and it isn't there, isn't that evidence of absence?

quote:
quote:
absence of results is evidence.

So says you.


Huh? You mean if I conduct an experiment where an expected result is not forthcoming, I don't actually have any justification to claim that the cause of that expected result failed to materialize?

Note, this doesn't mean my claim is perfect and without error. After all, examination of my experimental methodology may show that I have inadequately controlled various characteristics that might mask the results. But if there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the process and the expected results don't turn up, how is that not evidence that the cause of the results wasn't there to cause it?

quote:
Here we see one result, the Absence of Evidence for one thing (aether) becoming the Presence of Evidence for something else (the Big Speed Limit).

Huh? So is the Michelson-Morley experiment evidence of absence or not? Einstein dismissed the results as experimental error, but he was wrong. When you set up an experiment that should have a certain result of a certain cause is in place, how is failing to achieve that result not "evidence of absence"?


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 477 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2009 10:04 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 484 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2009 11:38 PM Rrhain has not yet responded
 Message 498 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 4:42 PM Rrhain has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 482 of 562 (528368)
10-05-2009 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 479 by xongsmith
10-05-2009 10:43 PM


xongsmith writes:

quote:
I meant it was a huge Absence of Evidence

Huh? How is failure to appear under multiple, independent investigations involving independent methods not "evidence of absence"?

Question for you: Is it possible to have evidence of absence? Is there such a beast in your mind?

quote:
The fact that it works is also True for various Deist models.

No, it isn't, for the Deist model assumes chocolate sprinkles. But things are working without them, so why are you demanding them?

Where is the evidence that something is missing?

If this undetectable, undefinable concept doesn't actually do anything, what is the difference between that and non-existence?

quote:
But they don't have sole possession of the evidence, do they?

But they don't have any evidence at all. So why is there undetectable, undefined concept given any credibility?

quote:
Does the Aether exist?

No. And we have evidence to show that it doesn't.

Or do you deny that there can even be evidence of absence?


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 479 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2009 10:43 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 485 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2009 11:54 PM Rrhain has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1896
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 483 of 562 (528369)
10-05-2009 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 473 by RAZD
10-05-2009 9:09 PM


Re: Back to the OP
What I wanted to do was to rally the troops here and come up with something we could put in Box 3. Not whether it has been done, but what kind of thing would it be? ..snipzt..

Good luck with that. I keep asking for the evidence, and so far all I get are arguments that are logically questionable if not outright false.

I have another issue. I think I want to move the goalposts.

I have just concluded that Rrhain's evidence does fit into my Box 3 (Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural). But it also is evidence for various Deist models (among them I would expect to find yours)....that is: the scientific method of modeling this currently observed universe works. Now - that it has been working perfect well without needing to resort to some supernatural clause anywhere in it's mountains of data may be true, but that notion would be a Box 4 item (Absence of Evidence for the supernatural).

Here's where I want to move the goalposts:

What Box 3 item can we think of that will not work with Deism?

There, I'm afraid, we'll find nothing in that category. It'd would be like trying to describe what was going on "before" the Big Bang.


- xongsmith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 473 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2009 9:09 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 4:46 PM xongsmith has responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1896
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 484 of 562 (528375)
10-05-2009 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Rrhain
10-05-2009 10:53 PM


quote:...well some might regard that as Absence of Evidence for chocolate sprinkles..."it isn't there"

Huh? How is "it isn't there" not "evidence of absence"? If you look and it isn't there, isn't that evidence of absence?

Argh - we agree, but then we are unclear to each other.

The model works: Presence of Evidence for a correct model of NO supernatural things

The model doesnt need
chocolate sprinkles: Occam's Razor, parsimony

The model has never even
observed chocolate sprinkles: Absence of Evidence for a correct model with supernatural things.

When I said INDISTINGUISHABLE I was referring to the total lack of something supernatural being observed - the Absence of Evidence for a correct model with supernatural things. What I had not seen, which was something you did see, was that the scientific explanation, as far as we can tell to date, has worked - and that is the Presence of Evidence for a model with NO supernatural things in it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Rrhain, posted 10-05-2009 10:53 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1896
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 485 of 562 (528378)
10-05-2009 11:54 PM
Reply to: Message 482 by Rrhain
10-05-2009 10:59 PM


But they don't have sole possession of the evidence, do they?

But they don't have any evidence at all. So why is there undetectable, undefined concept given any credibility?

Yes - they use the same evidence.

Think of an analogy between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

The only question is supernatural Big Bang or not. Everything afterwards is identical as far as we have been able to measure up to now, meaning that what the scientific method has done supports both positions. It's that "before" the Big Bang difference. And possibly Straggler's "something" or your "chocolate sprinkles" still hanging around undetected that you or I dont need. I'm still trying to figure out how my brother came to his position. I've known him for over 60 years now. On his scale he says he's a 3 and I think I throw in at a 6. But I might be willing to back off to a 5.6 if my Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural Box 3 comes up empty of Evidence that Deism cannot absorb. The parsimony argument is strong, the Absence of Evidence for something supernatural is strong.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 482 by Rrhain, posted 10-05-2009 10:59 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 10-06-2009 1:37 AM xongsmith has responded

  
Rrhain
Member (Idle past 105 days)
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


(1)
Message 486 of 562 (528406)
10-06-2009 1:37 AM
Reply to: Message 485 by xongsmith
10-05-2009 11:54 PM


xongsmith responds to me:

quote:
quote:
But they don't have any evidence at all. So why is their undetectable, undefined concept given any credibility?

Yes - they use the same evidence.


That doesn't answer the question. Since they can't detect this "god" of theirs and can't even define it in the first place so that we might bother to go looking for it, why is that given any credibility at all?

If you have no justification to claim that something is missing and you can't even define what it is you think might be missing, how can there be any rational insistence of this missing, unevidenced, undetectable, undefined object?

quote:
Think of an analogy between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

No, as there is no connection between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is not dependent upon evolution and is compatible with every method of origins you care to name.

quote:
It's that "before" the Big Bang difference.

But this isn't RAZD's claim. The scientist says, "I don't know." RAZD seems to want every stray thought that crosses a person's mind to be given equal respect. Note, the scientist does not give every possible outcome equal play.


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.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 485 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2009 11:54 PM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 491 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 11:36 AM Rrhain has responded

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 487 of 562 (528452)
10-06-2009 7:34 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by RAZD
10-05-2009 10:08 PM


Dawkins's scale - a needed clarification
Thanks for making my point that the inclusion of pseudoprobabilities by Dawkins makes people focus on the numbers and not the words. Notice that you have completely ignored the words.

So IF you are truly a "6" (strong atheist) on omphalism, then where is your objective verifiable evidence that demonstrates that it actually IS "highly unlikely"?

I assume you haven't read The God Delusion and you don't understand the scale or its application. I don't think Dawkins is to blame for you not having read his book and thus not understanding how to apply his scale or the justification for including probability statements at all.

You have identified yourself as essentially a PAP - and you are defending the PAP position. The scale isn't intended to reflect PAP positions, but TAP positions. As Dawkins explains, the PAP's position is that one

quote:
...cannot say anything, one way or the other, about whether or not God exists

and he attempts to defend the contrary position that

quote:
...the God question is not in principle and forever outside the remit of science

And, like other scientific decisions it might be possible to assign a degree of likelihood to various hypotheses (It might be a toss up between disease and asteroids for certain extinction events (A "4", say) but I think we can all comfortably say it is incredibly unlikely time travelling Mormons created large prehistoric extinction events).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2009 10:08 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 503 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 6:06 PM Modulous has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 488 of 562 (528500)
10-06-2009 10:13 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by RAZD
10-05-2009 10:45 PM


Denial
The question here with regard to the evidential and rational justification for atheism is whether or not invoking the supernatural as an explanation is ever now evidentially justifiable.

Yes people have religious experiences. Yes people believe in gods. These are observed facts that require an explanation. But are these facts best explained by invoking the unknowable and supernatural? Or not?

You wouldn't invoke god to fill the gap in our knowledge that relates to abiogenesis (presumably). Why do you insist on invoking the supernatural to fill the gap that relates to the question of humans believing in the unknowable? Do not all the evidential and rational arguments for not invoking the supernatural that apply to abiogenesis not apply equally to both scenarios? Why is "goddidit" not an acceptable answer for abiogenesis but "somethingsupernaturaldidit" acceptable to you in relation to the second question?

The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap - Again. (Message 436)

y = explanation/s of the experience based on worldview and subjective opinion of the evidence

b = whether or not it was an actual experience of some facet of god/s

So once agin we are back to your flawed notion that any claim operates in a vacuuum of all objective evidence. In your La La land each claim is an evidential island. If I claim I have just seen T-Rex we have only subjective worldview on which to base our conclusion. The objectively evidenced facts about T-Rex's and the effect these facts have on the likelihood of me actually having witnessed a T-Rex apparently don't come into it. Equally the fact that humans have been known to erroneously attribute the unexplained to the supernatural is of no consequence at all when assessing peoples claims of having experienced the supernatural. Not in your evidential La La land anyway.

So the real question is whether (b) is a true experience not how probable (y) is or isn't. The discussion of different explanations for (y) is just smoke puffed up to replace a vacuum of evidence.

There is no such thing as a vacuuum of all objective evidence. Dude you are in utter denial.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2009 10:45 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 493 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 3:16 PM Straggler has responded

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10285
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(2)
Message 489 of 562 (528518)
10-06-2009 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 478 by RAZD
10-05-2009 10:08 PM


Re: Pseudo-Probabilities are not the issue.
Including the judgment that god/s are "highly unlikely"...

The actual existence of gods is but one explanation from a infinite myriad of equally unevidenced explanations as to why people believe in gods.

Why should we deem the actual existence of gods as any more likely the source of this observed phenomenon than telepathic dolphins inducing religious experinces in humans, random cosmic ray effects on the human brain or any other equally unevidenced claim? Why is your god hypothesis worthy of special treatment?

I suspect that you think it is "obvious". I suspect that ultimately you are citing belief in gods itself as a valid evidential basis upon which to distinguish actual gods as an answer over any other equally unevidenced explanation. I suspect that ultimately you are citing belief in gods as evidence upon which to justify belief in gods. And that is of course circular.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2009 10:08 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Modulous
Member (Idle past 337 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 490 of 562 (528524)
10-06-2009 11:22 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by RAZD
10-05-2009 10:45 PM


Re: x = y + b clarification
So the real question is whether (b) is a true experience not how probable (y) is or isn't. The discussion of different explanations for (y) is just smoke puffed up to replace a vacuum of evidence.

So by (b) being a true experience I take it to mean that the question is 'is the experiencer's reported understanding of (b) an accurate explanation for the cause of the experience?'

I point out in reply that the exeriencer's reported understanding of (b) is an example of (y). One example among many. Why is that explanation more likely than another equally evidenced explanation? If it isn't then given they are equiprobable - how does this not lead to the issue I was raising?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2009 10:45 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1896
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 491 of 562 (528533)
10-06-2009 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 486 by Rrhain
10-06-2009 1:37 AM


That doesn't answer the question. Since they can't detect this "god" of theirs and can't even define it in the first place so that we might bother to go looking for it, why is that given any credibility at all?

This thread is not about detecting "god". This thread is about providing evidence for negative hypotheses. The credibility issue you refer to is off topic.


Think of an analogy between Abiogenesis and Evolution.

No, as there is no connection between abiogenesis and evolution. Evolution is not dependent upon evolution(<-i think you meant abiogenesis here) and is compatible with every method of origins you care to name.

Exactly - no connection - all of the scientific evidence is independent of how the universe began, whether by God's Big Bang or by a natural Big Bang, just like all of the scientific evidence for evolution is independent of a "goddidit" abiogenesis or a naturally occurring abiogenesis.

The scientific model works equally well for both - until the Theists start wavering and saying that the supernatural is still here. Then the model doesn't work so well for them, depending on their additional claims. But there are some Deists who have effectively claimed that the Big Bang was the last supernatural event. And thus the scientific model works for them and is supporting Presence of Evidence.

But this isn't RAZD's claim. The scientist says, "I don't know." RAZD seems to want every stray thought that crosses a person's mind to be given equal respect. Note, the scientist does not give every possible outcome equal play.

I'm not sure that was his position. Can you cite that?


- xongsmith
This message is a reply to:
 Message 486 by Rrhain, posted 10-06-2009 1:37 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 492 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 1:11 PM xongsmith has responded
 Message 530 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2009 3:33 AM xongsmith has not yet responded

  
onifre
Member (Idle past 1184 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 492 of 562 (528575)
10-06-2009 1:11 PM
Reply to: Message 491 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 11:36 AM


Hi xongsmith,

all of the scientific evidence is independent of how the universe began, whether by God's Big Bang

Doesn't this assume that (1) God is a possible entity, (2) it is capable of such an act, (3) humans were able to know this via subjective experiences...?

Isn't that assuming the premise, and is a logical fallacy?

The scientific model works equally well for both

Not necessarily, at least IMO. The first model (God caused BB) assumes God is capable of such an act. If we don't know what a God is, can't describe it, lack evidence for it, then how can anyone assume what God is capable of?

Given RAZD's definition of deism (it comes from subjective speculation) couldn't I or anyone else on this planet technically be God? Why is an "unknown, undetectable, ambiguous force" a better description than "I am God"...? - if both descriptions are derived from subjective experiences and speculated on as to their meaning...?

- Oni


This message is a reply to:
 Message 491 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 11:36 AM xongsmith has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 494 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 4:00 PM onifre has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20069
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 493 of 562 (528640)
10-06-2009 3:16 PM
Reply to: Message 488 by Straggler
10-06-2009 10:13 AM


Re: Denial ... of non-existent evidence? (488 posts, 69 Straggler, still no evidence)
Hi Straggler, still trying to make logic out of thin air.

The question here with regard to the evidential and rational justification for atheism is whether or not invoking the supernatural as an explanation is ever now evidentially justifiable.

No, the question here is that when you say that the absence of god/s is very likely (or that the existence of god/s is "highly unlikely"), that you are making a claim that needs to be supported with evidence.

The true skeptic will not make this claim when there is insufficient evidence, and will say that the claim is not proven.

The pseudoskeptic will make this claim without having evidence.

You wouldn't invoke god to fill the gap in our knowledge that relates to abiogenesis (presumably).

Curiously, I am agnostic on that issue: I have consistently stated that "we do not know" how life began on earth. This is because there is insufficient evidence to say what caused life to develop on earth. My personal opinion (which has been posted previously, also see RAZD - Building Blocks of Life, Message 2) is that the universe may have been designed to produce life, and that earth is just one place where this has occurred.

This is, of course, consistent with deist beliefs, however I don't claim that my opinion makes this possibility "likely".

So once agin we are back to your flawed notion that any claim operates in a vacuuum of all objective evidence. In your La La land each claim is an evidential island. If I claim I have just seen T-Rex we have only subjective worldview on which to base our conclusion. The objectively evidenced facts about T-Rex's and the effect these facts have on the likelihood of me actually having witnessed a T-Rex apparently don't come into it. Equally the fact that humans have been known to erroneously attribute the unexplained to the supernatural is of no consequence at all when assessing peoples claims of having experienced the supernatural. Not in your evidential La La land anyway.

Sorry, no. What we don't have is any evidence from you for your claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" that amounts to more than opinion supported by confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance.

There is no such thing as a vacuuum of all objective evidence. Dude you are in utter denial.

So what evidence am I in denial of? What objective evidence do you have that god/s do not exist.

From Message 1 Truzzi says:

quote:
The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis ... he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.

The claim that "god/s are highly unlikely" is a negative claim and it bears a burden of proof.

But are these facts best explained by invoking the unknowable and supernatural? Or not?

Curiously, that is the question. These facts are explained by the hypothesis that god/s exist, whether they are sufficient to prove that god/s exist beyond a reasonable doubt has not been demonstrated, so the logical conclusion is to be agnostic on the issue: it has not been proven, and it has not been disproven.

None of the arguments advanced so far have demonstrated that god/s could not be involved.

Got evidence?

Enjoy.

Edited by RAZD, : clrty


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2009 10:13 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 502 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2009 5:38 PM RAZD has responded

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 1896
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 5.0


Message 494 of 562 (528665)
10-06-2009 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 492 by onifre
10-06-2009 1:11 PM


Hi xongsmith,

hi back to you.

all of the scientific evidence is independent of how the universe began, whether by God's Big Bang...

Doesn't this assume that (1) God is a possible entity, (2) it is capable of such an act, (3) humans were able to know this via subjective experiences...?

Isn't that assuming the premise, and is a logical fallacy?

I suppose it is, but it's not my problem - and anyway, the second you allow something like "God" into the argument, you have abandoned logical action. Let them wrangle with that.

The scientific model works equally well for both

Not necessarily, at least IMO. The first model (God caused BB) assumes God is capable of such an act. If we don't know what a God is, can't describe it, lack evidence for it, then how can anyone assume what God is capable of?

How do we know natural processes are capable? Because we are here, right? I didn't want to get to the details of that kind here, but rather set up the way we can formulate what to look for to support a Universe with NO supernatural things. What kind of evidence can we find that would support that but at the same time not support a supernatural beginning that then turned things over to natural processes. Actually, hold that thought - let's forget about that, because I doubt that such a test can be devised. However, we may be able to think of a test to show no supernatural meddlings after the BB. But again, that is a search for Evidence supporting supernatural things and hoping the result is Empty, an Absence of Evidence. What would a 100% natural process universe have that the other one would not? What would be Present?

Suppose we look at an alluvial fan of some river. Upstream, someone has built a dock, disrupting the natural flow of the river. Can our scientists, downstream and unable to otherwise detect the dock, find anything in the grains of sand and clay and stuff that would reveal the dock? Maybe a paint chip? Okay, now remove the dock from ever having been there and examine the fan again. Can they find evidence in the grains of NO dock? There is now no unnatural disruption, but there are still disruptions from natural causes, such as an old tree partially falling into the river and sticking into it like a dock pier. Just we cannot find any paint chips doesn't prove a thing - maybe the guy didn't paint the dock. We may find no remnant traces of interference patterns in the grains from regularly spaced dock piers. But there didn't have to be that kind of a dock. So I think we're up a falling riverside tree on that.

What kind of evidence would be Present that would rule out ALL possible supernatural events? Yikes.

Given RAZD's definition of deism (it comes from subjective speculation) couldn't I or anyone else on this planet technically be God? Why is an "unknown, undetectable, ambiguous force" a better description than "I am God"...? - if both descriptions are derived from subjective experiences and speculated on as to their meaning...?

- Oni

Well, right away, it should be pretty obvious that no mere man can be a God. Now what about a woman? Oh yeah. I've caught glimpses of many.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 1:11 PM onifre has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 500 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 5:31 PM xongsmith has responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20069
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


(1)
Message 495 of 562 (528667)
10-06-2009 4:07 PM
Reply to: Message 465 by Modulous
10-04-2009 9:11 PM


Re: probability problems continue
Hi Modulus, let's simplify.

We end up with a pile of hypotheses that are evidenced. We all agree that there is evidence to suggest that these hypotheses can explain some religious experiences. We have a pile of unevidenced hypothesis left behind.

They still only explain how such experiences would occur. They do not disprove the existence of god/s. Dividing them into piles does not answer the question. Both the mechanical explanation and the religious\spiritual experience could be occurring at the same time. How you experience something doesn't control what you experience.

When someone asks you "Do you hold the belief 'a 6-day creating Yahweh with Omphalism created the earth six thousand years ago'?", the answer I'd imagine would be 'No I do not hold that belief {but I don't know if it is true or not}'. Why did you decide that did not hold that belief? How do you justify not believing it? I justify it along the lines of 'you could just make up any old unfalsifiable nonsense and say "It could be true", and you'd be right but the chances are that most such ideas are exactly that: nonsense'

Curiously, I have answered that, and I am agnostic on it: why would you assume that I would change my position since Message 179, Message 197, Message 427, Message 445, and Message 478?

quote:
So on your question of omphalism:

Claim: omphalism is true. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."

Claim: omphalism is false. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."

The only logical position is impartial agnostic ... unless you have evidence.


SO, got evidence?

Enjoy.


we are limited in our ability to understand
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) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 465 by Modulous, posted 10-04-2009 9:11 PM Modulous has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 8:54 PM RAZD has responded

RewPrev1
...
3132
33
3435
...
38Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019