Faith vs Skepticism - Why faith?

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

The problem is that the question just may not be answerable.

---

Wow. I guess the under/over for you bringing up this silly claim of yours was less than a month. Do we have to have another 300 posts of you avoiding the issue?What makes you think the question isn't answerable? We have plenty of evidence indicating an answer. Why do you deny it?Ah...the answer is in your own response:

quote:

---

we all know that opinion is not sufficient to control reality.

---

You haven't managed to understand your own statement. You have an opinion and despite all the reality surrounding you telling you that your opinion is incompatible, you refuse to let it go.Your opinion is not sufficient to control reality no matter how long you hold your breath, stamp your feet, and throw a tantrum.

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Correct, and the default position when you don't know, is that you don't know.

---

Indeed. But what makes you think we don't know? Your opinion that we don't is insufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

Similarly, the default position when you can't know (or are unlikely to know in your lifetime), is that you don't know.

---

Indeed. But what makes you think we can't know or are unlikely to know in our lifetime? Your opinion that we can't is insufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

Now one can form opinions on the likelihood of things like pixies in the closet, opinions based on your life experiences and learning, your worldview, but these are subjective evaluations, and there is no way to rationally measure their likelihood.

---

Huh? Your claim is that we have absolutely no evidence regarding pixies? That there are no methods by which we might acquire evidence?That seems a bit preposterous, don't you think? On the contrary, we have overwhelming evidence regarding the existence of pixies in general, not just in your closet. Why would you have us deny it?Ah, yes...your opinion. But your opinion is not sufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

What you need in addition is an open mind - open to possibilities, specifically including possibilities that are not contradicted by any known evidence.

---

Indeed. But what you also need is a mind that does not reject known evidence simply because it contradicts your opinion.Your opinion is not sufficient to affect reality.

quote:

---

Thus I come to the conclusion that an open-minded skeptic approach is the best overall approach

---

Indeed.'Tis a pity you don't actually follow it. Instead, you follow a closed-minded subjective approach which rejects evidence that contradicts your opinion.Your opinion is not sufficient to affect reality.Less than a month and you're still obsessing about this. Shall we go through another 300 posts of you avoiding the evidence?

---

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.

Hyroglyphx responds to Perdition:

quote:

---

My contention is with the phrasing and the underpinnings of " the absence of evidence is evidence of absence." That means if no evidence exists [in defense of one's proposition], that there is no evidence of that proposition is actually evidence that it is not true.

---

And if there ever were a situation in which there were no evidence, you'd have a point. But we don't have "no evidence." Instead we have a mountain of evidence:The model works.Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have any evidence that the model doesn't work and thus requires them?Indeed, "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence" in and of itself. But when we have run a test where presence would result in specific kinds of evidence and we find that evidence to be absent, then that actually is evidence of absence.It's why the Michelson—Morley experiment has us concluding that there is no luminiferous ether: If it were there, then we should see specific results in the experiment. Those results are absent, therefore the ether isn't there.There is a difference between pointing out that we haven't looked hard enough or in the right ways (absence of evidence) and running a dispositive experiment (evidence of absence). If we have a model that works perfectly without the addition of your chocolate sprinkles, under what logic is there justification for demanding that they be present?

---

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.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

It has not changed, because there has been no evidence that has been presented in the intervening time sufficient to alter my knowledge, opinions and beliefs on this issue.

---

And yet, you continue to bring it up knowing full well that it is going to derail any actual discussion. You'll bring your same argument up, we'll respond with the same rebuttal, and then we'll hijack the entire discussion watching you avoid responding to it.Are you saying that every argument of yours comes down to the claim that subjectivity is equal to objectivity?

quote:

---

Fascinatingly, the last thread on this topic, Pseudoskepticism and logic, was singular in the attempts of several atheists in general, and Rrhain in particular

---

Excuse me? I don't recall ever mentioning my personal opinion regarding the existence of god. Is there a particular reason that you simply assumed that I was?I've been extremely careful to keep my personal opinion about god out of it precisely because of your reaction: You assume that I hold a certain position and then respond to what you wish I would have said rather than what I actually did. "Of course you'd say that, you're an X."

quote:

---

Ah, now we have evidence: after 562 posts on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread with Rrhain claiming that he didn't need to supply evidence for his negative position, suddenly now he needs to have evidence for his claim.

---

Showing you clearly didn't read anything I wrote. Instead, you responded to your preconceived notion of my theological position which I have never presented here.

quote:

---

Oops, no evidence.

---

Huh? What part of "the model works" isn't evidence?And on top of that, you're still missing the point: Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. The null hypothesis is always considered to be true until evidence is presented that shows it to be false. Therefore, the atheistic position is the default position because the burden of proof is on the one wishing to claim that there is a god.Of course, if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

Instead we have an ad hominem attack on me, rather than dealing with the issue.

---

This coming from the man who just a few sentences ago was smearing me. Wah, wah, wah.Hint: Pointing out that you don't understand your own argument isn't ad hominem. If I am making an argument that hinges upon my repeated insistence that 2 + 2 = 5, it is not ad hominem to point out that I have made an error and don't understand the foundations of my own argument.

quote:

---

Interestingly, I am happy knowing that my opinion is just my opinion and I'm not the one claiming that it is anything more than that.

---

Read: I can't defend my own argument and I am shocked (shocked!) that anybody would insist that I justify it when I keep bringing it up.

quote:

---

Saying that my opinion is not compatible with reality is not demonstrating it.

---

Except that it has been. The model works. Why do you demand chocoalte sprinkles? Where is your evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Demonstrating it would mean putting up evidence that shows that god/s in fact do not, or cannot, exist.

---

But the null hypothesis, which is always considered to be true until proven otherwise, is that they don't. It is up to the people who claim that they do to show that they do, not the people who have a working model without them to show that they don't.After all, that's the entire point: The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Objective, empirical evidence, not logical fallacies and arguments based on assumptions of knowing more than is known.

---

But your argument is that subjective evidence is valid. Now you're demanding objective evidence?The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Indeed, indeed, however, my opinion is based on the total lack of evidence that shows there are no god/s presented by anyone on the Pseudoskepticism and logic thread.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Now I don't claim that this opinion is fact, just that this is the impression I have after 562 posts on that thread without any being presented.

---

But you were presented with evidence. You just ignored it.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

You can change this opinion by actually presenting evidence that god/s don't, or cannot, exist.

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?That said, it isn't my burden to do so. The null hypothesis, which is always considered true until shown otherwise, is that god doesn't exist. It is the burden of those who claim god does exist to show why.

quote:

---

Curiously, your theatrics are getting in the way of your comprehension

---

What was that you were saying about ad hominem? Oh, I get it! It's OK if you do it.

quote:

---

all I was saying, was that in conditions where you don't know, the default position is that you don't know: glad you agree with this now.

---

Huh? What makes you think we don't know? The null hypothesis, which is always considered true until shown otherwise, is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the person claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Wow, another assertion of evidence: let's see what it contains:

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Oops, another blank.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Incredibly, I still find it difficult to be in denial of evidence that is not presented.

---

Except that it was presented. You have simply ignored it.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Maybe these pixies are pink, immaterial and have a single horn on their heads?

---

Maybe. Where is your evidence for their existence? The default position is they don't and we have a working model that doesn't include them. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Indeed indeed, so where is your evidence?

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

More ad hominems

---

This coming from the man who just a few sentences ago was smearing me and will do so again three sentences later. Wah, wah, wah.

quote:

---

Like not presenting evidence to support your position

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

whether it is positive or negative?

---

But the default position is that the claim isn't shown. It is always the burden of the one making the claim to provide the evidence.Especially when we have a model that works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

Like the arguments made trying to avoid presenting evidence?

---

What part of the model working isn't evidence?

quote:

---

Like the assertions of having evidence, but somehow not seeming to mention any of it?

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

Cutting through the theatrics

---

What was that you were saying about ad hominem commentary? Oh, I get it! It's OK if you do it.

quote:

---

all Rrhain has done is repeat a phrase several times

---

Because you keep refusing to respond to it. The questions I am asking you are not rhetorical. When you answer them, I'll stop asking them. Until then, I'll keep on keeping on.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

followed by statements of incredulity

---

Read: He actually called me out on my arguments and since I cannot defend them, I'll pretend that he's the one with the problem."Incredulity." That's just precious.

quote:

---

and appeals to anonymous authority

---

Huh? Where did I appeal to any authority? Be specific.

quote:

---

and an absolute failure to actually confront the issue of evidence to support a negative position.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

quote:

---

Another 3,000 or 3,000,000 posts by people trying to impose their opinions on me is not likely to change things either.

---

Then why do you keep bringing up an argument that you know is going to derail the thread? Nobody else ever brings it up, RAZD.

quote:

---

Posts by people asserting they have evidence and that I am avoiding, or denying it, while presenting none, are notable in their inability to change my opinion/s, beliefs, and knowledge of how the universe works.

---

Huh? What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.This is why we say you're avoiding the evidence presented to you: You keep not answering my question. It's very simple. It is not rhetorical. I really want to know your answer:The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

What will change it is evidence, objective empirical evidence, that god/s in fact do not exist or that they cannot exist.

---

What part of the model working isn't evidence? Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?Of course, the default position is that god doesn't exist. It is up to the people claiming that god does exist to provide the evidence.And if you cannot even define what it is that you mean by this term "god" that keeps getting bandied about, then we haven't even managed to get to the point of demanding evidence of anybody.

---

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.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

Then what the hell am I supposed to call somebody that believes that god doesn't exist!?

---

Non-existent.Atheism isn't belief of lack but rather lack of belief.

quote:

---

That is what atheism has always been, afterall.

---

Incorrect. The original concept of "atheism" was anybody who questioned the moral authority of those who used gods to assert their position of privilege.It isn't until recently that it has been safe for people to actually come forward and state that there is no god and discuss the philosophical implications of such a statement.Which is why the current conceptualization of atheists is that it is the lack of belief.Theists do not get to tell atheists what they really think. Atheists get to be the ones who do that and when you listen to them, you'll find that they describe their position as a lack of belief, not a belief of lack.

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

What I can say is that there is not enough positive evidence for me to believe "X" and there is not enough negative evidence for me to not believe "X" and therefore I don't know.

---

That presumes a complete absence of evidence, but that never exists beyond the moment of introduction of a completely new topic. And the reason for that absence of evidence isn't because the evidence doesn't exist but rather because of one's ignorance about what you're looking for in the first place.This goes back to another one of those questions of mine I sincerely ask people but never, ever seem to get a response to:Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Now, I usually bring it up in the context of those who claim that Adam and Eve chose to sin even though they were explicitly described as being innocent, not knowing of good and evil, and thus could not possibly have chosen to sin. But leaving that moral issue aside, it works here:We have two terms. One is a term of positiveness and the other is a term of negativeness. Which is which? Which do you choose? Beetaratagang or clerendipity?Indeed, you don't have any evidence. I've just brought it up. Until I mentioned what these terms reference, you didn't even know that. But notice that the more I talk about them, what they represent, etc., the more evidence regarding which is which is brought to light. Now, I still haven't given you enough evidence to indicate which is which, but I hope my point is coming through:The mere act of defining brings forth evidence. The more you define an object, the more evidence is presented.And this is at the root of your failed claim: We know the definitions of the concepts being described. Therefore, there is evidence regarding their existence. Instead, you insist that there isn't any and ignore the direct presentation of the evidence you claim does not exist.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

Would you not agree that these are interpretations (theories about what god/s is/are like) that have been discarded or revised, rather than actual deities? I find it rather humorous, that one of the precepts of science is that when a theory is invalidated that it is discarded for a better theory or revised to explain the new evidence, but that atheists get incredulous about the number of god theories that have been discarded.

---

By this, you agree that the demolition of one "interpretation" of god gets rid of all the others. Thus, the evidence that we have showing Zeus doesn't exist is also evidence for any other "interpretation" of god you care to name and thus, we find your claim of there being no evidence to be unevidenced.

quote:

---

For them to have been actual deities, then that assumes evidence for their existence in the past.

---

No, it merely assumes that there were people who claimed they were in the past. After all, at the time they were claiming it, it was the present. Temporal claims of difference are ineffective because the people who believed at the time were in the present when they were believing.And by this logic, eventually there won't be anybody left who believes in what is currently believed which means those dieties will have passed into non-existence. Too, it implies that there were no deities before there were believers.Hmmm...you're wandering into that "people make stuff up" evidence.Your "Level I" state is only transitory, only existing when one first hears of a concept. As the concept becomes defined, evidence necessarily comes along regarding its existence.This is directly related to your above complaint that Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, the IPU, and 9-Dimensional Magic Pencils are only "interpretations." You have all that previous evidence regarding every other claim of what god is supposed to be...why is this new one, which really isn't any different from all the other discarded ones, supposed to make us bow down in awe?You keep clinging to this non-existent state of "no evidence." There is never "no evidence."

---

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.

Still waiting on an answer, RAZD:The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

---

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.

tis---strange responds to me:

quote:

---

I am new here, so don't kill me on my first try...

---

(*chuckle*) I'll be gentle.

quote:

---

As far as I have understood RAZDs position, the point is that a position of no consequence is not believed or unbelieved until evidence displays itself.

---

But there are multiple things here that RAZD is overlooking. The first is that a difference that makes no difference is no difference. If it truly is of no consequence, then what possible justification is there for claiming that it is present? The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise and if we have a model that works without it, why on earth would anybody claim that there are chocolate sprinkles on top of it?And this leads directly into the second thing he is overlooking: Where does this idea come from that it is of "no consequence"? RAZD's continued insistence that there is absolutely no evidence of any kind anywhere simply doesn't pan out: We have a model. It works. So unless we have some indication that there is a problem with it, where is the justification in saying, "I don't know"? The model may very well be wrong. In fact, it probably is. But until we find out where and how, we cannot ignore all the evidence that indicates that this object doesn't exist.And that brings us to the third problem: This object is so poorly defined that we can't even claim "I don't know" as a response because you can't even form the opinion of "I don't know" without knowing what it is you don't know about (gads, I sound like Rumsfeld.) This goes to the example I brought up earlier:Beetaratagang or clerendipity.What can you tell me about those terms? I know, you don't know. You've never heard of them until just now. But notice, you couldn't even have an opinion of "I don't know" regarding them until I brought them up. The more I tell you about them, the more information you have. You might still have a conclusion of "I don't know," but the act of defining something creates information. It allows you to place the object in relation to all the other objects and evidence you have so that you can form an opinion.If I were to say that they were cards in a standard deck of cards, you'd definitely have an opinion: No, they're not. Cards in a standard deck of cards have a rank and a suit. So unless one has redefined the way in which cards in a deck are named, then we very much have an opinion about them.All because we defined what we were talking about. We were then able to place that information in context with regard to all the other evidence we have which allowed us to form an opinion.This is the problem of RAZD's argument: The object he is referring to cannot be detected. And beyond that, he refuses to define it in any way. And by ignoring all of the evidence we have that this undetectable, undefined object isn't required to have the world work, he gets to maintain his insistence that everybody else is just as "pseudoskeptic" and only he has a handle on the Truth.

quote:

---

Some say it is unscientific, others (string theorists f.eks.) feel the need to theoretizise the possibility even though there is no evidence one way or the other.

---

Ah, but why are string theorists even bothering? Because they have evidence. It may not be the best evidence, but there is something there: The mathematics. We can clearly see that there is an effect at very small scales and another effect at very large scales and the mathematics of string theory seems to point to a bridge between them. We don't really have any way of testing this directly right now, but it isn't like they're wandering around in a vacuum of no information of any kind, anywhere.

quote:

---

If there is a god that can't change anything in "our Universe", there would be no possibility to find out if or if not this god exists (per definition of our Universe being the thing we interact with physicly), and we would have to be in a 50/50 believing position.

---

Not at all. A difference that makes no difference is no difference. And if this god is incapable of acting with the universe in any way, shape, or form, then it doesn't exist. The reason that we are able to determine what went on in the past is because they left an impression that has moved on to us in the future. We are capable of analyzing it and coming to a conclusion about it.F'rinstance, we have no idea how life got started on this planet. However, the fact that there is life on this planet is evidence that it got started somehow. After all, the earth has not always existed so life had to get started at some point or we wouldn't be here.Now, the fact that we don't know all the details doesn't mean we don't know any of them. This, however, is RAZD's claim: We don't know anything and thus the only thing we can say is "I don't know." But that isn't true. We know lots of things. Not enough to definitively answer the question, true, but we are not in this vacuum RAZD insists we are. There is evidence.

quote:

---

ps: English being my second language, please feel free to ask for clarification where my language gets in the way of thinking. Being german in norway tends to confuse the english part of my brain...

---

Your English is just fine.

---

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.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

That presumes a complete absence of evidence,

---

​

No, it presumes that there is an absence of convincing evidence

---

"Convincing" to whom? Methinks we're about to wander into a creationist moment akin to claiming that there are no transitional fossils.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

that what exists is insufficient for decision/s pro or con.

---

Why? The model works. Do you have evidence that it doesn't? Where is your justification that anything is "insufficient"? And even more importantly, why is this undefined "god" object one of the things being investigated to explain the insufficiency?

quote:

---

The coin is in the air, we don't know if it will be heads or tails.

---

Huh? The coin's on the ground. It would help if you would bend over and look at it. Are you claiming that it's rolling away somewhere? Where is your evidence of such.

---

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.

RAZD writes:

quote:

---

My argument is that subjective evidence is sufficient to show possibilities, but nothing more.

---

In the sense that subjective evidence is very good at asking questions, yes. But the thing is, subjective evidence is lousy at answering them. Subjective evidence does not show possibilities. Objective evidence shows possibilities. It's the reason why we call them "hypotheses": They're based upon objective evidence, but we don't have nearly enough to be able to say.

quote:

---

To reach a more definitive conclusion your need objective empirical evidence. This has been, and continues to be my position.

---

I know. And we have been continually showing you how it fails. But through thread after thread, you seem to have no qualms with bringing it up, derailing the topic.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

---

​

The model is incomplete

---

That's not an answer to the question. Do you have evidence that these chocolate sprinkles of yours are required? It is not sufficient to point out that we don't know everything. Of course we don't know everything. But the mere fact that we don't know everything does not lead one to conclude that anything imaginable could be a possible solution.Look at the development of kinematics over the millennia. In the beginning, there was Aristotle and objects in motion came to rest. This was clearly observable: Push something along the table and it will either slide to a halt or fall off the edge and then come to a halt on the floor.Then came Newton and while objects at rest tended to remain at rest, objects in motion tended to remain in motion. How can that be? Slide an object across the table and we can clearly see that the object in motion comes to rest. We do not get to discard all that we have observed before just because somebody has imagined something new. It has to take into account all the evidence we have already collected.Well, the reason why that table-sliding object comes to rest is because of friction. Objects remain in motion until acted on by an outside force and the friction between the object and the table is the force that causes it to come to rest.And then there was Einstein and the universe was filled with inertial frames and we learned that there really is no such thing as "rest." There is only "with respect to me." The object and the table are on the earth, which is rotating on its axis...and orbiting the sun...which is orbiting the galaxy...which is on a collision course with the Andromeda galaxy....Again, we could not discard any of the previous observations that we saw: An object pushed along a table eventually no longer slides along it. As the cliche goes, apples did not stop falling from trees, floating in mid-air, just because Newton had to work through how gravity works.So pointing out that the model is incomplete does not indicate that your pet claim has any relevance to the question. It has to fit into all the evidence we have gathered already.Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles when all the evidence we have gathered seems to indicate that they aren't there?Do you have evidence that they are required? It is not sufficient to gaze into the middle distance and mutter things about musings and wonderment. You have to fit those flights of fancy into the evidence that already exists and if they are all pointing in another direction, you had better have a really good way to explain why the chocolate sprinkles resulted in all the observations and evidence that we have already gathered.

quote:

---

and only referring to what the model covers does not explain everything.

---

As I've just shown, that's irrelevant. We're never going to have everything. You're having a creationist moment: Because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.On the contrary. We know lots of things. The scribblings in your dream journal have to be integrated into what we already know in order to have any hope of being possible. Otherwise, the conclusion isn't "I don't know," but rather, "That can't be real." Why? Because of the literally thousands of years of evidence we have piled up.Where is your evidence that all of the conclusions based upon that evidence is wrong? Incomplete is insufficient.

quote:

---

Consider a box, and I put everything that is well described within the box, and close and seal it: this is the model.

​

How does this describe anything that is not in the box?

---

Do we have any reason to suspect that those things outside the box are fundamentally different from things inside the box? So far, all the evidence has shown that the more things we put in the box, the more like everything else in the box everything seems to be.You're having another creationist moment: That the physics way over there is nothing like the physics over here.

quote:

---

Perhaps the reasons some concepts are left outside the box is because you need something else to describe them than what is included in the descriptions inside the box

---

But you can't even define what it is that you're talking about. How on earth can you justify that our current tools are insufficient?

quote:

---

why assume that "something else" does not exist because it is not inside your box?

---

Because the model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?

quote:

---

There are many aspect of the universe that are not well described and there are concepts where scientific description is not even attempted.

---

Indeed. But if you can't define what they are, how can you even claim "I don't know"? You have to know what you're talking about first before you can say you don't know. So when are you going to define what you're talking about?

quote:

---

You have provided no evidence that your model is complete

---

I don't have to. I only have to show that it works. I don't have to know how a car runs in order to show that it does. If you're going to claim that it isn't really but only looks like it, you're the one that needs to justify it because all of the current evidence indicates that it's running right now. And your explanation needs to take into account every single observation that has ever been made regarding the car.That's the evidence you keep claiming doesn't exist.

quote:

---

just asserted that "it works" without defining what it is.

---

I'll define mine after you define yours. Frustrating, isn't it?

quote:

---

and excludes things where the explanation is incomplete or not even attempted.

---

As just shown above, all of that is irrelevant. The model still works even if it is incomplete. Do you have evidence that it isn't working?The car is running. Why do you say it isn't? Just because I don't know all the details about how?

quote:

---

Hence I find your "the model works" claim to be rather self-referential

---

That's because it's the base. It's where we start from: All the collected evidence we have gathered over the thousands of years of our history. It's what generates the model and it takes into account all the evidence that have.And then you come along and say that there is something wrong while refusing to justify that claim. Why is it wrong? Where? How? You're demanding chocolate sprinkles but refusing to explain why they are required.

quote:

---

it works for things included in the model, but ignores things not included.

---

Irrelevant. The car is running. Why do you say it isn't? Just because I don't know all the details about how?

quote:

---

It doesn't explain why gravity exists and does an incomplete job of even explaining how it works

---

I don't have to show why gravity exists in order to show that it does exist and therefore your claim that it doesn't will need to come with a description of what actually caused all those evidenced observations we've been having for all these thousands of years.It seems you have forgotten the difference between "necessary" and "sufficient." The two are not the same. In order to show that two and two do not equal five, it would be sufficient for me to show that they equal four. It is not necessary, though. I only have to show that the function of addition leads to two and two equalling something other than five.Have you heard of Merten's Conjecture? It's a numerical mathematical question with a conjecture that it was true. It was proven false in 1985 but the thing is, the proof didn't show where. That is, we know that Merten's Conjecture is false for at least one n, but we don't know which n it is. It was on the order of 10¹⁰⁷⁰: We knew it would fail before that but not where.We don't need to know the specifics why something isn't true in order to show that it isn't. We only have to show that it contradicts things we know to be true.The car is running. Why do you say it isn't? Just because I don't know all the details about how?

quote:

---

The model is incomplete, and until it is incomplete I don't see any reason to assume that nothing else is needed to complete the model.

---

And as you've just been shown, you're wrong in that claim. The burden of proof is on you. You're the one saying that the model is false. Therefore, it is your responsibility to show why. All the evidence we have indicates the model works.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Excuse me? I don't recall ever mentioning my personal opinion regarding the existence of god. Is there a particular reason that you simply assumed that I was?

---

​

You argued that atheism was the default or null position, not that this meant that the atheist position does not need to be supported.

---

Why does that make me an atheist? Has it not occurred to you that I do have evidence (at least what I think is evidence) for why the chocolate sprinkles are required and that I just haven't deigned to let you know what they are?You don't know me, RAZD. It would behoove you to stop pretending like you do.

quote:

---

Note: I'm still waiting for that objective evidence you claimed existed.

---

The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

Kind of hard to deny something that is conspicuous for its absence.

---

You mean the model is non-existent? Huh. That's strange. I went to school to learn about the model. I've got a bookcase full of textbooks describing the model. New information about the model appears every single day.And now you're saying none of those things exist? I paid tens of thousands of dollars on an hallucination?

quote:

---

Put up your evidence and we'll see how it measures up

---

The model works. That's my evidence. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

---

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.

Teapots&unicorns writes:

quote:

---

Here is where you guys diverge. Rrhain is saying that because there is no evidence, we should not believe that it exists.

---

Incorrect. I am not saying we don't have any evidence. I'm saying we have literally mountains of evidence. Instead, my response would be along the lines of: "Here are the observational records of the night sky going all the way back to the Chinese. If there were a roughly 15-cm spheroid, ceramic object weighing approximately one kilo orbiting the earth, it would have been detected at some point. Such an object would necessarily cause a gravitational effect that would have been detected at any of these observational points..." and on and on.This idea that there is no evidence is a fanciful dream of RAZD's. And if the response to all of this evidence is that this teapot can't be detected, then we have such a ridiculous ad hoc assertion that it becomes a question of faith, which will never bow to evidence.Now, if we could come up with something that has absolutely no connection to any evidence we have ever collected (and I would include in that concept that the person hearing this information doesn't know about), then it would be connected to my claim of skepticism as the default position. Burden of proof is always on the one making the claim. If you're going to claim beetaratagang, then you have to define it first and that act of definition immediately starts to create evidence. Anything new has to fit in with all of the evidence that has previously been collected. And even then, the position is one of skepticism until more definitive evidence comes along to show that this claim is justified.The null hypothesis is always considered true until evidence comes along to show otherwise.

quote:

---

When a new claim is made, it is just, as you say, a "type I" claim. It has no evidence for or against it.

---

Except that it does. As soon as it gets defined, it establishes a relationship with all of the other evidence that has been collected which means there is plenty of evidence in support and/or denial of it.

quote:

---

Rrhain is saying that our "instruments" (from the example above) will eventually be able to prove one side or the other correct.

---

Incorrect. I'm saying they already have. The sky has been observed for an extremely long time. If there were a ceramic object approximately 15 centimeters across and weighing one kilo in orbit, it would have been detected due to it necessarily having physical effects upon the world.So since the physical description of your object is in direct contradiction with all of the evidence we have, since the evidence we have precludes the existence of your claimed object based upon its definition, are we going to throw away all of the evidence in favor of a new ad hoc trait you're now going to assert and attach to this teapot?A difference that makes no difference is no difference. If the teapot is incapable of interaction with the world, then it doesn't exist.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

still with the model eh?

---

Until you provide evidence that it needs your chocolate sprinkles, it still works without them.Where is your evidence? You're the one making the claim and yet you seem to think it is everyone else's responsibility except yours.

quote:

---

The model is incomplete

---

Irrelevant as explained previously. You're having a creationist moment: Because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything. I don't have to know everything about the internal combustion engine in order to determine that my car is running.

quote:

---

thus the need for explanations that are not included in the current model cannot be ruled out.

---

Except that they can be. If the definitions of those other things are incompatible with everything we already know, then they cannot exist. This is where your fantasy of "no evidence" falls flat. We have mountains of evidence. You're just refusing to look at it.F'rinstance, if I flip a coin, even when it's in the air, we know it will not come down a six. Coins come down heads or tails. Dice come down one through six. Any insistence that it is possible that it might ignores the evidence that exists. It is a fantasy to claim that there is no evidence. The mere fact that we know it's a coin is what gives us information.This is why it is important for you to define what it is you mean by "god." It allows us to put this object into relationship with all the other evidence we have. Since you refuse to do so, then we don't even get to say that precious "I don't know" you cling to so tightly.

quote:

---

The coin is still in the air

---

Then why is it on the back of my hand showing tails? It would seem your claim that it is possible that the coin landed the Ace of Spades is not a possibility.

---

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.

RAZD responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

And we have been continually showing you how it fails.

---

​

The basic scientific process fails? Relying on the scientific process for reaching more definitive conclusions based on empirical evidence fails?

---

BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's just absolutely precious, RAZD! That you think you're using the scientific process! You! Who is claiming subjectivity is valid!Thanks, RAZD. I needed a good laugh. You've been studying the conservatives, haven't you. Accuse the other person of what you're doing first so that they have to go on the defensive.On a more serious note, that's my argument to you, RAZD. The model is based upon the process. You're the one claiming that it doesn't work. Therefore, you are the one who needs to show where and how. Your subjective opinion that maybe there is something you refuse to define at play is insufficient.

quote:

---

In other words, the absence of evidence is evidence of absence fallacy.

---

Huh? What "absence of evidence" is involved in kinematics? Are you seriously saying there is an absence of evidence regarding friction and thus anybody anywhere is claiming it doesn't exist?Word salad, RAZD. Please rephrase.We have evidence of absence because the model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

If you flip a coin a hundred times and it comes up tails, what is the likelihood that the next flip will be tails?

---

Upon examination of the coin after the 10th flip indicated that it was a double-tailed coin, then we knew that it was always going to land tails.Why do you deny this evidence?

quote:

---

And thus you admit that the model is incomplete.

---

You say that like I ever denied it was incomplete. Of course it's incomplete. It will always be incomplete. Forever and always. How many times have I posted here regarding the scientific process as an observational process and because it is impossible to make absolutely every observation, we can never, ever, not under any circumstances say with 100% certainty that a claim is true, only that it is consistent with all observations we have made? We might have landed on the absolutely, 100% true in all circumstances answer, but we will never be able to know that because we can only observe effects and we will never be able to observe everything.So please drop this charade of yours that you have found some sort of hypocrisy in my argument. I have never, ever claimed that the model is complete.I have claimed it is functional. You're the one saying that it isn't but refusing to justify why. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

Noting that the car works, and even knowing how the car works, does not answer the question of why the car exists.

---

Huh? Who said anything about the car existing? This is about the car running, which presumes the car exists. You're having a creationist moment, RAZD: That evolution needs to explain the origin of the universe. Huh? Evolution is biology. Cosmogenesis is physics. The evidence for the car's existence has nothing to do with the evidence for its running.

quote:

---

quote:

---

The model works. That's my evidence.

---

​

The absence of evidence is evidence of the absence of evidence

---

Huh? The model doesn't even exist? You mean physics, music theory, medicine, psychology, color theory, oil technique, all those things we've studied and observed over the years simply don't exist? They are "absent"?Well, we better close all the schools, then, because there's nothing to actually learn. It's all "absence of evidence."Word salad, RAZD. Try again.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles?

---

​

I don't

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Do you really need me to go through all your posts and show your specific statements demanding this undefined, vague "force" you've been so keen to insist has a distinct 50-50 chance of existing and thus forces you to claim "I don't know," even though you don't even know what you don't know about it?

quote:

---

I just note that you cannot eliminate them from consideration by the absence of evidence argument, as it is a logical fallacy.

---

Indeed. And if anybody were using the "absence of evidence" argument, you'd have a point. But the exact opposite is the case.We have the evidence: The model works. The model is based upon the evidence. For you to claim that this is an argument of "absence of evidence" necessarily means you are claiming that the model is based upon no evidence.Which means there is no evidence for anything, anywhere, ever.Congratulations, RAZD. You just proved you don't exist.Word salad, RAZD. Try again.The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?And thus, the merry-go-round spins again.

quote:

---

You cannot explain why gravity exists, therefore your model is incomplete.

---

Irrelevant. Are you saying gravity doesn't exist? Nice creationist moment you had there: Because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.We don't accept it from creationsts, RAZD, what on earth makes you think we're going to accept it from you?

---

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.

tis---strange responds to me:

quote:

---

Well I (I wouldn't dare speak for RAZD) wouldn't say that in any field where we have a model that we have evidence for.

---

I think you need to read the post right above your response: That is exactly what he is saying. He claims that the model isn't evidence. All the observations and evidence that were gathered to create the model aren't actually observations and evidence."It's imcomplete," he claims, as if that has any relevance. I don't have to know all the details behind the internal combustion engine to know that my car is running. He's have a creationist moment: That because we don't know everything, that means we don't know anything.

quote:

---

There are however concepts that we KNOW of that the evidence for them is undetectable by our modern day machinery.

---

But don't ignore all the other types of evidence that exists in justification of the concept. Indeed, we couldn't directly test certain aspects of relativity until the advent of supersonic flight and highly accurate atomic clocks, neither of which were present at the time Einstein published. We had to wait for an eclipse in order to detect the bending of light around the sun.But the fact that we couldn't provide those specific kinds of evidence until later doesn't mean there isn't any evidence right here and now. This is the failure of RAZD's argument: He claims that there isn't any evidence of any kind, anywhere. Complete and utter blank slate.And he's wrong. There's lots of evidence. It may not be the best, but it is there and it is where we start from in order to place this new claim in context with all the rest of the observations we have made over the millennia.

quote:

---

Now about a concept, like the god concept: It would of course not be part of a physical, biological, or any scientific theory. Why? Because physics deals with concepts that interact physically.

---

And god necessarily doesn't interact physically with the world? If so, then god doesn't exist. Everything interacts physically with the world. That's the point behind physics: To study those interactions. If god has no physical connection to the world, then there's no way for god to have any effect upon the world.A difference that makes no difference is no difference.It is a common claim for theists to insist that god cannot be put into the box to be observed, but that pushes god outside the realm of reality and into the world of fantasy and faith.

quote:

---

Well yes. But the question I am asking myself is: If I am presentet with a ("crackpot"?) theory, how do I react?

---

The default position is always: Without evidence to justify your claim, we must reject it since we have a working model that doesn't include it. The null hypothesis is always considered true until shown otherwise. It doesn't matter how "reasonable" or how "counter-intuitive" the claim is. If you can't show your justification, we default to what we already know which works without your claim.

quote:

---

You see my point?

---

I'm not sure I do.

---

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.