Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
627 online now:
dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, vimesey (4 members, 623 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,728 Year: 21,764/19,786 Month: 327/1,834 Week: 327/315 Day: 5/78 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
RAZD
Member
Posts: 20323
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 3.5


Message 406 of 479 (571072)
07-30-2010 12:26 AM
Reply to: Message 377 by Straggler
07-29-2010 12:55 PM


Re: more logical fallacies
Hi Straggler,

Can you either quote me (in full context) as to where you think I have ever actually deployed any such statement of logical certitude? Or desist from relentlessly asserting that I have.

You really do not understand when you do this? I quoted it in the reply for gosh sakes:

Message 300: The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity ...

Your santa clause is B, and your implication that it "must apply to any ..." is your therefore A claim.

RAZ writes:

You don't know that god/s are necessarily undetectable or imperceptible, so you are assuming the consequent.

Can you explain how the deistic notion of god as previously described by you - "Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things" Message 225 - Can possibly be empirically perceptible?

First off, we need to once again correct your misrepresentation: what was described was a common deist concept, and you can find similar statements quite easily:

quote:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism
deism --noun
1. belief in the existence of a god on the evidence of reason and nature only, with rejection of supernatural revelation (distinguished from theism).
2. belief in a God who created the world but has since remained indifferent to it.

To properly address the question, you would need to consider what would be rational expectations of evidence of god/s that created the universe and have not done anything in it since.

If god/s created the universe at the start and set it running by various laws, then the discovery of those laws of behavior of things by science is evidence of how god/s made things work. None of it would appear supernatural, because we don't have a created universe and a non-created universe to compare to judge which is natural and which is god/s-done-it.

Your problem is not that god/s may be undetectable or imperceptible, but that your expectations of having empirically testable evidence may be false.

Consider, for the sake of argument, that spiritual experiences are indeed experiences of god/s (or some transcendental spirituality): would you expect any two experiences to be similar enough to make an empirical evaluation? If you had a god experience and I had a god experience, would you expect them to be the same?

I don't, and this is why I can logically conclude that if god/s exist that they can be unknowable - that no single experience would be sufficient to know.

As to being outside the universe, that too is a logical conclusion for god/s that created the universe. There is no reason to believe that they would be trapped within their creation.

It will be interesting to see what fantasies you make from this.

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 377 by Straggler, posted 07-29-2010 12:55 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 409 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 8:57 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

Phage0070
Inactive Member


Message 407 of 479 (571073)
07-30-2010 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 403 by RAZD
07-29-2010 11:26 PM


Re: It is really quite simple.
RAZD writes:

Someone else - me as an example - can believe that it is possible that bigfoot does exist, AND believe that it is possible that bigfoot does not exist.

Belief in the possibility of something is not the same as belief in the reality of something. I believe that it is *possible* for me to win the lottery. I don't believe that I *will* win the lottery.

Being open to the possibility of god/s existing or not existing is not the same as believing *that* god/s exist or do not exist.

It is true that there is a spectrum of confidence levels when considering a conclusion; one can be very sure something exists or not sure at all. However, everyone has a "credulity level" at which they believe the conclusion. This often varies depending on the importance/commonality of the claim: For instance I would be willing to take the word of a waiter that the clear fluid handed to me in a glass is water, but not so willing to take their word for them having Bigfoot locked in the freezer.

My point is that there is a dividing line where someone switches from believing something is *possible* to believing that something *is* (similarly, there is a divide between *possibly not* and *not*). Where this dividing line lies differs between different people and may be the subject of great debate, but that is what the three positions addresses.

Someone who only believes Bigfoot may possibly exist is a number 2. Someone who believes that Bigfoot *does* exist is a number 1. Conversely, someone who believes that Bigfoot may possibly not exist is a number 2, and one who believes that Bigfoot does not exist is a number 3.

RAZD writes:

Are you equally skeptical if someone claims Bigfoot does not exist, but has no evidence to back it up -- do you consider that claim unreliable as well?

Of course. Without any data how can they authoritatively speak about what does not exist out there?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 403 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2010 11:26 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 436 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 2:56 PM Phage0070 has responded

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


Message 408 of 479 (571083)
07-30-2010 8:16 AM
Reply to: Message 400 by jar
07-29-2010 8:04 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Are you actually disagreeing that something which has been defined to be “unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s” is anything other than empirically un-evidenced?

For heavens sake this would seem to be as simple a question as one could ask. Why will you not just answer it?

jar writes:

Because we moved on in the discussion, I am not RAZD and I defined what Deist God I was talking about.

Well why don't you answer the question in relation to the deist god I was talking about and then we can happily move on to the one you are talking about?

That seems fair.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 400 by jar, posted 07-29-2010 8:04 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 410 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 9:01 AM Straggler has responded

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


Message 409 of 479 (571084)
07-30-2010 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 406 by RAZD
07-30-2010 12:26 AM


Subjective "Evidence" - Surely Not?
Straggler quoted fully writes:

The same must apply to any empirically imperceptible entity as there is no means by which it's human conception can have been arrived at but by the internal workings of the human mind.

RAZD rampantly misrepresenting writes:

Your santa clause is B, and your implication that it "must apply to any ..." is your therefore A claim.

Don't be dishonest RAZ. You know full well that nobody is arguing that because Santa Claus is a human invention that anything else must also be a human invention. Please desist from this pathetic straw-man of yours.

You know full well that what is being said is that any entity which is empirically imperceptible (of which magically undetectable Santa is one example) cannot have been derived by means of any perception of external reality.

So you tell me - If they are unable to be empirically perceived where can notions of "unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s" gods originate? Where but the human mind?

Even if we allow for the philosophical possibility that by some miracle of coincidence your imagined entity does indeed actually exist.

RAZD writes:

If you had a god experience and I had a god experience, would you expect them to be the same?

Beyond that which is explainable by commonality of human psychology and culture - No. Beyond that you need to confront the problems with Immaterial "Evidence"

Anyway - I know you are not bringing up subjective "evidence". Because I know that the validity or otherwise of subjective "evidence" has "NOTHING to do with deities" Message 402

Or were you lying?

And you still haven't tackled the fact that you have (apparently) proven yourself to absolutely agnostic about absolutely everything Message 381

Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 406 by RAZD, posted 07-30-2010 12:26 AM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

jar
Member
Posts: 31751
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 410 of 479 (571085)
07-30-2010 9:01 AM
Reply to: Message 408 by Straggler
07-30-2010 8:16 AM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
If it will make you happy then yes "something which has been defined to be “unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s” is anything other than empirically un-evidenced".


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 408 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 8:16 AM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 412 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 12:21 PM jar has responded

Modulous
Member (Idle past 439 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 411 of 479 (571089)
07-30-2010 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by RAZD
06-27-2010 9:53 PM


suspect deity
Where there is no evidence for, nor against, a notion, then we don't know, we can't know, we don't have enough information to know.

In order for you to be able to say that your claim "Where there is no evidence for...a notion..we don't have enough information to know" is something you can say you 'know', you'll need to provide evidence - by your own epistemological standards.

This would bring us to a second test for false religions: inherent logical contradictions, and logical fallacies within a specific belief should also render that specific belief suspect at best, or false at worse, and likewise any religion that depends on one or more logically invalid beliefs, beliefs that have been invalidated by self contradiction or that are logical fallacies, is suspect at best, or false itself at worse (to the degree it is based on false beliefs).

So a religion that has a deity that doesn't get involved in the universe, does not provide any revelations yet is still the cause of some religious experiences would count as 'suspect at best'?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by RAZD, posted 06-27-2010 9:53 PM RAZD has acknowledged this reply

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


Message 412 of 479 (571124)
07-30-2010 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 410 by jar
07-30-2010 9:01 AM


Final Clarification
jar writes:

If it will make you happy then yes "something which has been defined to be “unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s” is anything other than empirically un-evidenced".

Just to be unequivocally clear here - You agree both that an "unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception" deistic god is necessarily empirically unevidenced and thus rationally and logically the actual existence of this entity is to be considered "highly improbabe".

Yes?

As per your comments here - Message 317 and Message 321.

Once we have agreement on this unequivocally tied up I guarantee that I will move on to consider this textual evidence you speak of in relation to the deistic god you have defined.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 410 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 9:01 AM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 413 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 12:35 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31751
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 413 of 479 (571130)
07-30-2010 12:35 PM
Reply to: Message 412 by Straggler
07-30-2010 12:21 PM


Re: Final Clarification
Don't bother.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 412 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 12:21 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 414 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 12:51 PM jar has not yet responded

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


Message 414 of 479 (571135)
07-30-2010 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 413 by jar
07-30-2010 12:35 PM


Re: Final Clarification
You are actually claiming that an "unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception" deistic god can be empirically evidenced aren't you?

If that is your position why not just state it? Why the resistance? Why the ambiguity?

Do you think it sounds a bit mental to believe that something defined as "outside of our perception" can also be empirically evidenced?

It seems that even some of the most self-aware theists have limits to the contradictions that they will openly accept.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 413 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 12:35 PM jar has not yet responded

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


Message 415 of 479 (571152)
07-30-2010 1:50 PM
Reply to: Message 383 by jar
07-29-2010 2:03 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
I believe that it is also rational and reasonable to consider that many may see what is written as MORE than simply a statement of belief.

Is it rational and reasonable to consider the existence of hobbits as evidenced based on the 'Lord of the Rings' text?

If not why not?

Be specific.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 383 by jar, posted 07-29-2010 2:03 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 416 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 2:01 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31751
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 416 of 479 (571153)
07-30-2010 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 415 by Straggler
07-30-2010 1:50 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes:

Is it rational and reasonable to consider the existence of hobbits as evidenced based on the 'Lord of the Rings' text?

If not why not?

Be specific.

Of course it is rational and reasonable to consider the existence of Hobbits as evidenced based on the 'Lord of the Rings' text.

What conclusion you reach will be based on how much the evidence convinces you.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 415 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 1:50 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 417 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:04 PM jar has responded

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


Message 417 of 479 (571155)
07-30-2010 2:04 PM
Reply to: Message 416 by jar
07-30-2010 2:01 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Are biblical creationists rational and reasonable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 416 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 2:01 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 418 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 2:14 PM Straggler has responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31751
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.6


Message 418 of 479 (571156)
07-30-2010 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 417 by Straggler
07-30-2010 2:04 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Hard to speak of a whole group, but I would say that some are rational and reasonable. I believe, no, make that know, that their conclusions are wrong but that does not mean they are not rational or reasonable.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 417 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:04 PM Straggler has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 419 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:21 PM jar has responded

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


Message 419 of 479 (571157)
07-30-2010 2:21 PM
Reply to: Message 418 by jar
07-30-2010 2:14 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
Straggler writes:

Are biblical creationists rational and reasonable?

jar writes:

Hard to speak of a whole group, but I would say that some are rational and reasonable

Well which ones are and which ones are not? What is the defining difference between the two?

jar writes:

I believe, no, make that know, that their conclusions are wrong but that does not mean they are not rational or reasonable.

So you are essentially claiming to know something that they (the rational creationists) do not?

If so - What is it that you know but that they do not?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 418 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 2:14 PM jar has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 422 by jar, posted 07-30-2010 2:33 PM Straggler has responded

onifre
Member (Idle past 1286 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 420 of 479 (571158)
07-30-2010 2:23 PM
Reply to: Message 404 by RAZD
07-29-2010 11:51 PM


Re: The rationality of the burden of proof
Hi RAZD, I've wanted to stay out of this one so so bad, and I have, but it's killing me that the reason for asking the question isn't itself questioned.

But the issue here is not claiming that "something does not exist" it is with claiming to know the likelihood, to have sufficient evidence to make an informed decision.

But doesn't it in fact have to go one step further?

It's not so much the informed decision and the sufficient evidence to support it that should be evaluated, but rather the sufficient evidence to propose an informed question.

Wouldn't someone asking the question need sufficent evidence to even propose the question?

Why would the answer require such objective empirical evidence when the question was asked speculatively?

- Oni

Edited by onifre, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 404 by RAZD, posted 07-29-2010 11:51 PM RAZD has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 421 by Straggler, posted 07-30-2010 2:32 PM onifre has responded
 Message 438 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 3:20 PM onifre has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019