Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 58 (9175 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,623 Year: 4,880/9,624 Month: 228/427 Week: 38/103 Day: 7/11 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Identifying false religions.
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 451 of 479 (571465)
07-31-2010 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 443 by RAZD
07-31-2010 4:06 PM


Re: really?
RAZD writes:
Hi DevilsAdvocate, this is getting long and repetitious.
Maybe because your argument is not convincing. Just a thought.
You do not think it is getting repititious on my end repeating the same things over and over?
And the person making the positive claim to have evidence or knowledge that they know something.
The default position of the non-existance of something is not a positive claim.
Again, see Pseudoskepticism and logic where this has been discussed
I have been reading it and your argument falls flat in my and many others opinions but I will continue reading this thread.
RAZD writes:
Me writes:
Yes, but gravitons are predicted in physics (specifically quantum field theory).
A prediction is not evidence, it is a logical conclusion that needs to be tested to see if it is true or not.
This is not that difficult to figure out RAZD. Again, predictions are not made in a vacuum of evidence. Predictions are made on a foundation of previous evidence.
According to you, because we don't know whether they exist of not, we should by default believe that they do not exist.
No, you misunderstand what I am saying. We should work from a position of non-existance and confirm that they exist by showing evidence they exist. How hard is this to understand.
Besides we do have indications and indirect evidence that gravitons may exist, we just have not confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that they do exist.
But they do not have specific evidence that gravitons exist. Some scientists may have an opinion based on previous experience, but that opinion is not based on evidence that gravitons per se exist.
It is not just opinion based on experience, it is predictions made on indirect evidence as I showed with the decreasing orbital energy of the binary pulsar. There is evidence, just not enough yet to say without a shadow of doubt that gravitons actually exist. There is a difference here.
Phenomena such as gravitons either exist or do not exist. Something can't 50% exist. Science has to start from somewhere. If it starts with, like you said, a possibility that anything and everything can exist than you are saying it is up to science to falsify everything from supernatural beings to unicorns. Again, science does not work this way. It cannot work this way whether you says it does or not.
And when that time comes, then one can make an informed conclusion whether or not gravitons exist. Until then the default is that we do not know (but we can investigate to see, or wait for more evidence).
Again replace the word graviton with any other conjured up concept i.e. flying spaghetti monster, pink dragons, etc. and ask yourself if this makes sense.
An opinion that god/s may not exist is not a claim that needs to be substantiated, it is the claim to have special knowledge about the likelihood, or to have absolute knowledge of the truth, that bears the burden of proof. As you agreed in the case of gravitons.
The issue here is that we can claim in infinite number of things that can possibly exist, from God to purple lamas. However, without any evidence to base these conjectures on, their is no reason to even ask the question. Gravitons at least have a reason to be considered to exist. There is a framework of emperical evidence which supports its possible existance even if this evidence does not undeniably confirm their existance. Can you say the same for the concept of God? Is there a framework of emperical evidence on which to suppose his existance?
And it's called special pleading when you do not take the same position on other claims, example gravitons.
I do make the same position with gravitons. Gravitons are assumed not to exist until shown evidence they exist as well. This is the position science must work from. If science worked from the premise that anything and everything conceived by man is thought to exist or than their would be no way to filter out what is worth investigating (black holes) and not investigating (big foot).
I think we are talking past each other. I am talking about how to determine reality not what reality actually is.
Science works from the premise of non-existance even if reality may be otherwise. Science is not reality, it is the process of determing reality (the process of discovery of the existance of things). Science must work from a foundation of non-existance until shown evidence that something exists not that anything could possibly exist until shown evidence that they don't exist.
The problem with your flowchart is that science does not consider unsubstantiated opinions to hold water This may work for philosophy but not for science.
I think below is more accurate in determining the validty of phenomena:
Dump all those concepts in (C) and wait to see if evidence turns up. One can be skeptical of their existence, yet open-minded enough to consider that they may be true, but that there is insufficient evidence on which to base an (A) type informed conclusion at this time.
Than you must be open-minded enought to consider to not be skeptical of UFOs, Big Foot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an infinite number of supposed phenomena. In other words, you have no way of weeding out pseudoscientific claims from real science.
People have scientifically investigated yeti, the loch ness monster, big foot, and aliens, because they have a personal interest in finding the truth of those concepts.
Are you honestly that naive to think the majority of people 'scientifically' study these phenomena in the same manner that real scientists study the universe around us? Most people who study these phenomena come with emotionally-charged preconceived notions that these phenomena exist and attempt to find or even contrive evidence for their existance. Humans are a gullible bunch.
And further, this category also includes all hypothesized scientific phenomena that is currently not validated or invalidated by objective empirical evidence, including gravitons.
Are you fucking serious RAZD in lumping the study of gravitons by scientists with the snake-oil pseudoscience of searching for UFO's, big foot, loch ness monster and the like. Please tell me this is not true RAZD. I have admired most of your posts up until now. I am not trying to be mean or conduct an ad hominum attack, just being brutally honest.
Thanks again for the debate.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 443 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 4:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 453 by DBlevins, posted 07-31-2010 9:26 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied
 Message 456 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:26 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 452 of 479 (571469)
07-31-2010 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 450 by RAZD
07-31-2010 6:49 PM


Re: Gravitons and galloping god/s versus {this post}
You, in essence, are agreeing with my point that the default position in science is not to believe that things do not exist, but one of investigation into the possibility that they may exist.
But only with previous evidence that suggest the possibility of their existance in the first place. I think that is the crux of the impass between my and your argument. What evidence even suggests that God might possibly exist?
Why? How does trotting out the atheist's pet straw-man demonstrate that the default position in science is that "X does not exist"?
That is not a strawman. It is a rational and logical deduction. If you assume the possibility of God's existance, you must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things that the human mind could possibly conjure up as existing, including pink unicorns.
could also compare it to the statement that "{this post} does not exist" - which is easily falsified by anyone reading {this post}, and demonstrating that when the complete possible evidence set of (this post) is known it is possible to see that it contains a post that falsifies the statement.
Can you falsify the claim that pink unicorns do not exist? Really? Please show me how. Now falsify that God does not exist. Nope, can't do it either can you. Science works off of positive claims not negative ones. Scientific claims must be falsifiable.
Amusingly, that also does not demonstrate that the default position in science would be that {this post} does not exist.
But there is evidence it does exist (we are reading it). If we never had evidence in the first place indicating its existance than the default position is that this post does not exist. Furthermore there would be no reason to even ask the question. Get it?!?
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 450 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 6:49 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:04 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

DBlevins
Member (Idle past 3859 days)
Posts: 652
From: Puyallup, WA.
Joined: 02-04-2003


Message 453 of 479 (571475)
07-31-2010 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by DevilsAdvocate
07-31-2010 8:34 PM


Gravitons
It is not just opinion based on experience, it is predictions made on indirect evidence as I showed with the decreasing orbital energy of the binary pulsar. There is evidence, just not enough yet to say without a shadow of doubt that gravitons actually exist. There is a difference here.
Phenomena such as gravitons either exist or do not exist. Something can't 50% exist. Science has to start from somewhere. If it starts with, like you said, a possibility that anything and everything can exist than you are saying it is up to science to falsify everything from supernatural beings to unicorns. Again, science does not work this way. It cannot work this way whether you says it does or not.
I think the hard part is getting RAZD to realize that we have actual data that sub-atomic particles exist (and none for god/s), and it would be reasonable to posit the existence of gravitons based on what we know about quantum physics.
We are not looking for gravitons in a vaccum.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 451 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 8:34 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 454 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:03 PM DBlevins has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 454 of 479 (571486)
07-31-2010 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 453 by DBlevins
07-31-2010 9:26 PM


Re: Gravitons
Hi DBlevins,
I think the hard part is getting RAZD to realize that we have actual data that sub-atomic particles exist (and none for god/s), and it would be reasonable to posit the existence of gravitons based on what we know about quantum physics.
And yet you still have an absolute vacuum of evidence that gravitons actually objectively and empirically exist.
Just because you can hypothesize that they exist does not magically make them exist, or cause any reason not to take the putative default position.
The hard thing for the two of you to realize it seems is that no matter how you blather on about the evidence that leads up to the hypothesis of gravitons, the claim that the default position is that things do not exist is falsified by your absolute failure to take this position on gravitons.
Special pleading
hypocrisy
confirmation bias
cognitive dissonance
epic fail
Call it what you will.
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 453 by DBlevins, posted 07-31-2010 9:26 PM DBlevins has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 461 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2010 5:42 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 455 of 479 (571487)
07-31-2010 10:04 PM
Reply to: Message 452 by DevilsAdvocate
07-31-2010 8:47 PM


Re: Gravitons and galloping god/s versus {this post}
Hi DevilsAdvocate,
If you assume the possibility of God's existance, you must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things that the human mind could possibly conjure up as existing, including pink unicorns.
Why?
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : notice

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 452 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 8:47 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 458 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2010 4:02 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 471 by Straggler, posted 08-01-2010 8:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 456 of 479 (571495)
07-31-2010 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 451 by DevilsAdvocate
07-31-2010 8:34 PM


Re: really?
Hi again DevilsAdvocate, please try to respond to my actual position.
And the person making the positive claim to have evidence or knowledge that they know something.
The default position of the non-existance of something is not a positive claim.
The default position of not knowing whether a claim is true or false at this time is not a positive claim, nor is it a negative claim. It is an honest claim.
The claim that something does not exist is a claim to know the truth, or an assumption of truth without knowledge. It is a dishonest claim unless supported by evidence.
Than you must be open-minded enought to consider to not be skeptical of UFOs, Big Foot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an infinite number of supposed phenomena.
No, skeptical AND open-minded. They may be true and they may be false, at this point I am not aware of sufficient information to make an informed conclusion, are you?
In other words, you have no way of weeding out pseudoscientific claims from real science.
Then neither do you. Assuming that something is false when you have inadequate information on which to make such an assesment does not mean they actually are false - that can only be done by investigation into their validity - nor does it lead to any weeding out of your pseudoskeptical claims of knowing more than the evidence shows.
Are you fucking serious RAZD in lumping the study of gravitons by scientists with the snake-oil pseudoscience of searching for UFO's, big foot, loch ness monster and the like. Please tell me this is not true RAZD. I have admired most of your posts up until now. I am not trying to be mean or conduct an ad hominum attack, just being brutally honest.
Then you should also be brutally honest with your own position.
Until something is known it is not known.
If it is not known, then you cannot know whether it is true or false.
You can have an opinion, but you should not pretend that your opinion is true, it is just your best guess based on known available evidence, your world view, personal experiences and biases.
If you are brutally honest with yourself, then you will see this.
I've done that.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : notice

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 451 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 07-31-2010 8:34 PM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 460 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2010 5:01 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 5039 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 457 of 479 (571500)
07-31-2010 11:08 PM


quote:
I consistently apply corroborated evidence in debating the Biblical record. That includes the prophecies.
No you don't because, outside the books of the New Testament, there isn't any. I'll bet you haven't even run consistency checks with other books such as the dead sea scrolls and the Gnostic gospels either.
quote:
Jesus, the NT messiah/christ, meeting the corroborated conditions predicted in the OT Jewish scriptures, himself used some of those OT prophecies to proclaim his role. He also corroborated the OT prophets by his own Luke 21 prophecy that the city of Jerusalem would be occupied by the Gentiles until the end times when their occupation would cease.
Err...the last 'prophecy' is tautologous. Whichever way it works out the prophecy is bound to be right. Clearly as long as there is a single non-Jew in Jerusalem the ''prophecy' is OK. Is it conceivable that there would NOT be at least a few non Jews in Jerusalem? No, it isn't. Therefore the 'prophecy' is actually simply a statement of the bleedin ovbious.
A prediction that says 'There will be Mancs in Manchester for a long time' would be laughed at as a joke, yet you take this seriously?
You also seem to be confused about corroborating things. Jesus could not possibly have 'corroborated' any of the OT 'prophecies'. He already new the Tankah, probably off by heart. Therefore any action or words of his that are said to fit with the OT were done with perfect 20-20 hindsight and to call that corroboration misses the whole point of the word.
As an analogy - I know the PG Woodehouse books pretty well. I know that Blandings castle is frequenlty the scene of Bertie Wooster's madcap adventures. I want to pretend I am Bertie Wooster incarnated. I therefore go to Apley Hall in Stockton and prance about like Wooster. Now, I know that many scholars of Woodehouses think that he based Blandings castle on Apley Hall so it is not a difficult thing to plan. In a few days the papers are proclaiming the new Bertie Wooster (me) and calling experts in to say that Apley Hall is thought to be Blandings Castle. I knew all this beforehand - just like Jesus did.
That is about the level of 'proof' we have with this nonsense about Jesus. HE KNEW the OT better than you or me and he could have done any number of things that he knew would be seen as fullfilling some passage or other from Isaiah or Micah or Psalms etc. To think that is evidence boggles my mind.
Did you ever see the Southpark show on Mormons and Joseph Smith? Remember the constant background refrain? "dumb dumb dumb dumb dumb" as Joseph Smith made up one rificulous story after another? Well this is very similar.
As for specific predictions about Jesus in the OT/Tankah- there are none - not a one. Look for the word Jesus in the OT - you won't find a mention. The so-called prophecies he 'fullfills' are known to him and are so generalised as to be meaningless. Why could not one of the OT prophets even get his name right? Isaiah is comical - he tries to give all the possible things he might be called - Immanuel, Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. In the new Testament Jesus is know by NONE of these names.
The other common reference is to "Christ" or "Christos and we are offered this as final evidence. I was genuinely told by the Monks who educated me that references to Christos and the fact that Jesus Christ was the one was beyond doubt and certain proof. These people are mad. Jesus was not called Jesus Christ - Christ just means 'chosen' or 'annointed'. Whoever they chose would be called Christ, so this is no prophecy at all.
Some of the supposed 'corroboration' is just silly. Check Deut out...
Deuteronomy 18:15 (NIV) The LORD your God will raise up for you a prophet like me from among your own brothers. You must listen to him.
We are asked to believe that this is a supernaturally accurate description of Jesus. Are you having a laugh? Jesus isn't just a prophet and you think a little thing like being the son of God might have seemed just a little bit important to the prophets. No mention of it - or of his name - or of when and where. This is a joke. It could equally be referring to the chap down the road who gives oracular advice on Mondays and Thursdays by appointment only....
The whole load of supposed 'fullfilling the prophecies' is full of examples like the above - completely wishful thinking and not even as accurate as a good guesser like NostraDamus - at least he sometimes got close to the names of people.
Tell me - where did the OT say Jesus would be born?
Micah said it would be Bethlehem - so Matthew's gospel goes with that. It is wrong, of course, and later a whole mad fantasy is invented to support the lie. The Christians are so eager to believe it that they have a major ceremony depicting it, and kids all over the world get dressed in tea towels, chuck a doll in some straw and re-enact the mythical nativity scene. A joke my friend, a complete joke. Roman Census? Men travelling to the town of their birth? Complete rubbish. There was no Roman census anywhere near the supposed date and the idea that the Romans - those master organisers - required people to return to the city of their birth for a census is just insane. Of course they didn't - it would have been both impossible and barking mad to try anything of the sort.
Besides - Bethlehem in Judea did not exist as a settlement from 4BCE to 7CE so that is out.
So Nazareth then? Like Luke says? But Luke quotes this ridiculous nonsense about the census which is obviously just invented, so we shouldn't be too quick to trust his yarns.
Why is it that believers are quick to latch on to any possible link, however tenuous, but are also prepared to completely ignore the large number of prophecies that are completely wrong?
That is like spending 20 a week on lottery tickets and rejoicing when you win 50 in 6 months, forgetting completely the other 1159 you lost.
quote:
Relative to the OP of this topic, religions which deny evidence like this supportive to the Biblical record, including some ultra-liberal Christian religions can be assumed to be false.
ROFLMAO. I think anyone who actually thinks this IS evidence is not playing with a full deck.
Finally, all of this is quite insulting to the people who's book of scripture you interrpret so freely, so forgivingly (and so wrongly). The Jews don't think that Jesus was the son of God, and they certainly don't think it was predicted in THEIR book of scriptures.
Evidence for just how generalised and 'horoscope-like' these 'prophecies' actually are is easy to see - Muslims think the same prophecies refer to a completely different chap in a completely different land and time - Mohammad.
Edited by Bikerman, : Corrections to grammar and spelling
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.
Edited by Bikerman, : No reason given.

Replies to this message:
 Message 459 by bluegenes, posted 08-01-2010 4:02 AM Bikerman has replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 458 of 479 (571549)
08-01-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 455 by RAZD
07-31-2010 10:04 PM


Re: Gravitons and galloping god/s versus {this post}
If you assume the possibility of God's existance, you must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things that the human mind could possibly conjure up as existing, including pink unicorns.
Come on RAZD, you are more intelligent than this. Stop evading.
Because if you assumed the possibility of god's existance, and there is no evidence that he does exist, than what is to say anything else could possibly exist that is created by the human mind.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 455 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:04 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 462 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2010 9:49 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2561 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 459 of 479 (571550)
08-01-2010 4:02 AM
Reply to: Message 457 by Bikerman
07-31-2010 11:08 PM


Replying directly to posts and people.
Bikerman writes:
No you don't because, outside the books of the New Testament, there isn't any. I'll bet you haven't even run consistency checks with other books such as the dead sea scrolls and the Gnostic gospels either.
Hi, Bikerman, and welcome to EvC.
Just a couple of practical points. You must have hit the "general reply" button to make the post I'm replying to. Using the reply button on the bottom right of the specific post you're replying to will give you the effect you see on this post, and make it clear what you're replying to by the links at the top and bottom of your post.
It will also inform the other poster with an automatic Email, if he or she hasn't cancelled that process.
For further clarity, using the shaded quote boxes and [qs=Buzsaw] would have made it easy for readers to see whom you are quoting (I can guess, because I recognise Buz's prophecy content!!).
There's a "peek" facility on each post, which is an easy way to see how everything's done.
Welcome again.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 457 by Bikerman, posted 07-31-2010 11:08 PM Bikerman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 463 by Bikerman, posted 08-01-2010 2:32 PM bluegenes has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 460 of 479 (571555)
08-01-2010 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 456 by RAZD
07-31-2010 10:26 PM


Re: really?
Hi again DevilsAdvocate, please try to respond to my actual position.
I have been. I just disagree with it.
The default position of not knowing whether a claim is true or false at this time is not a positive claim, nor is it a negative claim. It is an honest claim.
All claims are either positive or negative i.e. "God exists" or "God does not exist" and this why. You can choose not to believe or disbelieve the claim, but the claim itself has to be positive or negative. Saying you are not sure if a claim is true or false is not a claim, it is an opinion on that claim.
The claim that something does not exist is a claim to know the truth, or an assumption of truth without knowledge. It is a dishonest claim unless supported by evidence.
So the claim that unicorns do not exist is an assumption of truth without knowledge? Really? We just automatically assume that unicorns can possibly exist somewhere out there in the universe until proven otherwise? How about green speckled gouda monsters? Do they possibly exist out there? How about flying spaghetti monsters? Scintillating Jeweled Scuttling Crabs or the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast? Do they possibly exist?
Also, what is an "honest claim" or a "dishonest claim"? Claim's are either true or false. Honesty has nothing to do with it. Honesty is a personal behavior which is irrelevent to whether something is true or not. One can be a dishonest person and make a true statement/claim i.e. "the earth is a spheroid", or one can be honest and unwittingly make a false statement "the earth is flat".
RAZD writes:
Me writes:
Than you must be open-minded enought to consider to not be skeptical of UFOs, Big Foot, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or an infinite number of supposed phenomena.
No, skeptical AND open-minded. They may be true and they may be false, at this point I am not aware of sufficient information to make an informed conclusion, are you?
Sure, there is sufficient information to make a rational conclusion that these things probably do not exist. However, that is besides the point, the scientific and logical position is that they are assumed to not exist until show evidence otherwise (otherwise known as a null hypothesis), not that they possibly exist until shown evidence that they don't exist. One does not have to prove a null hypothesis in science but you must always attempt to disprove a null hypothesis in science to reach a scientific and logical deduction of whether a hypothesis concerning a phenomena is correct or not. A null hypothesis is "a general or default position, such as that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena". In mathematic terms "the null hypothesis attempts to show that no variation exists between variables, or that a single variable is no different than zero. It is presumed to be true until statistical evidence nullifies it for an alternative hypothesis." Since non-existance is equated to be 0 (a set with no members, remeber existance is something and non-existance is nothing) on the scale of existance, non-existance is a null hypothesis which must be proven false scientifically aka that something exists (is not 0).
So, again the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim to the existance of something/anything not to the person holding the null hypothesis that something does not exist until shown evidence otherwise.
Then neither do you. Assuming that something is false when you have inadequate information on which to make such an assesment does not mean they actually are false - that can only be done by investigation into their validity - nor does it lead to any weeding out of your pseudoskeptical claims of knowing more than the evidence shows
Hitting head on brick wall. I can weed these out because I assume EVERYTHING does not exist until shown evidence that it does. That certainly can weed out pseudoscientific claims such as ESP, astrology, and the like. Please show me I am wrong.
Then you should also be brutally honest with your own position.
I am.
Until something is known it is not known.
True. By "known" do you mean it has evidence indicating it exists? If so than it then becomes known to exist. If not that means that either:
a. The question would not come up in the first place since this something is not known to possibly exist or not exist or
b. This something would be known to not have enough sufficient evidence indicating it positively exists (i.e. big foot).
Either way it is assumed this "something" is assumed not exist until given enough evidence that it does exist. Remember this is an attempt to deduce the reality of whether something exists or does not exist. Our attempt or process (science) used to assess its existance has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not.
Do you agree with this?
You can have an opinion, but you should not pretend that your opinion is true, it is just your best guess based on known available evidence, your world view, personal experiences and biases.
True.
If you are brutally honest with yourself, then you will see this.
I am and do see this. How does this support your position that we must start from the premise that anything can possibly exist and it is up to us to prove its non-existance?
It is your (and every theists/deist) job to provide good reason to accept the claim that God exists, not mine to disprove it. You may say God exists, I say I don't believe you. I don't believe you because it's silly and irrational to accept spurious claims without evidence indicating otherwise.
This is not a belief, it is an a priori position of non-belief just like atheism is not the 'belief there is not any god(s)', it is 'the position of non-belief in god(s)'. Big difference. I do not need to 'believe' that the easter bunny or Santa Claus does not exist, I assume they doesn't exist until shown evidence otherwise.
Your position holds no water RAZD. Your turn to dodge and weave.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 456 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:26 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 461 of 479 (571558)
08-01-2010 5:42 AM
Reply to: Message 454 by RAZD
07-31-2010 10:03 PM


Re: Gravitons
And yet you still have an absolute vacuum of evidence that gravitons actually objectively and empirically exist.
What we have with gravitons is enough evidence to suggest that they may in fact exist. We just do not have enough evidence that undeniably 'proves' their existance without a shadow of a doubt.
They may in fact not exist, but their is enough evidence to suggest they do.
Just because you can hypothesize that they exist does not magically make them exist,
Of course not and no one is suggesting this to be true.
or cause any reason not to take the putative default position.
And what default position is that?
The hard thing for the two of you to realize it seems is that no matter how you blather on about the evidence that leads up to the hypothesis of gravitons,
Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean you have to be a fucking jerk and a prick.
the claim that the default position is that things do not exist is falsified by your absolute failure to take this position on gravitons.
Here is where your comprehensions skills are lacking RAZD (how do you like that one, see I can be a fucking prick too). The position is that they do not exist until shown evidence indicating that they do exist. However their IS sufficient EVIDENCE that indicates that they are very likely to exist but not enough to undeniably confirm their existance scientifically. That is the scientific position at this time.
Now if you can show evidence that God is very likely to or even may possibily exists, I am all ears.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 454 by RAZD, posted 07-31-2010 10:03 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1489 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 462 of 479 (571576)
08-01-2010 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 458 by DevilsAdvocate
08-01-2010 4:02 AM


Evading? or asking your to clarify your claim?
Hi again, DevilsAdvocate
Come on RAZD, you are more intelligent than this. Stop evading.
Evading what? I've asked you why you think I must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things. It seems to me the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.
Because if you assumed the possibility of god's existance, and there is no evidence that he does exist, than what is to say anything else could possibly exist that is created by the human mind.
But I don't assume the possibility, the possibility exists because there is a lack of invalidating evidence and no conflict in logic.
quote:
Message 91: As a result of the logical analysis we have:
  1. Absolute Theist: knows god/s exist. (logically invalid position)
  2. Strong Theist: the existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  3. Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  4. Agnostic: god/s may exist or they may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other. (logically valid position)
  5. Weak Atheist: the non-existence of gods is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position)
  6. Strong Atheist: the non-existence of god/s is more likely than not. (logically invalid position)
  7. Absolute Atheist: knows that god/s do not exist. (logically invalid position)

My logical position is (3) - Weak Theist: the existence of god/s is possible, maybe likely, but not sure. (logically valid position) If you want, I can repeat the analysis of these positions based solely on the structure of the logic involved, but this has been posted many times - with no arguments that it is false (just some comments that show it was not understood).
Message 460: It is your (and every theists/deist) job to provide good reason to accept the claim that God exists, ...
Except that I make no claim about what you need to believe.
You, however, are now making a claim about what I should believe: to do this you need to show why I must believe what you claim.
Particularly if it is something that you yourself do not believe. To argue that I must believe something that you personally do not believe, would seem to me to be intellectually dishonest.
What I believe, for clarification purposes (and so you don't misrepresent it), is that god/s exist (or did exist) that were involved in the creation of the universe.
NOTE that belief is non-rational, as it is not based on evidence or logic, it just IS:
belief —noun (American Heritage Dictionary 2009)
1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something.: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true., especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.
NOTE FURTHER that this is a personal belief, and that I don't regard it as anything more than personal opinion, based on my worldview, life experiences and biases: I do not ask you - or anyone else - to believe it.
Now, if you are going to claim that the IPU fits that belief, as an entity involved in the creation of the universe, then it is already covered by my belief.
If you are not going to claim that the IPU fits that belief, as an entity involved in the creation of the universe, then you need to demonstrate some rational reason why I need to automatically believe that or anything else that is created by the human mind.
Do you see now why the IPU is a straw man argument?
... than what is to say anything else could possibly exist that is created by the human mind.
Like gravitons? Or anything else that can be conceived by the human mind based on worldview, life experiences and biases AND that someone else actually believes?
Message 460
All claims are either positive or negative i.e. "God exists" or "God does not exist" and this why.
Why what? Agreed that any claim itself is either positive or negative (otherwise it is just a statement).
You can choose not to believe or disbelieve the claim, but the claim itself has to be positive or negative.
And the claim that a specific claim is more likely to be false than true is a positive claim of likelihood.
I really really don't understand why I keep needing to repeat this. I am not saying that you need to substantiate the claim that god/s do not exist, but the claim that you know enough about this issue to judge that one is more likely than the other.
Also, what is an "honest claim" or a "dishonest claim"? Claim's are either true or false. Honesty has nothing to do with it.
An honest claim is one that you believe to be true, a dishonest one is a claim that you yourself do not believe is true but you ask others to believe.
Like the IPU etc.
So, again the burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim to the existance of something/anything not to the person holding the null hypothesis that something does not exist until shown evidence otherwise.
Agreed, IF I made the claim that you need to believe what I believe (and hold to be nothing more than my personal opinion based on my worldview, life experiences and biases), which I don't.
BUT that does not absolve you of bearing a burden of proof to claim that the it is more likely that the claim is false.
Certainly I can claim that the belief that the earth is young is highly likely to be a false belief, and then list objective empirical evidence that show this is the case.
True. By "known" do you mean it has evidence indicating it exists? If so than it then becomes known to exist. If not that means that either:
a. The question would not come up in the first place since this something is not known to possibly exist or not exist or
b. This something would be known to not have enough sufficient evidence indicating it positively exists (i.e. big foot).
Either way it is assumed this "something" is assumed not exist until given enough evidence that it does exist. Remember this is an attempt to deduce the reality of whether something exists or does not exist. Our attempt or process (science) used to assess its existance has no bearing on whether it actually exists or not.
Do you agree with this?
No, not entirely. I agree with your (a) and (b), but I'd say either way it is not known whether it exists or not, as that way I don't need to equivocate between the "assessment" of existence vs actual existence.
Much simpler, much more concise, certainly more reflective of the actual facts, and demonstrably more logically valid, no assumption necessary.
I am and do see this. How does this support your position that we must start from the premise that anything can possibly exist and it is up to us to prove its non-existance?
But that is not my position.
My position is that if we do not know, then we need to say that we do not know. My position is that we can be skeptical of the existence when there is insufficient objective empirical evidence to show that it does, AND open-minded to the possibility of existence when there is insufficient objective empirical evidence to show that it does not, exist. My position is that this is the honest default position on any concept where there is insufficient objective empirical evidence to make an informed conclusion
You can still have personal opinions about the issue, but they are opinions that are not based on facts.
Person (A) can have the opinion that (X) does not exist, and thus they spend no time or resources on any further investigation into whether or not (X) does exist. (looking for bigfoot)
Person (B) can have the opinion that (X) does exist, and thus they can devote time and resources to further investigation into whether or not (X) does exist. (looking for gravitons)
Person (C) can be undecided at this time, admitting they do not know whether or not (X) exists due to the low level of available information. They can either wait for more information to develop before forming an opinion, or they can investigate to see if they can determine whether or not (X) exists.
Message 461
What we have with gravitons is enough evidence to suggest that they may in fact exist. We just do not have enough evidence that undeniably 'proves' their existance without a shadow of a doubt.
Curiously, using evidence that leads to the hypothesis that (X) exists as evidence that (X) exists is what's known as circular reasoning.
Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean you have to be a fucking jerk and a prick.
Curious that you should say this, when all I have done is use the same "argument" used in replies to me.
And indeed, all you have demonstrated is that your opinion/s differ from mine, not that they are any more rational or logical, or that what you claim is actually true.
Enjoy.
NOTICE: I am not going to answer all the posts I am getting, as there are just too many that are just repeating old arguments that have already been addressed. I have already answered these, and I have answered them to the point that it is silly to keep repeating my position in the hopes that it is understood and not misrepresented. If you see "RAZD acknowledges this reply" it is because this means you. This is my blanket response to those posts. Likewise if I only answer part of your post/s it is because this applies to the rest. Additionally I may answer your post in reply to someone else, and I just don't need to repeat points already made.
Enjoy
Edited by RAZD, : tpyo
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 458 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2010 4:02 AM DevilsAdvocate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 464 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 08-01-2010 3:49 PM RAZD has replied

Bikerman
Member (Idle past 5039 days)
Posts: 276
From: Frodsham, Chester
Joined: 07-30-2010


Message 463 of 479 (571618)
08-01-2010 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 459 by bluegenes
08-01-2010 4:02 AM


Re: Replying directly to posts and people.
quote:
Hi, Bikerman, and welcome to EvC.
Thanks for the welcome. I should have realised that this system uses 'standard' embeds that I am used to already (I use BCC and variants quite a lot).
The reply did catch me out, but I did also sort of want to make the post general because :
a) I didn't want to interrupt what looked like a conversation
b) I hear this prophecy line all the time and it really needs to be challenged whenever it arises because people have heard it so often they generally believe there must be something in it...
Anyhoo, I'll try to contribute what I can (when i can) and again thanks for the welcome.
C

This message is a reply to:
 Message 459 by bluegenes, posted 08-01-2010 4:02 AM bluegenes has not replied

DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 3185 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 464 of 479 (571633)
08-01-2010 3:49 PM
Reply to: Message 462 by RAZD
08-01-2010 9:49 AM


Re: Evading? or asking your to clarify your claim?
Evading what? I've asked you why you think I must assume the possibility of an infinite number of other phenomena/things. It seems to me the logical fallacy of hasty generalization.
How is asking why you give special credance to the existance of one supposed supernatural being, God, over any other contrived being a 'hasty generalization'? Again you are dodging the question.
But I don't assume the possibility, the possibility exists because there is a lack of invalidating evidence and no conflict in logic.
Than so to must you assume the possibility of existance of an infinite number of other supernatural beings using your logic. Can you diprove the existance of Xenu, Ra, Mithra, Allah, Zeus, Odin, Osirus, Horus, Brahma, Ahura Mazda, etc ad infinitim. What distinguishes your god to be considered for existance besides the others?
Except that I make no claim about what you need to believe.
Because I am not making a claim that any deities exist.
To argue that I must believe something that you personally do not believe, would seem to me to be intellectually dishonest
What am I asking you to believe? I am just asking you to understand that if you make a claim for the existance of something i.e. God that it is up to that person to back up his claim, not the person who is not taking a position advocating the non-existance of things until shown evidence that they exist. Again the default position of non-existance is not a belief it is the null hypothesis of human understanding of reality.
What I believe, for clarification purposes (and so you don't misrepresent it), is that god/s exist (or did exist) that were involved in the creation of the universe.
Than the burden of proof is on you not me to show evidence to support this claim.
belief is non-rational, as it is not based on evidence or logic
Perposterous. All human understanding is based on beliefs. Why? Because humans cannot possibly know everything about the reality we live in. The real question is are our beliefs rational or irrational based on the knowledge base we corrently have (as a species, not as individuals).
Beliefs can be rational if based on valid and verifiable evidence. Or irrational if they are not backed up by adequate evidence. For example, I believe evolution to be correct because of the evidence that backs it up. That is a rational belief.
Here is a definition of belief (more accurately rational belief) given by the Merriam-Webster dictionary:
Merriam-Webster writes:
conviction of the truth of some statement or the reality of some being or phenomenon especially when based on examination of evidence
NOTE FURTHER that this is a personal belief, and that I don't regard it as anything more than personal opinion, based on my worldview, life experiences and biases: I do not ask you - or anyone else - to believe it.
Ok, whatever floats your boat. But don't put the onus on me to disprove your unsubstantiated beliefs.
Now, if you are going to claim that the IPU fits that belief, as an entity involved in the creation of the universe, then it is already covered by my belief.
Do you see now why the IPU is a straw man argument?
I have no idea what IPU is, so how am I going to ask how it fits into your belief. Are you sure you are not referring to someone else?
Ok, never mind, just figured it out, invisible pink unicorn. LOL. BTW, I did not originally bring IPU up, I just plagerized the idea from someone else's post.
I assume you think IPU possibly exists until someone can prove its existance or non-existance. Am I correct?
If so, I could care less that you believe this to be true. Just don't expect me to provide evidence that it does not exist. Same go's with your god.
Like gravitons? Or anything else that can be conceived by the human mind based on worldview, life experiences and biases AND that someone else actually believes?
Sure. I already said gravitons are assumed not to exist until given sufficient evidence that they do exist.
And the claim that a specific claim is more likely to be false than true is a positive claim of likelihood.
Agreed which is why I am not making this claim. Non-existance is not a 'likelihood'.
An honest claim is one that you believe to be true, a dishonest one is a claim that you yourself do not believe is true but you ask others to believe.
Like the IPU etc.
Only because I am trying to get you to think about the logic of your position. I am not honestly requiring you to believe IPU's to exist. It is more of a retorical comment not an actual claim to understand why you place greater emphasis on the possibility of god(s) to exist than IPUs.
Ok, have to run. Will come back and answer the rest.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.

"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World

This message is a reply to:
 Message 462 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2010 9:49 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 477 by RAZD, posted 08-01-2010 11:16 PM DevilsAdvocate has not replied

Straggler
Member (Idle past 149 days)
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 465 of 479 (571653)
08-01-2010 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by jar
07-31-2010 3:43 PM


Re: SOURCE vs Content
What did I say the last time you asked that question?
I have never before asked that question.
It is you who has made the distinction between being rational/reasonable and delusional. I am happy to go along with your definitions with respect to this.
You said that one who believes in the actual existence of Middle Earth hobbits on the basis of the Lord of the Rings text could be considered rational and reasonable if they did this for reasons of personal need.
I am asking you if they are also "almost certainly" delusional? As (we seem to agree) those who believe themselves to be Napoleon Bonaparte are.
Basically I am trying to find out what you think is delusional and what is not. Why. And then how this does or does not apply to religious beliefs based on texts.
Texts which you have advocated as evidence.
So how exactly does the Lord of the Rings text differ, in terms of being a valid form of evidence, to the bible? (if you indeed believe that it does). That is the question.
Please be specific in your answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by jar, posted 07-31-2010 3:43 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 466 by jar, posted 08-01-2010 7:20 PM Straggler has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024