Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8951 total)
26 online now:
Heathen, Tangle (2 members, 24 visitors)
Newest Member: Mikee
Post Volume: Total: 866,944 Year: 21,980/19,786 Month: 543/1,834 Week: 43/500 Day: 1/42 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Inductive Atheism
Huntard
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 526 of 536 (630552)
08-26-2011 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Chuck77
08-26-2011 6:36 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
Chuck77 writes:

That's your problem Straggler, you need to see everything before you can believe it, why?


Because else I'd be a bit gullible, no? ( I realize I'm not Straggler, but still ). If I don't have some threshold that evidence should satisfy, I guess I should believe that Nigerian prince that promised me a fortune, no?

You know, some people actually just wake up one day and look out the window and say "look at all the evidence of a God".

And some people send that money right to Nigeria.

Isn't nature itself subjective evidence to use in the case of God(s)?

Perhaps. But is it worth anything?

Well, not ALL are the work of satan of course, many are the work of men. I think you'll agree with that right?

I think all are the work of men. But regardless of that, other religions will claim you are the deceived one, based on the same subjective evidence.

I can't prove to you God exists in the way you are asking BUT we have subjective evidence, what good is it if you never use that evidence?

But it is exasctly the same subjective evidence that other religions claim is evidence for their god. How am I to decide which one is the right one (if there even is a right one).

You are dismissing all of it and wanting God(s) to come knoocking on your door. Why can't you take my word for it? I've experienced it and am telling you God is real.

But so is the Muslim down the street. Are you begining to see the problem here? How can I distinguish between your claims and the Muslim down the street's? You both use the same evidence. Which one of you is right?

What you should be doing is asking me how I came to this conclusion and will i show you what to do that YOU can know it too. Why won't you? Are you afraid you might actually have a higher power to report to and mess up your independancy?

You could tell me, but I'd be very surprised if it works. But sure, have at it. Just remember, the Muslim down the street is telling me the same story (or at least, one very similar to yours).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Chuck77, posted 08-26-2011 6:36 AM Chuck77 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 528 by Chuck77, posted 09-01-2011 12:19 AM Huntard has responded

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


Message 527 of 536 (630559)
08-26-2011 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 524 by Chuck77
08-26-2011 6:36 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
Chuck writes:

That's your problem Straggler, you need to see everything before you can believe it, why?

No I don't. I simply request that whatever method of knowing being applied is able to demonstrate that it leads to conclusions which we have reason to consider accurate and reliable. The methods of knowing you are applying amount to the same methods of knowing that have failed time and time and time again. The methods of knowing being applied to come to the conclusion laid out in the OP of this thread are demonstrably successful.

Chuck writes:

You know, some people actually just wake up one day and look out the window and say "look at all the evidence of a God".

And others do the same and conclude a different god to you. Others do the same and conclude the exact opposite. I could look out of the window and cite what I see as evidence for the existence of the matrix if I was so inclined. Or Last Thursdayism. Or any number of other baselessly conceived unfalsifiable alternatives.

Chuck writes:

Isn't nature itself subjective evidence to use in the case of God(s)?

That which can be cited as evidence of anything is evidence of nothing.

Chuck writes:

Well, not ALL are the work of satan of course, many are the work of men. I think you'll agree with that right?

We have lots of examples of those that are the work of men. There are no examples that we can reliably pin to Satan that I am aware of. Inductive reasoning (remember the thread topic?) suggests that all such concepts originate from the same source. Human imagination.

Chuck writes:

I can't prove to you God exists in the way you are asking...

I haven't asked you for proof. I don't think evidence can ever prove anything. The obsession with proving and disproving things is the obsession of the theist. I simply ask for evidence that is something more than your own deep conviction rebranded as "evidence".

Chuck writes:

BUT we have subjective evidence, what good is it if you never use that evidence?

What good is your subjective evidence if there is no way to distinguish the reliability and accuracy of the conclusions it leads to from blind random chance?

Chuck writes:

You are dismissing all of it and wanting God(s) to come knoocking on your door.

If God was genuinely knocking people's doors down we would have conclusive evidence of his existence.

Chuck writes:

Why can't you take my word for it? I've experienced it and am telling you God is real.

That you are convinced of this is not in doubt. That you be correct requires more than your conviction.

Chuck writes:

What you should be doing is asking me how I came to this conclusion and will i show you what to do that YOU can know it too. Why won't you? Are you afraid you might actually have a higher power to report to and mess up your independancy?

Not really. Depending which version of god we are talking about I would either be dismayed or overjoyed to hear that he actually exists. But I don't think what I do or don't want has any bearing on reality.

If you have a method of knowing god that is able to demonstrate itself as a reliable and accurate method of knowing things then I am all ears.

Chuck writes:

BTW, this isn't at all about me trying to convert you, that's NOT why im here but it's a few valid questions IMO.

You can ask and I will answer.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 524 by Chuck77, posted 08-26-2011 6:36 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Chuck77
Inactive Member


Message 528 of 536 (631428)
09-01-2011 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 526 by Huntard
08-26-2011 7:37 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
Chuck writes:

You are dismissing all of it and wanting God(s) to come knoocking on your door. Why can't you take my word for it? I've experienced it and am telling you God is real.

But so is the Muslim down the street. Are you begining to see the problem here? How can I distinguish between your claims and the Muslim down the street's? You both use the same evidence. Which one of you is right?

Again, as I stated in another thread for you, why not ask these people:

Islam, SVM News, 1 January, 2007: Millions of Muslim converts to Christianity celebrated Christmas throughout the world. According the reports of the various missionary organizations and news medias.

The Salem Voice Ministries evangelizing Muslims in India and many other Muslim nations. There are about 500 evangelists ministering among Muslims in different African, Middle East and Asian countries. A vast number of Muslims finding the truth and attaining Salvation of Jesus Christ day by day.

'More Muslims converted to faith in Jesus Christ over the past decade than at any other time in human history. A spiritual revolution is underway throughout North Africa, the Middle East, and Central Asia. As a result, a record number of ex-Muslims are celebrating Christmas this year, despite intense persecution, assassinations, and widespread church bombings'.

Again, as I stated in the other thread, your job, is to provide the opposite, as in, Christians converting to Islam.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 526 by Huntard, posted 08-26-2011 7:37 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 529 by Huntard, posted 09-01-2011 2:26 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded
 Message 530 by Straggler, posted 09-09-2011 10:24 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

Huntard
Member (Idle past 633 days)
Posts: 2870
From: Limburg, The Netherlands
Joined: 09-02-2008


Message 529 of 536 (631435)
09-01-2011 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by Chuck77
09-01-2011 12:19 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
Let's continue this in the other thread then. No need to repeat the same steps in two threads, wouldn't you say?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by Chuck77, posted 09-01-2011 12:19 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

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


Message 530 of 536 (632668)
09-09-2011 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 528 by Chuck77
09-01-2011 12:19 AM


Re: It's all about your imagination.
Chuck writes:

Again, as I stated in the other thread, your job, is to provide the opposite, as in, Christians converting to Islam.

And these were provided in that other thread. Message 443 and upthread from that.

The question here is why you consider this to be of any relevance at all?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 528 by Chuck77, posted 09-01-2011 12:19 AM Chuck77 has not yet responded

AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 531 of 536 (632942)
09-11-2011 11:49 AM


Final Summations
The 300 post limitation is being reinstated. This thread has surpassed that limitation and is now closed to debate. Participants will have 48 hours to submit one summary of their final position concerning the topic.

Do not respond to previous posts and do not respond to summations.

This thread will be closed for 24 hours to allow viewing of this message and preparation of summations.

Thank you
AdminPD

Edited by AdminPD, : No reason given.


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 532 of 536 (633068)
09-12-2011 9:49 AM


Ready For Final Summations
Remember, debate is closed.
Do not reply to previous posts or final summations.

Thanks
AdminPD


Modulous
Member (Idle past 442 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 533 of 536 (633108)
09-12-2011 1:44 PM


in a nutshell
From Message 7

If a patient sees a doctor and complains that the CIA has set up an invisible base on the moon and is using undetectable lasers to alter the minds of his closest friends to...

The subject of undetectable lasers and government conspiracies is 'non scientific' at heart - but the doctor would be being perfectly within the realms of science to diagnose the patient as suffering paranoid delusions despite the fact the doctor has not at any point ruled out that the delusions are actually real experiences.

I'm perfectly happy to scrap the term {supernatural}. Since this is about atheism we'll stick with gods and assume they are as natural as pies. The same reasoning applies then as government conspiracies (with the notable point that we happen to at least know government conspiracies in general exist).

If a dualist wishes to argue that there is some other realm in which deities live as an explanatory hypothesis for the lack of evidence then it is upon them to define the characteristics of this realm.


From Message 72

We can suggest that Dracula is a fictional character based on a real, claimed to exist, supernatural category of beings called 'vampires' or 'strigoi' or what have you. That Dracula is a known example of a supernatural creature that was 'made up'. We can look at other vampire stories and show how 'mass hysteria' and 'superstitious magical thinking' can be put forward as explanations for the many claimed subjective experiences of vampires so that we can hypothesise that all supposed 'real vampire' stories are actually inadvertant products of a flawed human brain even extending that notion to cases where historical records are too sketchy to be sure either way.



From Message 365

Why call them supernatural? Because the supernaturalists say they are not constrained by the same laws that constrain us when it comes to interacting with the natural world. They may have their own laws above and beyond ours 'super' natural laws and different entities may have differing levels of mastery or freedom of constraints. They say they are from a place 'above' or beyond the realm we are familliar with that we call 'nature'. That's what they say. The counter theory is that all such concepts are figments of the imagination, citing the fact that the only place we know for sure these concepts can arise is in the human imagination. Nobody has empirically demonstrated the place beyond exists, or that anyone has had a real experience with any of its denizens.

If we all started having experiences with the denizens from one sect of supernaturalist - this reasoning would collapse.


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


(1)
Message 534 of 536 (633129)
09-12-2011 5:37 PM


Summary
This thread has been railroaded by those who wish to deny that various concepts qualify as "supernatural". Those who sought to define the theory in question as "unfalsifiable" by playing semantic games which result in things like the Christian concept of Christ (the immaculately conceived, miracle capable son of an omnipotent, omniscient creator of the universe who is himself as well as his dad) failing to qualify as "supernatural" by some absurd and self-serving (but unstated) definition.

Apart from being an exercise in definitional denial the entire point being made by those engaging such tactics is completely moot.

If we had a selection of godly beings lined up before us these debates regarding whether or not they falsify the theory in question might serve some philosophical purpose. But where are these controversial characters? Where is this array of maybe/maybe-not supernatural entities? Answer - They don't exist. Or if they do they are not very forthcoming about their existence. Certainly nobody here is even claiming to be able to present any verifiable evidence of such beings

So human imagination remains the only known source of such concepts. Anyone who doesn't think that alone is enough for a conclusion needs to re-read the OP (Message 1) and ask themselves how many other inductively derived scientific conclusions they are willing to deny on the basis that various conceivable but evidentially baseless and unfalsifiable alternatives might be true.

And no Chuck - Human belief isn't a form of evidence.....


Panda
Member (Idle past 2051 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 535 of 536 (633135)
09-12-2011 5:57 PM


Asked and answered.
I will quote ZenMonkey's reply to slevesque in Message 12, as I think he successfully summed it up first:

ZenMonkey writes:

Hypothesis A predicts B.

If B is NOT observed, then A is NOT true. (Or at least A is much less likely to be true than you thought, depending on how necessary B is.)

If B is observed, then A is still at least possible, if not more likely than it was before.

No logical fallacy there. You are correct in saying that you can't PROVE hypothesis A is true. But that's not a problem for science, and no-one should ever say that you can prove something in science. All science does - and this is quite a lot, actually - is to demonstrate that hypothesis A is the best hypothesis at the moment.

The explanatory power and likelihood of hypothesis A being true increases every time it allows you to predict not only B, but C and D as well. This is another way of saying that hypothesis A has to keep passing the parsimony test - is it the hypothesis that explains the most evidence and is contradicted by the least evidence? Eventually you get to a point where A has held up so well under testing that to withhold consent to it being true is just intellectually perverse. At that point, you have a theory. But it remains a principle of science that any hypothesis or theory is always tentative, and something can always come around to force it to be reconsidered.

(Emphasis mine)

I agree with ZenMonkey: "That's how it works".


Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR

Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.


AdminPD
Inactive Administrator


Message 536 of 536 (633559)
09-14-2011 5:52 PM


Thread Closed
The debate has been lively
And the summations read.
If your discussion's unfinished,
Create a new thread.

Finis

Here’s to fruitful debating.
AdminPD
Magic Wand


Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019