|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is agnosticism more intellectually honest? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 393 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Thanks for expressing your belief.
Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Wollysaurus Member (Idle past 4491 days) Posts: 52 From: US Joined: |
Joseph, I think his point was that you do not appear to even realize what Galileo actually did. In the seventeenth century, it was not the flat earth that was an issue, but rather geocentrism.
Analogies are useless unless you have an understanding of the topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2697 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined:
|
Hi, Dr A.
Dr Adequate writes: So long as one hasn't seen any evidence for anything that one might consider a god, my argument holds. I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there. With werewolves and unicorns, it's pretty obvious what evidence would be left behind (perhaps more so for werewolves than for unicorns), so recognition of the evidence is not really a factor. And, it's a fair point about fairies: I'll retract that part of my argument.-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus) Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there. Well, it's still lack of evidence, isn't it? But I'm not sure what sort of thing you have in mind. If I am unaware that Las Vegas' leading werewolf is called Ronald Q. Shambling, then finding in my front yard a watch with a broken strap and the name Ronald Q. Shambling engraved on the back does not suggest to me that I have been visited by a werewolf. Through my ignorance of werewolves, I have failed to recognize the evidence that is there.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: I fully agree. In fact such proof itself would negate the premise of a greater than the universe 'universe maker'. One must consider what they ask proof of. Its like a virus on the ocean bed demanding proof on its desk. The logical answer is the sound premise when proof is neutralized in both motions; this has been flaunted as a negative cannot be proven, when it is not that at all. In fact, the sound premise says a complex object must have a producer till disproven. A pink zebra appearing in one's bedroom or a car found on Mars cannot be flaunted that way. Edited by IamJoseph, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Best way is to follow the step by step thread in the document which introduced the premise of a universe maker. The protocol of the relevant issues starts with Q1:
Q1. Is the universe you exist in finite?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Q1. Is the universe you exist in finite? A1: I don't know. Q2: What does this have to do with anything?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
quote: What does the evidence indicate? If the universe is expanding, does it not mean it was not infinite 10 seconds back?
quote: Apples and oranges apply. Why not cooperate with the thread of questions as a devil's advocate methodology, with the clear premise a curcular arguement is the most wrong path?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi Dr Adequate
P.S: The terms "weak atheist" and "strong atheist" already have meanings. Those aren't them. Really? You might want to let Dawkins know. Strong Atheism vs. Weak Atheism
quote: bold for emphasis -- that seems to me to match what I said.
Does the same apply to werewolves? If not, why not? I presume you are talking about categories and the logic of the positions relative to evidence. Why wouldn't these categories and logic apply to every line of inquiry into our world\universe? You could make the scale more universal by saying:
Where "believer" is used in the sense of someone with confidence in the truth of a conceptBeliever Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com quote: Or we could use "adherent" or "supporter" if "believer" has too much religious overtone. Thesaurus.com
quote: Or perhaps you could suggest a better term to use here. For instance we could say that "evolutionists" are strong adherents\supporters of the theory of evolution, and that science in general is absolute non-adherents\supporters of falsified theories. Where would you put werewolves on this concept scale?
Or should we add a category, where there is evidence that falsifies or invalidates the concept?
Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
bold for emphasis -- that seems to me to match what I said. And it seems to me not to match what you said.
I presume you are talking about categories and the logic of the positions relative to evidence. Why wouldn't these categories and logic apply to every line of inquiry into our world\universe? But in that case you would find it "logically invalid" to be a 6 on your scale (i.e. to believe that "the non-existence of werewolves is more likely than not"). Now if you can't bring yourself to put the chance of werewolves existing as lower than 50%, then do you in fact carry silver to ward off werewolves?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
What does the evidence indicate? The evidence is inconclusive. That's why I don't know.
If the universe is expanding, does it not mean it was not infinite 10 seconds back? No, that's not what it means.
Apples and oranges apply. Why not cooperate with the thread of questions as a devil's advocate methodology, with the clear premise a curcular arguement is the most wrong path? Why not cooperate with me by answering my question? Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1404 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Hi again Dr. Adequate,
I disagree: if you don't know what god is, you don't really know what evidence it would leave behind. So, lack of evidence results not just from the non-existence of the evidence, but also from failures to recognize evidence that might be there. Well, it's still lack of evidence, isn't it? But I'm not sure what sort of thing you have in mind. First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of a lack of evidence. Second, consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in the rain, but without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening could strike his kite repeatedly, and yet he would not be able to record the presence (or absence) of electricity, instead he would have an absence of evidence (pro or con). It would be rather simplistic to conclude from such a test that electricity was not present in lightening. Enjoy.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)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
Then play devil's advocate. What is the universe is deemed absolutely finite.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
IamJoseph Member (Idle past 3667 days) Posts: 2822 Joined: |
There is evidence.
If the BB is deemed some 14B years away, it means there was no universe 100B years ago. Yes/no?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
First, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, just of a lack of evidence. So I have heard it said; by people who behave as though they are certain of the non-existence of werewolves.
Second, consider Ben Franklin flying his kite in the rain, but without a means to test for the presence of electricity: lightening could strike his kite repeatedly, and yet he would not be able to record the presence (or absence) of electricity, instead he would have an absence of evidence (pro or con). It would be rather simplistic to conclude from such a test that electricity was not present in lightening. That's a different kind of question. For example, since I know that you have a height, but have no information about it, I am agnostic about what that height is; I do not assert that you are not 5'9'' on the basis of the absence of evidence. On the other hand, I am not similarly agnostic on the question of whether you have a pet unicorn. I believe that you do not. This is because the evidence that I am missing is evidence against a well-established rule. Now in the case of Franklin's kite, he knew that electricity existed, he knew that everything contains some quantity (possibly zero) of electricity, and so could be agnostic about what that quantity is in the case of lightning.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024