Summations Only

Ok, so you have all the evidence and are presented with two explanations for said evidence, boith of which explain the evidence equally well. How do you choose between the two?If you believe that god could have planted the evidence, then you'll never have fewer than two plausible explanations for any amount of evidence, and with two explanations that explain the evidence equally well, there can be no more than a 50% confidence in either...unless of course your beliefs and biases enter into the picture.

Yeah, it could work, but would it be necessary? Is that the only way to think that something supernatural had happened, given that you believe it is possible for supernatural things to happen? You keep coming up with examples to illustrate possibility without refrencing belief. I'm very focused on the belief part. Because if you believe it is possible for something to have happened, and that there is no evidence that shows it didn't happen, and that there is no possibility for evidence to show that it did happen, how could you rule out it happening? If I didn't believe something, but merely allowed the possibility, I'd act as if it weren't true until I had evidence for it.If I did believe something, and didn't have any evidence for or against it, I'd act as if it were true until proven otherwise. If not, then I don't see how I could accurately claim belief.

Yes, but if you truly believe it is a possibility, should you not consider it? And if you can't rule it out, should you just ignore it? Doesn't that imply you don't really believe it's a possibility? I guess it comes down to how much certainty you have in a proposition, or how you gain certainty in a proposition. If you have something you're trying to explain, whether it's a crime scene or an interesting chemical or physics experiment, you first come up weith possible explanations. As you rule out explanations, your certainty in the remaining ones increases. But what do you do if you end up with two explanations, both of which explain all the evidence you have?Well, you can keep looking for evidence and try to rule one out, but if Jar's beliefs are right, and evidence for (or against) a supernatural explanation is impossible to find, you can never rule it out, so you'll be left with, at the very least, two possible explanations, each of which explain the evidence equally well. In that case, you can not have more than 50% certainty in either one, so what makes you say, "Option A, the non-supernatural one is correct."The only reason to choose one over the other is purely emotional bias. And if your bias is toward the natural over the supernatural, then how can you really claim to believe in the possibility of a supernatural explanation? At best, you allow the possibility of the supernatural, but don't really believe it.

Again, Jar believes that there is no possibility of achieving sufficient reason for any actuality. This implies that you will ignore the possibility of a supernatural cause a priori. In what way can you say you believe in a potential cause if your only position is to ignore it as a possibility? I'm still not understanding how this can be considered belief. If I believe that Tom may have murdered Harry, and I have no proof of that, it's probably best to behave as if he didn't, until such time as evidence is brought forth. But what if I also believe that Tom has the ability to make any evidence of his crime disappear? Is it still rational to believe that Tom may have murdered Harry, and that it is not possible to find any evidence of it, and still treat Tom as if he didn't murder Harry?I might be able to delude myself into thinking, well, he may have done it, but probably not, but that's still a delusion. There is absolutely no reason for me to remove Tom from the suspect pool other than the fact that I don't want Tom to be guilty, but that's not a rational reason. Not really. Both theories explain all the evidence equally well. You can't say you have evidence for one and not the other, that would constitute additional evidence.Take the supernatural out of it. Say you see tire tracks on your front lawn. You have two suspects, your neighbor to your left and your neighbor to your right. Both of them drive the same type of vehicle with the same type of tires. Both were out drinking the night before, and are unable to remember if they drove over your lawn last night.So, two explanations, both explain all the evidence. Which do you choose? But how can you believe in a possibility, if in each actuality you dismiss it as a possibility?

I'm not sure which part of my reply you're responding to, but here goes. But the prosecution and defense are going to try and make you decide between two explanations based on the evidence presented.If the evidence presented is explained equally by both arguments, then you have to use your personal beliefs to make the judgment.If the defense made the argument that all of the evidence was planted by a supernatural deity who not only left no evidence of his actions, but that it is actually impossible for the deity to have left any evidence of his actions, would you just ignore that possibility?If so, doesn't that imply that you don't really believe that explanation to be possible?

So, if you a priori ignore a possibility, how can you say you believe it is a possibility?Maybe we're just hung up on the word "believe."In the case of a jury, I'd allow the possibility of some supernatural explanation, but I wouldn't believe the possibility.I ignore all supernatural explanations because I don't believe in the supernatural. If I believed in the supernatural, my reasoning would collapse.

And that's fine in the case where evidence could potentially be presented. The absence of evidence, in this case, is at least reason to suspect absence.In the case where evidence could not be produced, where the situation would look exactly the same in either case, I see a problem.This is where any conclusion would have to be suspect.Your position just isn't rational, as far as I can see.

All I'm saying is that it is rational to ask for evidence that the FBI and CIA did anything before you believe it because evidence is, in principle, possible.If supernatural events can not leave evidence, then asking for evidence in order to believe they have happened is irrational.

Yeah. Sometimes language sucks.But both of these ideas would still support my side...I think.If you suppose or assume that god has tampered with the evidence, what's your next step? Wouldn't it be trying to refute it?

Ok. I guess this is sort of the end.Science is rational, your worldview is irrational, and that's why some of us see a conflict.