quote:What I can say is that there is not enough positive evidence for me to believe "X" and there is not enough negative evidence for me to not believe "X" and therefore I don't know.
That presumes a complete absence of evidence, but that never exists beyond the moment of introduction of a completely new topic. And the reason for that absence of evidence isn't because the evidence doesn't exist but rather because of one's ignorance about what you're looking for in the first place.
This goes back to another one of those questions of mine I sincerely ask people but never, ever seem to get a response to:
Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
Now, I usually bring it up in the context of those who claim that Adam and Eve chose to sin even though they were explicitly described as being innocent, not knowing of good and evil, and thus could not possibly have chosen to sin. But leaving that moral issue aside, it works here:
We have two terms. One is a term of positiveness and the other is a term of negativeness. Which is which? Which do you choose? Beetaratagang or clerendipity?
Indeed, you don't have any evidence. I've just brought it up. Until I mentioned what these terms reference, you didn't even know that. But notice that the more I talk about them, what they represent, etc., the more evidence regarding which is which is brought to light. Now, I still haven't given you enough evidence to indicate which is which, but I hope my point is coming through:
The mere act of defining brings forth evidence. The more you define an object, the more evidence is presented.
And this is at the root of your failed claim: We know the definitions of the concepts being described. Therefore, there is evidence regarding their existence. Instead, you insist that there isn't any and ignore the direct presentation of the evidence you claim does not exist.
The model works. Why do you demand chocolate sprinkles? Do you have evidence that they are required?
Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
However, once the person becomes more specific in his claim, the set of possible alternatives becomes near infinite. Zeus, Jupiter, Odin, IPU or 9-dimensional Magic Pencils (bluegenes gets credit for the last one) are only a few of these possibilites. Because we know nothing (at least not empirically) of the alleged supernatural realm, we have no basis on which to favour any one of these concepts over another.
Would you not agree that these are interpretations (theories about what god/s is/are like) that have been discarded or revised, rather than actual deities? I find it rather humorous, that one of the precepts of science is that when a theory is invalidated that it is discarded for a better theory or revised to explain the new evidence, but that atheists get incredulous about the number of god theories that have been discarded. For them to have been actual deities, then that assumes evidence for their existence in the past.
If a person holds a belief in a deity (or several) on the basis of personal history, and said belief does not in any way contradict empirical findings, then that person's belief is justified by the only evidence available to him. By the same token, I am unable to default to a 7, a 6, or even a 4 on the Dawkins scale. This isn't because I'm not being skeptical. It is because the only evidence I have is subjective, and therefore I can not ignore it.
I'ld like to propose an alternative to this scale: perhaps dividing by levels of confidence rather than classification of positive and negative beliefs, and and making it more universal, to see if this makes the picture clearer.
You start at Level I, and you work your way up to Level II by accumulating subjective or unconfirmed evidence of possibilities for a claim, but you can't get to Level III without acquiring objective empirical evidence for the claim.
Science works at level III
If a person holds a belief in a deity (or several) on the basis of personal history, and said belief does not in any way contradict empirical findings, then that person's belief is justified by the only evidence available to him. By the same token, I am unable to default to a 7, a 6, or even a 4 on the Dawkins scale. This isn't because I'm not being skeptical. It is because the only evidence I have is subjective, and therefore I can not ignore it.
You are on Level II due to the subjective evidence. Onifre starts at Level I, a blank slate until given a concept, but quickly jumps to Level II for specific concepts due to his worldview (opinion) about them. He is (and others are) either at Level I or Level II due to the lack of empirical objective evidence.
I think that's where most people who claim to have faith are, when it comes down to it. However, when a holder of such a belief tries to convince others by presenting it as an objectively evidenced hypothesis, or when one attempts to ignore that which is objectively known to be true in favour of said belief, that's when an open-minded believer leaves all vestiges of skepticism behind to become a close-minded zealot.
Agreed: to claim the certainty of Level III without having the objective empirical evidence to support it is to make a non-rational leap of faith, rather than a conscious and deliberate conclusion.
You are trapped by your claim that agnostic and atheistic were equivalent and now you are digging deeper.
"6" through "2" are all agnostic.
That means that I can take your comment here:
Your perception of contradiction seems to be based on your use of the word "agnostic". Being agnostic on omphalism merely means that you state that you cannot know that it's not true. I do not assert that you cannot be agnostic on omphalism while taking a strong position on the age of the earth. I assert that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism while being a "2" on the earth being ~4.5 billion years old. If we are "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth (which I am), we have to be a "6" (or non-agnostic "7") on Omphalism.
And if I replace "agnostic" with "atheist" and "atheist" with "agnostic" and all numbers with 4, and that the meaning is the same for you:
Your perception of contradiction seems to be based on your use of the word "atheist". Being atheistic on omphalism merely means that you state that you cannot know that it's not true. I do not assert that you cannot be athistic on omphalism while taking a strong position on the age of the earth. I assert that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism while being a "4" on the earth being ~4.5 billion years old. If we are "4" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth (which I am), we have to be a "4" (or non-atheistic "4") on Omphalism.
As you can see, when you start playing with the meanings of words to blurr the distinctions, you end up making meaningless silly statements.
An atheist is just someone who is at position II on your scale with regard to the existence of God (ie., low confidence). A person of faith is someone who holds level III position's levels of confidence, but without level III's evidential requirements.
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Since a 6 is using the available objective evidence, it must follow that anyone on this number should also see no need to even ask the question. I mean, if the evidence shows you there is no god, then it must also be showing you that there is no question in nature that god would be an answer for.
However......
I think anyone 0-5 gives relevance to the question. They see evidence in nature that god may be a possible answer for (no matter what that evidence is).
So, IF you agree with the above ... Were do you stand on the list now? Do you think there is a question about our reality that god might end up being the answer?
1.00: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.00: Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there(says Phat )
3.00: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.00: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7:00: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung 'knows' there is one.'
Edited by Phat, : fixed a boo boo
"All that we call human history--money, poverty, ambition, war, prostitution, classes, empires, slavery--[is] the long terrible story of man trying to find something other than God which will make him happy."--C.S.Lewis * * * * * * * * * * Half of the harm that is done in this world is due to people who want to feel important.~T.S.Eliot
You are trapped by your claim that agnostic and atheistic were equivalent and now you are digging deeper.
No, you are claiming that I'm claiming that agnostic and atheist are equivalent, and now you are digging deeper. Here's an extract from the post in which you first make the claim (my yellows):
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
RAZD writes:
Hi bluegenes, I love the all or nothing false dichotomies.
First we had (ad nauseum) many posts claiming that 6 atheist = agnostic:
: ... because categories 2 to 6 are agnostic by definition ...
: ... so that someone who is a 6 out of 7 on the question of the existence of 7 inch high piebald gnomes who shit gold is agnostic ...
"6" is agnostic.
ie atheist == agnostic.
First, you assert that I have made many posts claiming that the "6" position = agnostic.
Then you quote me saying nothing of the sort. Look at the quotes.
Examine: ""6" is agnostic": Agnostic here is an adjective that describes the "6" position. Now look:
"Charlie is white"
"Charlie is tall"
That doesn't mean that "white is charlie", or that "tall is Charlie", or that "tall is white". Neither does it mean that Charlie is the equivalent of white, or (the same) that Charlie = white.
So, you can see that you've invented the idea that bluegenes is claiming that:
RAZD writes:
atheist = agnostic
For emphasis: ..." because categories 2 to 6 are agnostic by definition" ...
Clearly not a claim that "atheist=agnostic". Atheism and agnosticism are not mutually exclusive categories. Some atheists are agnostic, and some agnostics are atheistic. One is about not believing in gods, and the other about not being able to know things.
Now, in this post, you quote me again:
bluegenes writes:
"6" through "2" are all agnostic.
And come up with this:
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
RAZD writes:
That means that I can take your comment here:
Your perception of contradiction seems to be based on your use of the word "agnostic". Being agnostic on omphalism merely means that you state that you cannot know that it's not true. I do not assert that you cannot be agnostic on omphalism while taking a strong position on the age of the earth. I assert that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism while being a "2" on the earth being ~4.5 billion years old. If we are "2" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth (which I am), we have to be a "6" (or non-agnostic "7") on Omphalism.
And if I replace "agnostic" with "atheist" and "atheist" with "agnostic" and all numbers with 4, and that the meaning is the same for you:
Your perception of contradiction seems to be based on your use of the word "atheist". Being atheistic on omphalism merely means that you state that you cannot know that it's not true. I do not assert that you cannot be athistic on omphalism while taking a strong position on the age of the earth. I assert that you cannot be a "4" on omphalism while being a "4" on the earth being ~4.5 billion years old. If we are "4" on the ~4.5 billion year old earth (which I am), we have to be a "4" (or non-atheistic "4") on Omphalism.
All of which is based on your own mistake; your mistranslation of my claim that the "6' position is agnostic into "atheist=agnostic".
RAZD writes:
As you can see, when you start playing with the meanings of words to blurr the distinctions, you end up making meaningless silly statements.
I think anyone 0-5 gives relevance to the question. They see evidence in nature that god may be a possible answer for (no matter what that evidence is).
I agree. But in doing so they special plead god as an answer to any given gap over all of the other near infinite array of equally objectively uevidenced possible answers. The creation of the universe? A trans dimensional universe making machine, the farts of celestial cows, the 12 and a half pixies that magiced the universe into existence, an ethereal "field" of creativity and information etc. etc. etc. are no more or less evidenced as possible causes than is god.
So, IF you agree with the above ... Where do you stand on the list now? Do you think there is a question about our reality that god might end up being the answer?
The evidence suggests that naturalistic answers are far more likely to any given gap. And even if there is an unknowable supernatural truth out there I see no reason to think gods are more likley to be the filler than pixies, celestial cows or any other possibility.
Even if the evidence in favour of naturalistic answers is misleading the chances of anyone here having guessed correctly as to the nature of the unknowable explanation is miniscule.
I agree. But in doing so they special plead god as an answer to any given gap over all of the other near infinite array of equally objectively uevidenced possible answers. The creation of the universe? A trans dimensional universe making machine, the farts of celestial cows, the 12 and a half pixies that magiced the universe into existence, an ethereal "field" of creativity and information etc. etc. etc. are no more or less evidenced as possible causes than is god.
Just because we're void of any objective evidence doesn't mean we can't use logic and reason to narrow down the possibilities. For example, you making up some random explanation is more unlikely than one that has prevailed through the ages.
The evidence suggests that naturalistic answers are far more likely to any given gap. And even if there is an unknowable supernatural truth out there I see no reason to think gods are more likley to be the filler than pixies, celestial cows or any other possibility.
I think the popularity of a concept does affect how we should feel about the likelyhood. At least, we'd expect the most likely to be the most popular. I doubt that so many people could be so wrong, so that is a reason to think gods as being more likely.
RAZD's scale of confidence once again demonstrates your complete inability to comprehend the difference between those possibilities that are derived from facts and those with no objective evidential basis at all. The difference between evidenced possibilities and entirely unevidenced possibilities.
This is why you still seem to think that the possibility of life on other planets, the possibility of as yet undiscovered species here on Earth and the possibibility that the entire concept of god(s) is a human invention are all evidentially equivalent as concepts to the possible existence of gods.
As for the pelvic bone of the Tiktaalik example you cited....... Well that is just laughable.
But at this point I don't think you are ever going to "get it".
The prevelence of the belief in god is an objectively evidenced reason to think that gods might exist.
Why?
Because all those people might be on to something actual.
Why is prevalence of belief in gods not objective evidence in favour of a human psychological need to invoke the unknowable to explain the unknown? Or evidence in favour of telepthic dogs inducing religious belief in humans? Or fluctuations in the matrix used to control rebellious minds? Or indeed any other conceivable explanation.
It can be, I'm not saying it isn't.
Why is the actual existence of gods given preferential treatment (i.e. special pleaded) as an answer to the question "Why do people believe in gods"?
It isn't in this case.
All that's needed is a reason to think gods might exist and you have it.
quote:But your argument is about comparing the amount of evidence for two mutually exculsive position where you've labeled one position as have absolutely no evidence when in fact it does.
quote:There is no objectively evidenced reason to think gods even might exist.
(snip)
the possibility of gods being human inventions is infinitely more objectively evidenced as a possibility than the totally objectively unevidenced possibility that gods actually exist.
The propensity of the belief in god is objective evidence that suggests a possibility that gods actually exist, so the possibility of them being human invention is not infinitely more objectively evidenced.
™ Version 4.2
