Because it is not possible to scour all domains where god/s can exist it is not possible to eliminate the possibility.
Who here is denying or eliminating any possibility? Your ongoing strawman of certitude rumbles on relentlessly.
There are an infinite number of conceivable undetectable, and thus logically possible, "domains" in the same way that there are an infinite number of conceivable unevidenced and irrefutable (and thus logically possible) concepts.
Hades. Valhalla. Olympus. Hell. Islamic notions of paradise. The domain of the Hindu gods. The domain in which the Immaterial toilet goblins exist. The domain in which the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion dwell. The Immaterial Pink Unicorn domain, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel domain, The Christian heaven, Mookoo's domain, Wagwah's domain, the domain in which the immaterial green turtle wades through the invisible aether with the universe on its back held in place by the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum, Santa Claus's magic domain, The Easter Bunny's intangible chocolate domain, your deity's domain, the tooth fairy's domain, the garage dragon's domain.............etc. etc. etc.etc. ad-infinitum.
The possibilities are limited only by human imagination
If you think that citing unevidenced "domains" adds anything to your argument regarding the likelihood of unevidenced entities then you are sorely misguided in your thinking.
All the objective evidence suggests that, whilst we cannot eliminate the possibilities, any given such domain is almost certainly the product of human imagination. Simply transferring the problems in your argument from the entities themselves to the "domains" in which they reside doesn't make a jot of difference.
quote:Supportive falsifyable aspects of the Biblical god, Jehovah include history
Which doesn't really support the Biblical description. But let's say that it does. How do we then distinguish between the Bible and the Iliad, which also describes history but has a mutually exclusive theological conclusion?
quote:archeological discoveries
Which is indicative of a human presence, not a divine one. But again, let's assume you're right. How do we then distinguish between the Bible and the Iliad, which also has archaeological discoveries but has a mutually exclusive theological conclusion?
quote:and fulfilled prophecy
There is none. But once again, let's assume you're right. How do we then distinguish between the Bible and the Koran, which also claims "fulfilled prophecy" but has a mutually exclusive theological conclusion?
All of your arguments are actually indicative that people are making it up. All the religions out there have the same claims. Their theological conclusions are mutually exclusive. So while you claim that there is falsifiability, there actually isn't because we cannot distinguish between mutually exclusive outcomes.
quote:Until the existing evidence is falsified
You have that backwards. Until the claims are justified with evidence, you mean. So far, you haven't put forward anything that justifies your claim.
We don't need evidence of the existence of people who claimed to believe in your god. And it isn't sufficient to show that people have believed in your god for many generations. We have no end of this type of evidence for mutually exclusive deities.
What we need is something that can help us distinguish between them and that requires god to get in the box to be poked and prodded.
quote:The more corroborating evidence supportive to the record that can be collected, the more credible the record relative to the Biblical god Jehovah becomes.
And as soon as you find some that hasn't already been found by the competing deities that are mutually exclusive to yours, then you might have something.
The Iliad, the Koran, the Bhagavad Gita, etc. are all in the same position as the Bible. Accepting the latter while rejecting the former indicates you are using some other criterion to make your decision than "history," "archaeology," and "prophecy."
What are you actually using to make your decision?
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.
Yes, the value of subjective evidence has to do with the value of experiences of reality as perceived by a conscious and aware individual.
Why? Why aren't unconscious subjective experiences equally, or even more, valid? Many cultures consider dreams to be superior indicators of reality. Why don't you?
This has baffled me for ages about your silly little "subjective evidence" theory. On what basis do you distinguish the evidential validity of any one entirely subjective experience over any other? Why are not all subjective experiences considered equally indicative of reality?
Demonstrable reliability? Don't make me laugh!
All the problems with subjective evidence as applied to immaterial entities remain as detailed here - Immaterial "Evidence"
Hades. Valhalla. Olympus. Hell. Islamic notions of paradise. The domain of the Hindu gods. The domain in which the Immaterial toilet goblins exist. The domain in which the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion dwell. The Immaterial Pink Unicorn domain, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel domain, The Christian heaven, Mookoo's domain, Wagwah's domain, the domain in which the immaterial green turtle wades through the invisible aether with the universe on its back held in place by the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum, Santa Claus's magic domain, The Easter Bunny's intangible chocolate domain, your deity's domain, the tooth fairy's domain, the garage dragon's domain.............etc. etc. etc.etc. ad-infinitum.
What if these are all "branes"?
What if there really is a multiverse, containing all imaginable worlds. These "domains", being imaginary, are by definition imaginable aren't they? So what if they really exist?
The fact that some claim we are imagining and creating them while others claim they imagine and create us is relevant here. It has the sort of symmetry we have learned to expect from a TOE. The question of how such alternative realities could affect us is also very revealing. All the information we have indicates such cross-universe effects would be very subtle and difficult to detect. This corresponds to our experience when we try find evidence for higher realities and divine manifestations and such.
Let's consider the possibility that thoughts, like gravity, are composed of joined loops that wander freely from brane to brane. This would explain why we so often forget or lose track of our intentions, direction or hmm, you know, could someone remind me where I was going with this?
Oh! I remember now! What if believing stuff in this world really could make it true in the next one? Then by carefully choosing what to believe about them, we could shape them into the sort of beings who would believe the sort of stuff about us that we would like to trickle back over and eventually become true in our own world.
No wait, that wasn't it at all. Oh well, it will come back to me.
1. If you allege that there are no fulfilled Biblical prophecies after all that I have cited relative to Ezekiel, Daniel and Revelation, there's no use in trying to convince you otherwise. Obviously your mind is closed on that count.
2. Nothing in the Koran comes close to the extent of fulfilled Biblical prophecy. None of the ones that I'm aware of warrant the classification of supernaturally fulfilled prophecy. For example in 81 there's a verse stating that "various people will come together," which some allege to be fulfilled prophecy of modern communications. I would be ashamed to cite something that vague as a bonafide fulfilled prophecy.
3. What archeology in the Iliad lends evidence to something supernatural such as the Exodus account as per the discovery of corroborating sites and debris in the Gulf of Aqaba and the region on both sides of the gulf near Nuweiba Beach which match up so nicely with the Biblical record? None of the photographed evidence has been falsified though it has been challenged vehemently by skeptics on this board.
Citing such evidence does not prove God exists, but it raises the possibility well above the status of fantacy
BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW. The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.
None of the photographed evidence has been falsified though it has been challenged vehemently by skeptics on this board.
None of the photographed "evidence" has been verified.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds soon I discovered that this rock thing was true Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world And so there was only one thing I could do Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On *not an actual doctor
discovery of corroborating sites and debris in the Gulf of Aqaba and the region on both sides of the gulf near Nuweiba Beach which match up so nicely with the Biblical record
Hi Buz, sorry to bug you but I just went through the last 4 pages or so of threads you have been in and I'm still not finding one that seems to be about this archaeology? And the wiki isn't telling me anything that seems to be real useful in this context either. I would use the site search engine but it isn't working for me right now.
So could you link me to something informative about this stuff? I'm interested because you seem to be saying that there's something about these sites that is consistent with miracles or supernatural intervention or something, not just people living there or "sojourning" there or whatever, drowning there, for example.
In short, how does this evidence differ from evidence that a place like Troy really did exist and actually fell at the time appointed by the gods of Olympus & Hades?
How do we determine what the parameters are, or domains for which god(s) can exist? Is that not a human ascribed attribute for the god(s) in question?
To say that god(s) exist beyond our earthly domain is to over step our knowledge of reality, is it not?
Because it is not possible for us to scour all domains - only the ones we can visit (even with probes) - it is not possible for us to eliminate all domains.
Then there is the question of what lies outside the universe: if god/s created the universe, then logically they must have started from outside and could likely remain there.
Does this mean that mountains don't exist? No. It does however suggest that our attempts to find the mountains have failed, because the subjective nature of the experience can't be trusted to give an accurate map to find mountains.
If all we have are maps, which are incorrect, then we really have nothing at all. ... Lets say they are visions of mountains - what good does that do if nothing external to the experience can be corroborated?
This tells us that there may be mountains, but that our attempts to map out where they are have failed.
Cool, I can agree with that to some extent.
Yes, it ties in to your "ambiguous force" concept.
Then why is it on the back of my hand showing tails?
This is the answer of the pseudoskeptic that presumes to know the answers to the questions.
quote:still with the model eh?
Until you provide evidence that it needs your chocolate sprinkles, it still works without them.
Likewise you assume you know the answers to questions outside the box.
All I need is to be open minded to the possibility that god/s may exist to maintain my position, while you need to show that they do not, or cannot, exist to justify your position that you already know the answer.
This claim was made for the sole purpose of avoiding the issue of strong atheists (6's) having to support their position with empirical objective evidence.
So you keep saying. Is it a Faith based position?
RAZD writes:
In practice you don't behave as though this claim is true.
Message 111: If you don't eliminate supernatural propositions with a "6" on the Dawkins scale, ...
This is not how agnosticism is used, ergo your use of "6" here has a different meaning than it does in Message 496 and you are guilty of equivocation.
Message 125: If you think that you do not have the evidence to dismiss omphalism with a "6", ...
This is also not how agnosticism is used, ergo your use of "6" here has a different meaning than it does in Message 496 and you are guilty of equivocation.
You have used "6" to mean two different things, one that it means agnostic, in order to evade the burden of evidence for a strong negative position, and the other to argue that an actual agnostic position is not tenable. You can't have it both ways.
You don't see a contradiction between these two uses?
Charlie, as you've finally realized, can be many things. He can reach the top shelf because he is tall, and he burns in the sun because he is white.
Charlie cannot know whether or not there is a ghost in his house, but he believes it to be very unlikely as there's no evidence for one. Charlie has no contradictions.
RAZD writes:
For the record, the "6" involved does not mention agnosticism, but a small amount of uncertainty, as you should have noted when you recapped the scale on Message 229:
quote: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.'
Note that the word agnostic is not included. Notable is that it says de facto atheist.
For about the tenth time, what is it about the phrase "I cannot know" that you don't understand?
RAZD writes:
Then there are:
quote: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 sceptical.'
Note that each one of those does use the term agnostic, so we can conclude that the omission of agnostic in the description of 6 was intentional.
Your characterization of "6" as agnostic is at odds with the original meaning as well as with your usage of "6" in other arguments.
Dawkins on the original meaning writes:
"I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
From p. 74 of The God Delusion, first paragraph following the "scale", and describing it while describing himself as still retaining some agnosticism in a 6+ position.
quote:
Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. As such, the term agnostic does not necessarily signal a particular view about religion or God, as some agnostics also identify as theists or atheists.
My bolds. Check the Dawkins scale for the positions that include the phrase "I cannot know". Do you remember me asking you if you understand the differences between the verbs "to know" and "to believe"?
RAZD writes:
Equivocation was used in a feeble attempt to weasel out of the burden that someone who makes a strong claim bears. If you make a claim of being a "6" (De facto atheist) on Dawkins scale in regards to the existence of god/s then there is a burden to bear that the "5" (Technically agnostic) on that scale does not bear.
The burdens are certainly different, as they are for all positions, but all positions have an equal quantity of burden. 50/50, for example, requires some substantial positive evidence for god. Your view of equivocation relies on equivocating on the meaning of the word "equivalent", and an apparent Faith that the phrase "I cannot know, but I think "x" very improbable", is contradictory. Weird.
The term pseudoskepticism was popularized and characterized by Marcello Truzzi in response to skeptics who, in his opinion, made negative claims without bearing the burden of proof of those claims.[9]
While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics in the journal Zetetic Scholar which he founded:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
— Marcello Truzzi, On Pseudo-Skepticism, Zetetic Scholar, 12/13, pp3-4, 1987
"The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
Now read the sentence that follows that one carefully. It concerns our old friend "absence of evidence".
Another thing. It's important that you don't equate the claims "very improbable" (6) and "very probable" (2) with "disproved" and "proved". That would indicate another serious English comprehension problem.
RAZD writes:
According to Dawkins' descriptions this applies to the "3" "4" and "5" positions (labeled agnostic) and NOT to the "6" position (labeled atheist).
How do you know that Truzzi is not using the word "agnostic" in the same way as myself, Dawkins in the quote I gave you, and Wikipedia? His use of the strong terms "proved" and "disproved" seem to indicate that, and certainly don't fit the 6 and 2 positions. I'll come back to Truzzi later.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Do you understand what omphalism is? Being a "4" on omphalism means that you take the position that you are uncommitted either way, or, as you like to put it, no evidence pro or con. What omphalism claims is that the age of the earth cannot be determined by scientific observations, because the Omphalists' god has created it ~6,500 years ago with built in maturity, so that all appearances are an illusion. If you are uncommited on omphalism, you cannot make a commitment on the age of the earth other than describing ages other than ~6,500 years with 4's, 5's or 6's (as likely as omphalism or less). You would be abdicating your neutrality on omphalism if you did otherwise.
Omphalism is not proved, and it is not disproved. It is a possibility.
quote:The Omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book, Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the earth and universe can be taken as reliable.
Though Gosse's original Omphalos hypothesis specifies a popular creation story, others have proposed that the idea does not preclude creation as recently as five minutes ago, including memories of times before this created in situ.[4] This idea is sometimes called "Last Thursdayism" by its opponents, as in "the world might as well have been created last Thursday." The concept is both unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any conceivable scientific methodin other words, it is impossible even in principle to subject it to any form of test by reference to any empirical data because the empirical data themselves are considered to have been arbitrarily created to look the way they do at every observable level of detail.
Thus you cannot establish when this proposed event could have occurred, it could be yesterday, and it could be 12.7 billion years ago.
With all the possible omphalisms, it can be infinitely older than that, as Gosse applies it to the whole of creation (the universe). It implies that we can never know the age of the world by science, and is science stopping supernaturalism of the worst sort. But the reason I've sometimes been using the phrase "biblical omphalism" and the figure ~6,500 years is because that was Gosse's original proposition as he was a YEC. So, we can describe this deceptive 6,500yr creator as the Gosse God, and bring it in to the Dawkins scale to see what happens.
As the last paragraph in your Wiki quote states, it appears to be unverifiable and unfalsifiable by empirical evidence, and it's exactly the kind of proposition that you've been arguing should be a "4"; equidistant from the 1 and 7 positions of knowing, and in itself, neutral.
However, I see you've opted for a "3" on the claim that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old, meaning you seem to have decided that there's slightly more general evidence elsewhere for the existence of the natural than the supernatural (slightly?!!), so you can thus be a "5" on omphalism without contradiction as I suggested in a previous post.
3: Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe [that the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old.]'
5: Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. 'I don't know whether [Omphalism happened] but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
Well well. Good marks for agnosticism on Gosse's God, certainly. You won't find many geologists and physicists who are less than about 99% sure that the earth cannot be less than 400,000 years old. They, like me, would easily have dismissed Gosse's omphalism on the basis that there's absolutely no positive evidence to support the idea, and we would have taken Truzzi's advice to "assert that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact.""
Which brings me back to Truzzi. From that brief extract you've been quoting, I remember saying something on the other thread about him not saying exactly what you think, and pointing out that he's talking about observable phenomena. I doubt if I'll get a "thankyou, bluegenes" for this, but I suggest you read the entire article carefully, and think about it. Not that his opinions are particularly important, but you brought the article up and, as with the Dawkins scale, it doesn't help your general argument at all. He's not saying what you seem to think he is.
Omphalism has not been demonstrated to affect the conclusion, because it needs to be established as occurring within the time frame in question in order to do that, and this has not been done.
If Gosse can invent his omphalist idea, he can invent the date (as he did). Theoretically, you cannot prove or disprove either. But even without a specific age, Omphalism gives you from yesterday to infinity.
This is no different than the basic assumption of all science: that the evidence tells us the truth about reality. Without that assumption all science is meaningless.
Well, exactly. And the fact that the scientific model can be observed to work means that the "assumption" is itself supported by evidence.
RAZD writes:
Uncertainty whether or not omphalism is true within the time frame, is exactly the same uncertainty as whether or not the evidence is telling us the truth about reality.
Thus no matter what your position is on omphalism, you will have the same tentativity on scientific conclusions due to the uncertainty that evidence is telling the truth about reality.
Same tentativity? Clearly wrong. Think about it.
Then think about these propositions:
1) Satan is manipulating the minds and data of "evolutionist" scientists and their supporters, and fooling them into perceiving a false world. (from some creationists).
2) Fairies manipulate atoms. (bluegenes).
3) God is interfering with the world on a quantum level. (Kenneth Miller and others).
4) Unknown intelligent designers have been practicing genetic modification in the life system. (Michael Behe and others).
5) Satan has interfered with rocks and fossils in order to delude us.
All these except perhaps the bluegenes one (only perhaps, because there's a lot of people believing a lot of strange things in the world) have been or are believed in. They cannot be disproved. Put them in at 3 to 5 on the Dawkins scale, and you should understand what I meant when I said that you would end up as a permanently confused "4" according to your arguments.
So, there must be something wrong with your view, and I'll explain what it is in the next few posts. I'll also explain the Truzzi article to you.
I'm sure you'll look forward to this.
As for evidence to support my naturalistic view, look around you, and compare what you see to the evidence for the supernatural.
BWAHAHAHAHA! Oh, that's just absolutely precious, RAZD! That you think you're using the scientific process! You! Who is claiming subjectivity is valid!
Obviously, you have not been paying attention. See Perceptions of Reality, posted 04*30*2006.
One could say that {all} science includes knowledge we that we are pretty sure we know, that {all} philosophy includes knowledge that we think we can know, and that {all} faith includes knowledge we cannot know that we know (hence we take it on faith).
Those who have been paying attention will know that my argument regarding subjective evidence only applies to concepts where there is either insufficient evidence for the scientific process to work or to concepts where the scientific process may not be able to produce answers. The astute ones who have been paying attention will also know that the argument has been that subjective evidence suggests possibilities, but is not much more useful than that. Hence the Levels of Confidence:
The astute reader will note that level III involves the scientific process.
Thanks, RAZD. I needed a good laugh. You've been studying the conservatives, haven't you. Accuse the other person of what you're doing first so that they have to go on the defensive.
Which is extremely amusing after your recent snit about being called an atheist do to the fact that all your posts are pro-atheism, but that you haven't personally come out of the closet on what you actually believe. Now you have returned the favor.
What we see here is evasive behavior, typical of pseudoskeptics, when the shoe is on the other foot.
On a more serious note, that's my argument to you, RAZD. The model is based upon the process. You're the one claiming that it doesn't work. Therefore, you are the one who needs to show where and how. Your subjective opinion that maybe there is something you refuse to define at play is insufficient.
Again, you are not paying attention. Curiously one of the effects of cognitive dissonance is having difficulty paying attention to arguments that contradict dearly held beliefs.
The argument is that your model is incomplete. Saying it is incomplete does not mean that it doesn't work for the limited knowledge encompassed by the model, just that all possibilities are not necessarily included.
Restricting the model to only include known scientific knowledge, known at this date in time, necessarily limits the ability of the model to include new knowledge. It is incapable of predicting new knowledge, like the model of hurricane behavior that failed to predict the path of a southern hemisphere hurricane because the model had not considered their possibility.
Upon examination of the coin after the 10th flip indicated that it was a double-tailed coin, then we knew that it was always going to land tails.
Again you dodge the question, assume you know the answer, and presume that your opinion is a valid indicator of reality. Pseudoskepticism is like that.
Huh? The model doesn't even exist? You mean physics, music theory, medicine, psychology, color theory, oil technique, all those things we've studied and observed over the years simply don't exist? They are "absent"?
More reading comprehension, or difficulty paying attention, problems I see. Your "the model works why add sprinkles" argument reduces to the absence of evidence for god/s is evidence of absence for god/s.
All you've done is dress it up with arguments from incredulity and continued repetition, as if repetition makes your opinion more valid.
Re: Unevidenced "Domains" Do Not Solve Your Problems
Hi Straggler, still with the comprehension problem.
Unevidenced "Domains" Do Not Solve Your Problems
I don't have problems. You do: you have not demonstrated any evidence to justify a level III, Dawkins scale 6.9999, claim that gods do not, or cannot, exist.
Who here is denying or eliminating any possibility? Your ongoing strawman of certitude rumbles on relentlessly.
Ah, so you are NOT a 6.9999 atheist, but a 5 (level II) atheistic agnostic.
Hades. Valhalla. Olympus. Hell. Islamic notions of paradise. The domain of the Hindu gods. The domain in which the Immaterial toilet goblins exist. The domain in which the fifty two and a half pixies that set the universe in motion dwell. The Immaterial Pink Unicorn domain, the Ethereal Yellow Squirrel domain, The Christian heaven, Mookoo's domain, Wagwah's domain, the domain in which the immaterial green turtle wades through the invisible aether with the universe on its back held in place by the incorporeal god chewed bubble-gum, Santa Claus's magic domain, The Easter Bunny's intangible chocolate domain, your deity's domain, the tooth fairy's domain, the garage dragon's domain.............etc. etc. etc.etc. ad-infinitum.
The possibilities are limited only by human imagination
Why? Why aren't unconscious subjective experiences equally, or even more, valid? Many cultures consider dreams to be superior indicators of reality. Why don't you?
If you want to consider them, feel free. Where would you put them on the confidence scale:
I would agree that several times solutions to problems have come to me while sleeping, that the unconscious subconscious can work through seeming difficult problems by an unknown process.
This has baffled me for ages about your silly little "subjective evidence" theory. On what basis do you distinguish the evidential validity of any one entirely subjective experience over any other? Why are not all subjective experiences considered equally indicative of reality?
Because they have the potential to be validated and verified.
Two people having different conscious experiences of a unicorn like animal in a remote setting are much more likely to be taken seriously than two people dreaming about it.
But if you want to include unconscious experiences as possible indicators about the possibilities of reality, feel free.
Reading my post again, I am not sure I do either. I got lost somewhere. Let me try again, just to discribe my position from the beginning: I think we agree on that the concepts we use in science and in our daily life all have a certain amount of evidence for or against them. I think we agree on that we can not "proove" any of these concepts, but that a lot of them have so much evidence for them that we need to consider them as "as good as true", others are less certain.
The question I ask myself, is what happens when we get confrontet with a new concept? Of course we compare with our existing model, if it conflicts, we need strong evidence that it is more correct then our previous model.
We will also look at the consequences of the concept, and compare them to reality, if the agree, we assign the concept a higher truth value.
And it depends on who is presenting the issue: When a math professor is presenting a new (conflicting?) mathematical concept, I will give it a higher truth value, then the same concept presented by a pre-school math teacher, if the evidence is inaccessible to me (of course, I can be made to understand, and agree if the evidence is there).
What, if the new concept is a concept of something you never have thought about before? I think we disagree in this point. You say, we have a standard position of everything we do not have a model of, being it does not exist.(meaning, the model discribes every known part of reality there is. Please correct me if I am wrong) I think of my model of incomplete by default. If I find something new, undiscribed, I will at least consider the possibility of it being part of the model until I have a reason not to.
I think you also have a different definition of reality than me. I do not think of any of my models as being real. I only know that reality (the thing discribed by the model) interacts very similar to the model. But that doesn't mean that the model is reality. (does that makes any sense?)
But I would not say that this position is the 'right' one at all, it is only my understanding of reality.
quote:Agnosticism is the view that the truth value of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence of any deity, but also other religious and metaphysical claimsis unknown or unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the differences between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. As such, the term agnostic does not necessarily signal a particular view about religion or God, as some agnostics also identify as theists or atheists.
My bolds. Check the Dawkins scale for the positions that include the phrase "I cannot know". Do you remember me asking you if you understand the differences between the verbs "to know" and "to believe"?
And curiously those "as some agnostics also identify as theists or atheists." are explicitly covered by Dawkins "3" and "5" positions:
quote: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 sceptical.'
Dawkins on the original meaning writes:
"I count myself in category 6, but leaning towards 7 - I am agnostic only to the extent that I am agnostic about fairies at the bottom of the garden."
From p. 74 of The God Delusion, first paragraph following the "scale", and describing it while describing himself as still retaining some agnosticism in a 6+ position.
Fascinatingly, retaining SOME EXTREMELY LIMITED agnosticism is not BEING agnostic, hence the distinction in the Dawkins scale, and that is the crux of your equivocation: you do not use "6" as BEING agnostic, EXCEPT to avoid bearing the burden, but you USE "6" as being de facto atheist in all other discussions.
The burdens are certainly different, as they are for all positions, but all positions have an equal quantity of burden. 50/50, for example, requires some substantial positive evidence for god.
You are now getting absolutely ridiculous. Even if this were so, it just demonstrates that YOU still need to bear the burden of substantiation for your position, and the hysterical part is that you have now made it inescapable.
Hoist on your own petard.
So, now that you have backed yourself into a corner, where is the evidence that shows that god/s do not, or cannot, exist?
Same tentativity? Clearly wrong.
And yet you provide no proof or logical analysis that shows this to be wrong, you have only claimed it.
Pseudoskepticism is like that: pretending that you know the answer/s and that your opinion is a valid concept of reality.
Incredibly, your opinion is no better than anyone else's at determining what is real and what is not, and you have certainly shown a predilection for making false claims.
Indicative of your pseudoskepticism is your continued failure to address the issue of your equivocation:
The same word is used with two different meanings.
Examples:
1. Criminal actions are illegal, and all murder trials are criminal actions, thus all murder trials are illegal. (Here the term "criminal actions" is used with two different meanings. Example borrowed from Copi.) 2. The sign said "fine for parking here", and since it was fine, I parked there. 3. All child-murderers are inhuman, thus, no child-murderer is human. (From Barker, p. 164; this is called "illicit obversion") 4. A plane is a carpenter's tool, and the Boeing 737 is a plane, hence the Boeing 737 is a carpenter's tool. (Example borrowed from Davis, p. 58)
Proof:
Identify the word which is used twice, then show that a definition which is appropriate for one use of the word would not be appropriate for the second use.
This was done.
Equivocation was used in a feeble attempt to weasel out of the burden that someone who makes a strong claim bears. If you make a claim of being a "6" (De facto atheist) on Dawkins scale in regards to the existence of god/s then there is a burden to bear that the "5" (Technically agnostic) on that scale does not bear.
You have used "6" in two different ways, to mean two different things. Failure to address your equivocation means you are avoiding the issue of being wrong.
However, I see you've opted for a "3" on the claim that the earth is not less than 400,000 years old,...
Still not getting it right I see.
bluegenes equivocating in Message 190: For emphasis: ..." because categories 2 to 6 are agnostic by definition" ...
You realize, don't you, that when you flatten the scale to put everyone at the same level you make all of your other arguments about differences between categories absolutely pointless and void?
Thus every time you argue about a difference between "6" and any other position you are de facto equivocating between the meaning of "6" as de facto atheist and "6" as an agnostic position.
Thus it is evident from your post/s that you do not consider "6" = "5" or "6" = "4" and your argument that "categories 2 to 6 are agnostic" is meaningless compared to your usage of these categories.
Thus you are guilty of equivocation between the full meaning of "6" and the full meaning of "4" - and that no matter how much you try to weasel on the meaning of "6" you are being a pseudoskeptic and avoiding the issue.
How do you know that Truzzi is not using the word "agnostic" in the same way as myself, ...
For the simple reason, that if he meant it the same way, his point about pseudoskeptics, being people with a negative hypothesis, is meaningless.
quote:But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --...--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
This is in contrast to his position on agnosticism:
quote:The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. ... Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything.
You cannot force-fit other people to be shoe-horned into your equivocating definitions.
Your argument only holds up if the definition of pseudoskeptic is meaningless AND the Dawkins scale is meaningless, as only when you reduce these arguments to your level of meaningless babble, does your meaningless babble have the same meaningless babble content.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
