No, not in the colloquial sense, but from a scientific stance, these propositions are simply ignored, not really rejected.
Straggler writes:
So you think it is unscientific to say that objectively evidenced conclusions (e.g. evolution of species) are more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than baseless propositions (e.g. Last Thursdayism)?
CS writes:
We've started to conflate theories with conclusions....
The nature of being a conclusion (X years) precludes other answers as possibilities (Y days).
But theories are designed to work as explanations of the data, they don't necessarily preclude other theories as possible explanations, and they don't judge themselves as being some liklihood of correctly matching reality.
Is it coloquial of scientific to consider the theory of evolution an accurate description of reality and the creation of species fully formed as highly improbable and an inaccurate description of reality?
Is it coloquial or scientific to consider objectively evidenced explanations as more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than baseless propositions?
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
X writes:
How much more of a 6+ do you want?
What tests did you undertake in order to reject the Hogwarts Hypothesis and reach your conclusion? Or is it perfectly legitimate to reject untestable notions without such tests?
X writes:
Plus I know you made the "Hogwart Hypothesis" up.
I see that you have concluded human imagination as the source of this concept. On what basis?
X writes:
There is no objective scientific evidence for your hypothesis, but there is objective scientific evidence of J.K.Rowling's creation of the fictional character Voldermort(sp?).
There is not objective scientific evidence of the existence of supernatural beings. There is objective scientific evidence of the human ability and proclivity to invent such concepts. There is also some evidence of the human proclivity to make these inventions unfalsifiable (see your answer above).
Do you agree that objectively evidenced conclusions are more likely to be correct than evdentially baseless propositions?
X writes:
We all must accept this premise, equivalent to a postulate, if you will.
Why must we? If one chooses to take as one's "postulate" the idea that the bible is literally true and anything which disagrees with it is simply deception why is this "postulate" any less valid than yours? There have been creationists who take such a view. Why are they wrong?
I put it to you that science need not rely on axioms or postulates. I put it to you that instead science need simply rely on experience as evidence and reject anything for which there is no evidence whatsoever. See Message 42
Rather than subjectively picking and choosing which evidentially baseless propositions to call "postulates", which ones to reject and which ones to demand RAZDian agnosticism towards why not treat all consistently and equally? Why not treat the Dumbledore mind manipulation proposition the same as Last Thursdayism the same as the notion that ethereal salamanders are powering some as yet untested filament bulbs the same as the Hindu Hypothesis the same as the one second universe proposition the same as undetectable gravity gnomes etc. etc. etc.
Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.
Is it coloquial of scientific to consider the theory of evolution an accurate description of reality and the creation of species fully formed as highly improbable?
Is it coloquial or scientific to consider objectively evidenced explanations as more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than baseless propositions?
They both sound awefully colloquial to me...
Its common knowledge that scientific theories don't consider themselves to be The Truth.
And why would a scientific explanation even address a baseless proposition?
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
Stragglers asks:
I see that you have concluded human imagination as the source of this concept. On what basis?
Some 843 or so ales talking with you here in EvC. *smirk*
Penguin in tiny inset of this cartoon: 843? That's a good number!
Continuing:
Why must we? If one chooses to take as one's "postulate" the idea that the bible is literally true and anything which disagrees with it is simply deception why is this "postulate" any less valid than yours? There have been creationists who take such a view. Why are they wrong?
I put it to you that science need not rely on axioms or postulates. I put it to you that instead science need simply rely on experience as evidence and reject anything for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
Isn't the very process of "simply relying on experience as evidence"* the same as accepting that substantiated objective scientific evidence describing whatever phenomenon is, in fact, something that is not LYING TO YOU??? You want to pick apart "the idea that the bible is literally true and anything which disagrees with it is simply deception"? Deception = Lying? The experiences* you refer to CAN BE REPEATED. Everyone can observe them. Those biblical literalists cannot claim this.
This is the Postulate that you, yourself, along with nearly all of us here, have accepted. Objective Scientific Evidence (OSE) is telling you about the real world out there. You do believe in a real world out there, don't you?
Science is based on objective evidence...{}...That objectively evidenced explanations are more likely to be accurate descriptions of reality than evidentially baseless propositions would seem to be simply inarguable. Are you denying that this is the case?
When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.
I think we are all on the same page here.
. . .
* I will assume you meant "experience" as in "substantiated objective observations" rather than those heart-felt passionate subjective testimonies of religious experiences....cool.
Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.
Straggler, can you please make quotes from out of these bare links.
Something condensed as much as the quote you are replying to, if possible. And, frankly, your message 42 was a thick snarly patch of pricker bushes. Something briefer please. My eyes glaze over.....
Are you disagreeing with the simple statement Zen Deist put out?
Re: Problems with Probables And The Corresponding Improbables and Logical Assumptions
PaulK writes:
I've never even HEARD of of the Dick Cavett show, so that doesn't really tell me much.
Yeah...I'm pretty old, I guess. Sorry.
On the talk show Dick has guests & this time it's Norman Mailer with a couple other guests (a very well-spoken woman & someone else, probably Gore Vidal). The show proceeds and Norman gets into a huge argument with the woman and Vidal, from his bad boy side, erupting into a temper tantrum and then Dick Cavett (the host) gets out of his chair next to Mailer and moves over 1 chair towards the woman. He sits down and gestures at the empty chair next to Mailer, saying "...there - maybe now you have enough room for your ego." - at which point Mailer retorts "yes - I suppose we could use finger bowls...."
Finger bowls are just little dishes of water to clean off your fingers from eating shellfish or similar messy food - term from the far east.
A TV moment worth seeing. If I knew the innertubes stuff, I'd happily provide that link.
dogged badgering does not add to the debate just to the wasted bandwidth
Hi Straggler, picking up on some tid-bits:
Message 136: Re: Fantasy Books vs Religious Texts, fake tests vs real tests
RAZD writes:
Just to be clear fictional novels are fiction by definition, that is fact.
Is it? Who decides what is "fiction" and what isn't? I put it to you that the prefix "fictional" simply refers to what people believe.
The prefix "fictional" doesn't make something non-existent by definition. Voldermort (for example) is NOT non-existent by definition. Indeed as PaulK has pointed out it could conceivably be the case that Dumbledore has magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts.
There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable. So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to the existence of Voldermort?
A pseudoskeptic is someone who says that a concept is wrong and does not provide any evidence or information to substantiate that position. I've presented some information in this regard already, but here is more:
The objective, empirical, repeatable, evidence is that (a) the books are fantasy fiction and (b) that the characters in them are fictional, supported by (c) the acknowledgement by the author that they are, in fact, fictions, and also supported by (d) the classification as fantasy fiction in book stores and libraries, and finally, (e) tested by the reactions of people reading the stories that believe it is a fact that they are fiction rather than real documentaries or narratives.
Do a search and see if you can find any claim that Voldemort is real, versus:
quote:In a 2001 interview, Rowling said Voldemort was invented as a nemesis for Harry Potter, the main protagonist of the series, and she intentionally did not flesh out Voldemort's backstory at first ...
quote:Harry Potter is a series of seven fantasy novels written by the British author J. K. Rowling. The books chronicle the adventures of the adolescent wizard Harry Potter and his best friends Ron Weasley and Hermione Granger, all of whom are students at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry. The main story arc concerns Harry's quest to overcome the evil dark wizard Lord Voldemort, whose aim is to subjugate non-magical people, conquer the wizarding world, and destroy all those who stand in his way, especially Harry Potter.
This is objective evidence that the stories and characters are fiction.
Then we have inferred testing of the concept that the books are fictional and the characters are fiction by the way people react to them:
do people buy the books as fiction or as real stories? Fictional Real
do people reading the books think the characters are fictional or real? Fictional Real
has anyone taken any precautions in case the books\characters are real? Yes None known
due to the high interest in the novels, would any group making such preparations be noticed and reported on? Likely yes Not likely
There is no record of anyone thinking they are anything but fiction that I can find.
quote:Since the 30 June 1997 release of the first novel Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone, the books have gained immense popularity, critical acclaim and commercial success worldwide.[2] The series has also had some share of criticism, including concern for the increasingly dark tone. As of June 2011[update], the book series has sold about 450 million copies and has been translated into 67 languages,[3][4] and the last four books consecutively set records as the fastest-selling books in history.
So that amounts to at least 450 million inferred tests of the book being fantasy fiction and that the characters are fictional, with no known\reported contraditions.
Nor has any contradictory evidence (that the characters should be considered real) been presented, so that position is not supported.
quote:
450 million bits of evidence that the book is a fantasy fiction, and that the characters are fictional, and 0 contradictory bits of evidence
There is way much more evidence that the books and characters are fictional than that they are real, and there is no contradictory evidence for this position, therefore it is logically way more likely that the books and characters are really fiction.
There is so much evidence for the books being fantasy that we can regard this as an accepted FACT by virtually all people.
Do you agree? Yes No
Message 136: ... So why are you such a "pseudoskeptic" with regard to the existence of Voldermort?
But I'm not pseudoskeptical here, because I have cited evidence supporting my comments -- you've misused (again?) the term "pseudoskeptic" here.
Message 150: So Some Untestable Propositions Can Be Dismissed?
RAZD on Voldermort writes:
Forget the IPU, you have shown that you cannot determine that a documented fictional character is actually fictional and not supernatural.
You cannot test the Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition. No. But I would vehemently deny that this is any rational basis upon which to consider Voldermort anything other than made-up.
So where do you put Voldermort on your scale then RAZ?
For the record I'm a 6 (+ some). Does this make me a Voldermort pseudoskeptic?
What are you on your own scale with regard to Voldermort?
Some "Untestable Propositions" may be ignored, yes. Particularly when the fall in the "so what" or "known fictional" category or when they fall outside the a priori assumptions.
The rest of this post is now impatiently augmented by ....
Message 153: One More Thing - Voldermort Skepticism!!
Oh and one other thing - Your lack of response to Message 150 has me seriously worried about your honesty/sanity here.
Please don't even bother to continue anything here with me unless you are prepared to actually confirm that it is NOT pseudoskeptical to take the following position with regard to the non-existence of Lord Voldermort:
RAZD's scale writes:
6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
I really just could not take anyone seriously who professes to be anything other than strongly skeptical of the actual existence of Voldermort.
My keyboard just isn't up to the mirth based spillages it will be subjected to.....
Ah the fallacy of consequences ... wasting bandwidth without adding to the debate ...
If you are unwilling or unable to explicitly state where you place yourself on your own scale with respect to the following untestable proposition please cease any further participation in this thread.
The Dumbledore magic mind manipulation proposition - Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.
Without sufficient supporting or contradicting evidence:
Absolute acceptance - {X} is known to be true, with no uncertainty(a)
Strong acceptance - {X} is considered more likely true than not true, with little uncertainty(a)
Weak acceptance - {X} is believed to be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Neutral - {X} may be true or it may not, there is insufficient evidence to know one way or the other, very uncerrtain(b)
Weak skepticism - {X} is believed to not be true, but some uncertainty(b)
Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
Absolute skepticism - {X} is known to be not true, with no uncertainty(a)
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected (i.e. at least a 6 on the scale above) regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
If however you are unwilling or unable to explicitly take such a position, if you are going to insist on absolute agnosticism with regard to Lord Voldermort or refuse to explicitly state a position because you cannot do so without contradicting yourselves, then I can only conclude that you are either mad or dishonest and I have nothing more to say to you on the nature of science.
... more fallacy of consequences ... still wasting bandwidth and not adding to the debate ... FURTHER impatiently augmented by this message:
As per Message 153 I am not even going to bother talking to someone about the nature of science unless they are able to confirm that an atheistic stance towards the untestable Dumbledore mind manipulation proposition is rationally justified.
Will you unequivocally agree that (at least) a 6 position is rationally justified despite this proposition being untestable?
RAZD's scale writes:
6. Strong skepticism - {X} is considered more likely not true than true, with little uncertainty(a)
If in a thread supposedly about scientific knowledge we cannot all agree that Lord Voldermort is all-but-certainly made-up then it is time to call the men in white coats to take someone away.
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
... And even MORE fallacy of consequences, wasted bandwidth and repetitions of arguments ... And you wonder why I say you badger people: here you have posted a number of virtually identical posts, in increasingly strident tones, before I've had an opportunity to reply -- after I said I was busy. Sheesh.
It is a fact that the books and characters are fictional.
Do you disagree? Yes No
But there is a better way, imho, to go about this scale testing fixation of yours -- forget the silly "Dawkins Scale" or any version of it (I'm willing to chuck mine) that relies on similar subjective judgments, and instead let's just go ahead and use the new and improvedRAZD\Straggler Concept Scale that we have agreed to:
This scale has objective criteria for each of the different levels, rather than subjective judgments.
Because of the strong evidence I have previously cited for the whole set of books and the characters in them to be considered fantasy fiction as a fact, and given the absence of any contradictory evidence to this, I can safely take a (+4) stance on the concept that the books are indeed fantasy fiction novels and that the characters are fictions. I consider this a fact, and have said so.
Do you disagree that this is a fact? Yes No
Fiction is, in fact, fiction.
Now you can invert that to apply to any argument that is an inverse argument, or alternative concepts that are contradicted by the same information and evidence.
Message 152: Re: A Constructive Approach to "Knowing" - Examples NOT Abstractions
Well whenever you do get round to replying more fully it would be appreciated if you avoided long winded abstractions and repetitions of your impressively formatted but relentlessly changing charts and scales.
Instead pick an actual concrete example (e.g. the age of the Earth) and simply state:
What the conclusion regarding the actual age of the Earth is.
To what extent this conclusion can be taken as high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality.
To what extent this positive conclusion regarding reality necessitates the rejection of untestable mutually exclusive alternative conclusions about reality.
RAZD writes:
I don't feel the terminology of "mutually exclusive alternatives" is accurate -- it implies a dichotomy that isn't necessarily applicable or necessary to imply.
If you are going to conclude that the age of the Earth is billions of years old and that this is a high confidence conclusion regarding probable reality you cannot correspondingly conclude that Last Thursdayism - or any other recent omphalisms - are anything other than a description of reality that is improbable. At least not without some baseless assumptions and semantic games.
But we both know you won't engage in such things. Right RAZ?
RAZD writes:
The inverse of a concept should logically have inverse likelihoods or possibilities.
Then make sure you actually address that explicitly through example rather than by chart, table or abstraction.
More pointless badgering that detracts from the debate rather than provide constructive discussion.
The evidence is assumed to represent reality. The conclusions based on that assumption do not prove, show or even begin to demonstrate that the assumption is true,
This specific point is addressed in Message 170 in detail. Specifically it proves that trying to use the tested results based on an assumption, to then be evidence that the assumption has truth to it, is a false idea.
quote:If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have:
1 + 1 ≠ 1
*AND*
1 + 1 ≡ 1
and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas at the same time, we have an irreconcilable, unavoidable contradiction.
&there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions, and the definitions or a priori assumptions are NOT proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths that are based on the a priori assumptions. That would be circular reasoning.
Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not - cannot - translate into any confidence outside the blue area. QED
NOTE THAT THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN.
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no
Just perusing the rest of your little construction.
RAZD writes:
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it?
Yes - There very much is.
RAZD writes:
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle. Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie.
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities......
"Imaginary".....? How do you know they are imaginary? Have you tested them? Did your mask just slip?
You are really grasping at straws now.
I looked at Message 42 long ago, and saw you making a number of silly assertions, once again, that you claim provide you with substantiation for your beliefs. It's self-indulgent shinola and it is pointless:
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it?
Yes - There very much is.
RAZD writes:
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle. Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie.
... this is a road to nowhere.
Ignoring the point that your Message 42 is self-indulgent shinola ...
... are you saying that once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, that you are NOT in the same boat? Yes No
Or are you saying that all your {little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false,} are NOT all in the area outside the blue circle? Yes No
Are you saying that you DON'T assume that the evidence does not lie? Yes No
Detail what specifically do you not agree with in this statement:
All your little scenarios and concepts of "untestable this" and "untestable that" pertaining to imaginary possibilities of evidence being false are ALL in the area outside the blue circle. Once you or I and any scientist assumes that the evidence represents reality, we are in the same boat. We assume that the evidence does not lie.
There are three sentences there, it should be easy for you to answer simply and clearly.
Why are you being so evasive about answering and disruptive about cooperation?
Can we get back to cooperation? I have very limited time in the next few days, and I would prefer not to have to read or consider responding to repetitious, disruptive or irrelevant posts that don't advance the debate.
Enjoy Notes: (1) - perhaps this should say :
IV. Absolute Confidence Concepts
Established, or proven.
It is a fact.
We should probably also say that
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
Straggles violates board rules to paste another pointless post.
Please see see Message 190
RAZD writes:
Correct. When you make the assumption that the evidence truthfully represents reality, then you safely, unconditionally, justifiably, ignore any and all concepts related to the evidence being a lie.
See Message 42
This is already answered by Message 205, meaning waiting just a little bit you would find your repetition here is completely unnecessary, pointless and already refuted.
Of course Message 205 is significantly cluttered by including each similar post by Straggles when ONE would be sufficient.
Any more such posts will be safely ignored as irrelevant, and I will choose which ones to reply to based on whether they move the debate forward or not.
Just part of this post is a point you really need to consider, study, and learn.
quote:This specific point is addressed in Message 170 in detail. Specifically it proves that trying to use the tested results based on an assumption, to then be evidence that the assumption has truth to it, is a false idea.
quote:If these results apply outside their respective "blue" areas, then we have:
1 + 1 ≠ 1
vs
1 + 1 ≡ 1
and because both cannot be true outside their respective blue areas we have an irreconcilable contradiction.
&there4 The results are dependent on the definitions or a priori assumptions and the definitions or a priori assumptions are not proven by the internal consistency and proven results of the maths based on the a priori assumptions.
Absolute confidence inside a blue area does not - cannot - translate into any confidence outside the blue area. QED
NOTE THAT THIS IS MATHEMATICALLY PROVEN.
Is there some aspect of this that prevents you from agreeing with it? yes or no
This is a level IV Absolute Confidence Concept.
So do you agree with this:
(1) - perhaps this should say :
IV. Absolute Confidence Concepts
Established, or proven.
It is a fact.
We should probably also say that
Low Confidence Concepts - are untested and possibly untestable
Medium Confidence Concepts - are known to be testable, or are testable in theory
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
Straggler writes:
Dumbledore magically implanted JK Rowling with knowledge of Harry Potter's real adventures in such a way that even the author herself thinks that her writings are works of fiction when in fact they are magically inspired historical accounts. The "Hogwarts Hypothesis" as the secret cult of Potter call it. There is no objective empirical evidence that falsifies this proposition. You have done no tests. Indeed it is untestable.
If we can all agree that this proposition can be rationally and robustly rejected regardless of being untestable maybe we can finally put to bed this insidious notion that testing untestable propositions has any bearing on the validity of scientific theories or rational conclusions.
Im pretty sure RAZd has already said this:
Just for being "mentioned" no, but Voldemort is not just "mentioned" -- he is a central character, a magical character, created by the author, in a fantasy fiction novel series.
Are you claiming that a magical character, created by the author, in a fantasy fiction novel series, central to the fantasy storyline, is real or has the potential to be real?
It really astounds me that you ask this question, when this seemingly minor difference is critical to actually being able to substantiate the hypothetical conjecture.
There is a possibility that "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are (may be) based on real experiences, while the "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" are known a priori to be fictional, and cannot rationally be considered supernatural beings.
What you display, by asking such a question, is that you are just assuming that all "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" are fictional without actually determining that this is so.
To substantiate {your (bluegenes et als)} assertion that {all supernatural beings are fictional} you need to investigate and test ones that MAY be real instead of pretending that fictional characters, known a priori to be fictional, fill the bill.
and
You can't start from evidence of fiction to show that something else is fiction, as that something else isn't tested, and therefore the hypothetical conjecture isn't tested in any way shape or form.
You do not need to investigate "supernatural concepts contained in fictional novels" to see whether or not they are fictional -- that is a given, readily conceded, fact.
Humans are capable of creating fiction: sadly, for you, that does not mean that all human concepts are fiction.
You DO need to investigate "supernatural concepts contained in religious documents" to see whether or not they are fictional, rather than just assume that this is the case.
Why oh why do you continue to as RAZD aKa (Zen Deist) about whether he thinks lord V is a real SN entity? It seems you are the one confused about fictional characters who are known to actually be fictional characters as opposed to thers that are not known to be fictional characters?
Can't we move on already? He's already answered that.
Re: Is the Scientific Approach The Same As The "Open Minded Skeptic" Approach?
Chuck77 writes:
Im pretty sure RAZd has already said this:
Given the length of his posts, is there anything RAZD hasn't already said? I'm curious, how many people actually read all of Message 205? Anyone? Are there many who share my objection to these repetitive hashes of text and quotes of things already said many times?
Are those involved in this ongoing multi-thread discussion determined to continue until the other side says, "Oh, I guess you're right." Face reality, it ain't gonna happen.
quote:
The objective, empirical, repeatable, evidence is that (a) the books are fantasy fiction and (b) that the characters in them are fictional, supported by (c) the acknowledgement by the author that they are, in fact, fictions, and also supported by (d) the classification as fantasy fiction in book stores and libraries, and finally, (e) tested by the reactions of people reading the stories that believe it is a fact that they are fiction rather than real documentaries or narratives.
When this was put forward earlier, I raised two points against it. The first was that we could not exclude the logical possibility of J K Rowling having "inside knowledge" - perhaps unknowingly. The second, and more important point is that none of this is evidence against the existence of Lord Voldemort. Even if we set aside the obvious fallacies (point e is obviously ad populem, for instance, there is a deeper problem.
Let us assume for now, the J K Rowling had no knowledge of the wizarding world, and in fact made up Lord Voldemort. There is still the possibility of a coincidence, in which her invention happened to correspond to fact to the point that someone close enough to the character to be considered "Lord Voldemort" actually existed. The likelihood of this possibility is trivially equal to the likelihood of such a person existing.
None of the evidence offered addresses the likelihood of such a person existing at all. Therefore, the argument must implicitly assume that the existence of such a person is so unlikely that we can have high confidence that they do not exist. And this confidence is based on a priori grounds, not on any evidence that directly addresses the question.
Thus Zen Deist has still offered no empirical evidence that Lord Voldemort does not exist and has in fact come to that conclusion by implicit a priori reasoning.
Edited by AdminModulous, : changed close tags for italics to a forward slash, rather than a backslash
The objective, empirical, repeatable, evidence is that (a) the books are fantasy fiction and (b) that the characters in them are fictional, supported by (c) the acknowledgement by the author that they are, in fact, fictions, and also supported by (d) the classification as fantasy fiction in book stores and libraries, and finally, (e) tested by the reactions of people reading the stories that believe it is a fact that they are fiction rather than real documentaries or narratives.
It makes me chuckle that he would not agree with:
quote:The characters in the bible are real, supported by the acknowledgement by the authors that they are real and tested by the reactions of people reading the bible that believe it is a fact that they are real rather than fiction.
Using his own logic he should be confident that God exists.
TBH: I gave up this discussion with RAZD because I grew to believe that his hypocrisy was intentional. But I am enjoying reading your replies to RAZD.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
Always remember: QUIDQUID LATINE DICTUM SIT ALTUM VIDITUR
Science flies you into space; religion flies you into buildings.
™ Version 4.2
(1)
