Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 226 of 304 (503399)
03-18-2009 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 3:06 PM


Re: Is the poetry real?
Yeah, but the context was that the entity was made-up, not the experience.
Yes, but you also said "my own personal subjective experience of god wasn't made up at all.". Nobody was suggesting that your subjective experience of god was made up. See?
Additionally though, 'god-like' is kind of a catch all term. Its really not that specific of an assessment (at least not as specific as your other examples). All these people are experiencing things and a lot of them attribute it to something outside of their mind that is spiritual and powerful and a lot like a god.
Right - but 'god' has a specific meaning which is being pushed to straining point. I mean the IPU isn't invisible in that light passes through her, she is invisible in that she doesn't choose to reveal herself visually. The pinkness is a metaphor for her femininity (and her femaleness is just about her creativity, her ability to fertiley create experiences) - the fact that we call her a 'unicorn' is just historical necessity since that's what everyone else calls it.
And that's where we end up - a generic 'external entity' which we confusingly title 'god' (we could in principle confusingly title it 'unicorn').
Well then, when we're walking within philosophical arguments then I do think it is a good thing to think the poetry is real. Otherwise the philosophy will be too limited to be able to cover all the plausible possibilities.
You don't have to think the possibilities are real to consider them as being possible avenues worth exploring and testing with argument.
I don't know what you're specifically referring to from RAZD.
But is he really saying that the error is made for not believing in the same thing he does or is he claiming the error is in thinking that the IPU argument fits against the Deists' god?
The IPU was raised, in part, as a result of the other thread in which RAZD made a comment starting at Message 4 in regards to this issue. When the IPU was raised as an objection to the belief that arbitrary entity titled god exists (as opposed to arbitrary entity titled IPU or other similar random entities - make them as general or specific as you like if it is just the number of specific properties that bothers you).
Incidentally, and importantly, this thread isn't about the Deist's god. It is about the IPU as a valid way (or not) to raise an argument against a faith based belief in an entity.
Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 3:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 227 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 3:55 PM Modulous has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 227 of 304 (503401)
03-18-2009 3:55 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Modulous
03-18-2009 3:29 PM


Re: Is the poetry real?
Yes, but you also said "my own personal subjective experience of god wasn't made up at all.". Nobody was suggesting that your subjective experience of god was made up. See?
Okay, yeah. I wasn't saying that someone did say that my experience was made up. I was saying that my deity is less easy to reject not just because it is much less obviously a made up entity, but that I also have the experiences that I know I didn't make up that suggest to me that it exists. I was just saying that there's more to it than just having less "made-up-ness".
Right - but 'god' has a specific meaning which is being pushed to straining point.
Meh, I don't think its that bad. Its more that there's the lack of a good term to use so people just use 'god', besides that it'll just be easier to get the point across if they do.
And that's where we end up - a generic 'external entity' which we confusingly title 'god' (we could in principle confusingly title it 'unicorn').
Right, agreed. But the IPU argument goes too far by turning "a generic 'external entity'" into something that was specifically made up. That's where it falls apart in its use against the deists' god.
You don't have to think the possibilities are real to consider them as being possible avenues worth exploring and testing with argument.
I think it will be a more futile exercise if you don't think they're real.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Modulous, posted 03-18-2009 3:29 PM Modulous has not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 228 of 304 (503405)
03-18-2009 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 2:01 PM


Re: How fundamentalist can you get.
Stragler writes:
But that does not mean that the conclusions that you draw from those experiences are objectively valid in the sense that the entities experienced actually exist in any sense that is distinct and seperate from you.
But they are to me. I don't expect them to be to you.
Then I think we we have no argument.
Based on the objective evidence alone non-belief is the rational, evidentially and intellectually consistent conclusion.
Stragler writes:
If subjective evidence is that unreliable why do you believe anything at all on this basis?
Do I really have a choice? If an experience convinces me then can I choose to no longer be convinced?
Well that is an interesting question. Do we choose to be convinced or will certain experiences inevitably convince us? Perhaps another thread another time.
Stragler writes:
RAZD castigates me with mocking accusations of cognitive dissonance for refusing to acknowledge a form of "evidence" so woefully undeserving of the term that even it's proponents refuse to actually use it to form any conclusion that can be verified, refuted or that actually matters in any objective sense.
Its seems more responsive than initiative.
Now that is obviously just your subjective world view talking.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 2:01 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 4:25 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 304 (503408)
03-18-2009 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by Straggler
03-18-2009 4:04 PM


Re: How fundamentalist can you get.
Then I think we we have no argument.
Think again
Based on the objective evidence alone non-belief is the rational, evidentially and intellectually consistent conclusion.
For positivists and/or scientific conclusions, yes.
But for simple beliefs, based on the objective evidence alone the rational, evidentially, and intellectually consistent conclusion would be not knowing.
Now, I don't say that I don't know if the IPU exists, I say that I believe that it doesn't exist. But this is not based on the objective evidence alone. I believe this because I think someone made the IPU up, which I have no objective evidence for.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 4:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 4:59 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 230 of 304 (503416)
03-18-2009 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 229 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 4:25 PM


Re: How fundamentalist can you get.
Now, I don't say that I don't know if the IPU exists, I say that I believe that it doesn't exist. But this is not based on the objective evidence alone. I believe this because I think someone made the IPU up, which I have no objective evidence for.
Have you ever read a work of fiction or seen film? Star wars for example. Everyone has seen that surely.
Do you not consider a work of fiction to be objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans are able to invent false concepts?
If I ask you to imagine a blue baby elephant siting on your sofa eating ice cream can you envisage that?
False concepts come as naturally to humans as does breathing.
Before we move on would you agree that this much at least is evidentially verified?
Or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 4:25 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 5:06 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 231 of 304 (503419)
03-18-2009 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 230 by Straggler
03-18-2009 4:59 PM


Re: How fundamentalist can you get.
Do you not consider a work of fiction to be objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans are able to invent false concepts?
Yes, its a fact that humans are able to invent false concepts.
What we are lacking objective evidence for is if someone's particular experience with the IPU or god is made up or not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 230 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 4:59 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 5:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 232 of 304 (503424)
03-18-2009 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by New Cat's Eye
03-18-2009 5:06 PM


Demonstrably False God Concepts
Straggler writes:
Do you not consider a work of fiction to be objective evidence in favour of the fact that humans are able to invent false concepts?
Yes, its a fact that humans are able to invent false concepts.
Would you also agree that it is an evidenced fact that humans have created demonstrably false god concepts?
Demonstrably false god concepts such as Scarab the Egyptian god of the rising Sun. A godly dung beetle that dragged the Sun across the sky each day.
Would you also agree with me that there is substantial historical evidence to conclude that many of these demonstrably false god concepts were created to explain those phenomenon and aspects of life that were otherwise unknowable at the time?
Fertility, weather, harvests, seasons etc. etc. etc.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-18-2009 5:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 10:57 AM Straggler has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 233 of 304 (503431)
03-18-2009 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by Straggler
03-18-2009 3:50 AM


Re: How fundamentalist can you get.
Concepts either have an objective evidential basis or they do not. This much at least is black and white.
Lets be frank here.
Even you seem to have given up the ghost on this topic. The IPU and the possibility of alien life are not evidentially equivalent. The IPU and deities are. Given that the IPU was specifically created for the purpose of demonstrating the irrationality and illogic of belief in the unevidenced it would be surprising if this were not so.
So have you found an IPU believer yet? Or are all the proponents still atheists?
The difference between someone who sees an alien visitation, and a person who concludes that alien visitations are probable, is the experience, and curiously you think the former is nuts and that latter is sane and rational.
People seem to have an almost limitless capacity for creating concepts that are not 'real'. It comes to us as easily as breathing.
And you have convinced yourself that anyone who sees something you don't believe has made it up. One wonders how any science gets done with all the science fiction surrounding us.
People make everything up, Straggler. As onifre mentioned early on, there is no evidence that you do not know except by subjective recollection. You've made up the probability of life on alien planets.
There is a sliding scale of evidence. All conclusions are based on evidence and subjective world view.
Yes there is a sliding scale, Straggler, and it extends into the area of subjective evidence, unavoidably.
And when you have (or lack) an experience that I don't, then you will make different conclusions.
But everything we know suggests that such claims are human inventions ...
And it is possible that there is something there. Thus the logical answer is still "I don't know" ...
Why do you reject the IPU out of hand? Because it is so obviously made up? Absolutely. I could not agree more.
You don't get it Straggler. I reject the IPU because there is no one experience of the IPU that is documented, instead it is propped up by atheists as a mockery of belief. You asked if it would make a difference if someone had experienced the IPU, and I said yes - for that person. It would make a difference to that person because they would no longer be an atheist. So go find me one. Find me evidence of the experience.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 3:50 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 8:48 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 234 of 304 (503436)
03-18-2009 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 233 by RAZD
03-18-2009 8:08 PM


Re: How fundamentalist can you get.
So have you found an IPU believer yet? Or are all the proponents still atheists?
Have you finally succumbed to the fact that the IPU is a valid means of demonstrating that the logical fallacy of special pleading is required to differentiate one wholly unevidenced entity from another?
The difference between someone who sees an alien visitation, and a person who concludes that alien visitations are probable, is the experience, and curiously you think the former is nuts and that latter is sane and rational.
People make everything up, Straggler. As onifre mentioned early on, there is no evidence that you do not know except by subjective recollection. You've made up the probability of life on alien planets.
YAWN
You really will not grasp the difference between logical possibilities derived from fact, evidence based assessments of probability and the pointless extrapolation of wholly subjective claims will you?
It has got to the point where I am beginning to suspect wilful refusal rather than just mere ignorance on your part.
See here for all the answers you have chosen to ignore Message 209
And you have convinced yourself that anyone who sees something you don't believe has made it up.
No RAZ not everything is likely to be made up. Only those things for which there is no objective evidential reason to think even possible.
Things like deities. Things like the IPU.
One wonders how any science gets done with all the science fiction surrounding us.
Strangely the workings of science are not dependent on your inconsistent and illogical advocacy of subjective "evidence". So we can all breathe a sigh of relief on that front. Phew.
I have no doubt that if you could think of an example of a wholly unevidenced concept that is generally deemed to be believable you would raise it here.
But having failed to achieve this with regard to the example originally laid out in your OP, the example that you eventually had to admit is a possibility derived from objective evidence, I guess maybe it is a case of once bitten twice shy huh?
Yes there is a sliding scale, Straggler, and it extends into the area of subjective evidence, unavoidably.
Back to our subjective "evidence" sponge stairway again I see. I will ask my question yet again in the forlorn hope that you might answer it this time.
If someone came to you claiming to have derived the objective existence of a testable and verifiable entity (a comet, an undiscovered particle - something like that) on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone (i.e. no empirical evidence or prior knowledge to support the claim at all) - How would you rate the chances of that claim actually being verified as true?
A) Almost certain to be verified
B) High
C) 50/50
D) Low
E) Essentially zero
Be honest.
Straggler writes:
But everything we know suggests that such claims are human inventions
And it is possible that there is something there. Thus the logical answer is still "I don't know"
Really? If we follow the objective evidence the answer becomes "Almost certainly not".
Is it an evidenced possibility that gods and deities are human inventions?
Or not?
I have asked this about 20 times and am still awaiting an answer from you............
I reject the IPU because there is no one experience of the IPU that is documented........
Oh so now you do require evidence for your faith? Documented evidence apparently.
That seems a little inconsistent with your previous assertions regarding the nature of belief and subjective evidence.
Please do explain.
............So go find me one. Find me evidence of the experience.
Find it yourself.
As John10:10 is always telling me - "Only if you seek HER will you find HER".
Have you tried seeking her? Have you given yourself to the majesty of the IPU fully completely and faithflly? No? Well no wonder you don't believe then.
Isn't that obvious?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by RAZD, posted 03-18-2009 8:08 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 304 (503461)
03-19-2009 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Straggler
03-18-2009 5:52 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
Would you also agree that it is an evidenced fact that humans have created demonstrably false god concepts?
Demonstrably false god concepts such as Scarab the Egyptian god of the rising Sun. A godly dung beetle that dragged the Sun across the sky each day.
Sure, specific descriptions of gods can be demonstrated to be false. But you can't demonstrate that gods, in gereral, don't exist.
Would you also agree with me that there is substantial historical evidence to conclude that many of these demonstrably false god concepts were created to explain those phenomenon and aspects of life that were otherwise unknowable at the time?
Fertility, weather, harvests, seasons etc. etc. etc.
But our objective explanations for those phenomenon don't remove any spiritual components. You can't use verified objective evidence to refute them so you'd be agnostic towards them if you relied only on objectively verified evidence. If you refuse them then you're using something other than objectively verified evidence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Straggler, posted 03-18-2009 5:52 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 11:28 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 236 of 304 (503467)
03-19-2009 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 235 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 10:57 AM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
Straggler writes:
Would you also agree that it is an evidenced fact that humans have created demonstrably false god concepts?
Sure, specific descriptions of gods can be demonstrated to be false.
So we have established that it is an objectively evidenced fact that humans are capable of inventing god concepts that are false.
What objective evidence exists to support the claim that any god concepts are actually true?
On balance what does the objective evidence available indicate?
Straggler writes:
Would you also agree with me that there is substantial historical evidence to conclude that many of these demonstrably false god concepts were created to explain those phenomenon and aspects of life that were otherwise unknowable at the time?
Fertility, weather, harvests, seasons etc. etc. etc.
But our objective explanations for those phenomenon don't remove any spiritual components. You can't use verified objective evidence to refute them so you'd be agnostic towards them if you relied only on objectively verified evidence. If you refuse them then you're using something other than objectively verified evidence.
And yet as mans objective knowledge of these phenomenon has increased so has mans atheistic attitudes towards the godly explanations for these phenomenon.
Do you truly see no justifiable correlation between the two?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 10:57 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 11:44 AM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 237 of 304 (503470)
03-19-2009 11:44 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by Straggler
03-19-2009 11:28 AM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
So we have established that it is an objectively evidenced fact that humans are capable of inventing god concepts that are false.
Sure, for some god concepts but not all of them.
What objective evidence exists to support the claim that any god concepts are actually true?
None.
On balance what does the objective evidence available indicate?
It can indicate that some concepts of god are false, but it cannot indicate that a general concept of god, that lacks specifics, is false.
That's why, from the objective evidence alone, the conclusion is agnosticism.
And yet as mans objective knowledge of these phenomenon has increased so has mans atheistic attitudes towards the godly explanations for these phenomenon.
Do you truly see no justifiable correlation between the two?
So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 11:28 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 03-19-2009 12:38 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 1:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Rahvin
Member
Posts: 4032
Joined: 07-01-2005
Member Rating: 9.2


Message 238 of 304 (503475)
03-19-2009 12:38 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 11:44 AM


What is reasonable?
quote:
So we have established that it is an objectively evidenced fact that humans are capable of inventing god concepts that are false.
Sure, for some god concepts but not all of them.
Which "god concepts" are not the invention of the human imagination? Is there a reason you think some "god concepts" are not the invention of the human imagination? If so, what is that reason?
If every "god concept" we have been able to test has proven to be an invention of the human imagination, why would we reasonably conclude that there is any significant likelihood that the rest of them are not similarly figments of the imagination?
Agnosticism requires the position that the existence of deities is a possibility, and thus without additional evidence we cannot know either way. Is there a reason you believe the existence of a deity to be a possibility? After all, deities are typically described as having abilities we otherwise consider to be impossible - omnipotence, omniscience, the ability to violate physics and create/destroy matter/energy, etc. How is it reasonable to conclude that the existence of such an entity is "possible" when it is described as having abilities we otherwise consider impossible? Is it not reasonable to conclude that it is highly unlikely at best that any such supernatural entity exists?
The facts surrounding deities consist of these:
1) There is no objective evidence supporting the existence of any deity
2) Nearly all deities are described as having abilities otherwise considered impossible, when those deities are described at all.
3) The only cases in which we have been able to objectively determine the existence of a deity, in every instance that deity has been shown to be the product of the human imagination (Thor is not actually responsible for lightning bolts, etc).
4) Other assertions involving seemingly impossible qualities that bear strong resemblance to known made-up entities are typically considered to not exist, such as the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, leprechauns, and fairies.
5) In the same way that people have subjective experiences attributed to deities, people also have have had subjective experiences that they have attributed to fairies, leprechauns, etc. Individuals like Modulus have had subjective experiences that they have (at the time) attributed to a variety of different and mutually exclusive entities. The attribution of a given subjective "religious" experience seems to be tied more to the pre-existing beliefs of the individual, and not tied to any objective reality.
Is it reasonable to conclude, given these facts, that "deity x":
a) may exist, we don't know
b) definitely does not exist
c) definitely does exist
d) likely exists, and while we cannot know for sure we need to fave faith
e) is most likely a product of the human imagination, though we cannot be certain.
Agnostics choose a). Deists for a variety of reasons (perhaps they've had one of these subjective experiences themselves) seem to choose d). Some Atheists choose b). Personally, given the facts, I think that e) is the most rational and reasonable choice.
Why?
There is no reason to have confidence in an unsupported assertion.
There is no reason to concede the possibility of an entity posessing abilities or properties otherwise considered impossible.
There is ample reason to have confidence that unsupported, seemingly impossible entities like deities, leprechauns and the Immaterial Pink Unicorn are all figments of the human imagination, since all examples we know of thus far have been determined to be such.
There is ample reason to believe that the "subjective experiences" typically used to support such entities are the result of false pattern recognition, wishful thinking, overactive imaginations, social pressure, hallucination, or any of the other reasons people can draw false conclusions.
These facts lead me to conclude that there is no reason to have confidence that any deities exist, or that any deities can exist. I am led to conclude that I have ample reason to be confident that any such entity is very likely the product of the human imagination. Therefore, while I cannot be certain (in the same way I cannot be certain that we are not in the Matrix), following only the evidence available to me I must hold the position that deities and other "supernatural" entities unsupported by objective evidence are all likely the products of human imagination.
Do you disagree? If so, why?
It can indicate that some concepts of god are false, but it cannot indicate that a general concept of god, that lacks specifics, is false.
What defines this "general concept of god" without using specifics, CS? Pretend that I have never heard of "god." What properties does this "god" have that differentiate it from a coaster, or an automobile, or a molecule, or a leprechaun? Is it alive? Is it sentient? Does it have the ability to affect the world around it? Is it a myth?
If you agree that there is no reason to be confident in the existence of a given unsupported entity, why should we be confident in the existence (or possibility) of an entity completely lacking in description?
Do you agree that "generalizing" your concept of "god" until it possesses no actual discrete properties to differentiate it from any other entity, real or imagined, bears the hallmarks of deliberate unfalsifiability? Do you agree that this is the ultimate example of the "god of the gaps," and that the final unknown for "god" to sink into is to make "god" itself unknowable?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 2:54 PM Rahvin has replied

Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 239 of 304 (503482)
03-19-2009 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 11:44 AM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
Straggler writes:
So we have established that it is an objectively evidenced fact that humans are capable of inventing god concepts that are false.
Sure, for some god concepts but not all of them.
Straggler writes:
What objective evidence exists to support the claim that any god concepts are actually true?
None.
Hmmmm. Let's summarise the conversation so far (shall we stick to one thread rather than spread the responses across both?)
We both agree that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced.
We both agree that the possibility that gods are actually true is objectively unevidenced.
We both agree that the subjective "evidence" which you find so utterly convincing is also utterly unreliable as a means of distinguishing between objective truth and falsehood.
Given the above......
On the basis of the objective evidence available I conclude that any god concept is more likely to be the false product of human invention than it is to actually be real.
On the basis of the objective evidence avilable I conclude that the likelihood of someone correctly conceiving a specific objective truth on the basis of no objective evidence is comparable to a random guess plucked from amongst the near infine number of unevidenced possibilities that could conceivably exist.
On the basis of the objective evidence alone how can anyone conclude that the agnostic maybe, maybe not, 50-50, no opinion either way conclusion with regard to an unevidenced conclusion made by a species with a proven penchant for invention actually being true is justified?
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 11:44 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 2:36 PM Straggler has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 240 of 304 (503493)
03-19-2009 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 239 by Straggler
03-19-2009 1:13 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
We both agree that the possibility that gods are human inventions is objectively evidenced.
No.
Only some gods have been objectively evidenced to be human inventions. We can't possibly know if the Deists' god is or is not.
This means that we have not objectively evidenced the possibility that (all) gods are human inventions.
We both agree that the subjective "evidence" which you find so utterly convincing is also utterly unreliable as a means of distinguishing between objective truth and falsehood.
Did I agree to that? I don't think its utterly unreliable as a means of distinguishing between objective truth and falsehood. I was saying its unreliable in the sense that you can't rely on it to be there every time like you can for objective evidence.
On the basis of the objective evidence available I conclude that any god concept is more likely to be the false product of human invention than it is to actually be real.
Non sequitor.
The objective evidence available doesn't suggest the possibilty of the Desits' god being a product of human invention or not.
On the basis of the objective evidence alone how can anyone conclude that the agnostic maybe, maybe not, 50-50, no opinion either way conclusion with regard to an unevidenced conclusion made by a species with a proven penchant for invention actually being true is justified?
Because on the basis of the objective evidence alone, we don't have any suggestion either way.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 239 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 1:13 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 243 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 7:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024