Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,818 Year: 3,075/9,624 Month: 920/1,588 Week: 103/223 Day: 1/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why "Immaterial Pink Unicorns" are not a logical argument
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 241 of 304 (503494)
03-19-2009 2:54 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by Rahvin
03-19-2009 12:38 PM


Re: What is reasonable?
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?
My own god concept is not the invention of the human imagination. I think this because I have the concept, and I did not imagine it.
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?
Because we can't test every concept and my own concept was not imagined so maybe some others are not too.
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?
Yes, my subjective experiences tell me that god does exist.
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?
This discussion is limited to non-specific concepts of god. If we were talking about any specific god then my position would be different.
Is it not reasonable to conclude that it is highly unlikely at best that any such supernatural entity exists?
I think its a bit of a stretch, and I wouldn't call it unreasonable, but I don't really know how reasonable I think it is. I'm not so sure you can stretch the logic to any supernatural entity.
I think that e) is the most rational and reasonable choice.
Me too. And that is an agnostic position.
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.
You may think you have ample reason for those beliefs, but I don't think those are objectively verified facts.
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?
I don't disagree with how you got there, but I maintain that if you are limiting yourself to the objectively verifiable facts, you would stay within agnosticism and that to get to atheism, you have to use things that are not objectively verified facts.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by Rahvin, posted 03-19-2009 12:38 PM Rahvin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by Rahvin, posted 03-19-2009 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


Message 242 of 304 (503497)
03-19-2009 3:33 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 2:54 PM


Re: What is reasonable?
quote:
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?
My own god concept is not the invention of the human imagination. I think this because I have the concept, and I did not imagine it.
You may not have been the original source of your particular "god concept." But what reason do you have to have confidence that your particular "god concept" is not the product of human imagination? Are you simply trusting the opinions of others who have similar "god concepts," but who are similarly unable to support such a concept with anything objective? T
quote:
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?
Because we can't test every concept and my own concept was not imagined so maybe some others are not too.
You haven't established that your own "god concept" is not imagined; you've simply asserted that this is so by saying that you didn't make it up yourself. That has nothing to do with whether or not the ceoncept is the product of human imagination. I didn't imagine the Immaterial Pink Unicorn, or leprechauns, or Zeus, and they are all still the product of human imagination. Your "god concept" is objectively no different from any others.
Contrary to your reasoning, it would seem more reasonable to conclude that since those "god concepts" we have been able to test have proven to all be the product of human imagination, it is highly likely that the other "god concepts" are also the product of human imagination. Including yours, even if your personal imagination was not the original source.
quote:
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?
Yes, my subjective experiences tell me that god does exist.
I've had such experiences. Others have had subjective experiences that led them to believe in leprechauns. Subjective experiences are notoriously unreliable when it comes to objective reality; as Straggler has said, they're functionally no better than a random guess chosen from the infinite number of conceivable assertions.
For what reason do you believe your subjective experience supports your "god concept" as opposed to false pattern recognition, social pressure, wishful thinking, self-delusion, or any of the other reasons human beings come to false conclusions? What about your personal subjective experience gives you a reason to have confidence that it has any relevance to objective reality?
quote:
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?
This discussion is limited to non-specific concepts of god. If we were talking about any specific god then my position would be different.
We have to have some attributes assigned to "god;" otherwise, how do we differentiate "god" from a toaster oven? It would seem that you're retreating your "god concept" even farther, until it's not even a "god concept" at all but rather an undefined "something concept" that could just as easily be a mouse, or a car, or a leprechaun.
How can one even have a discussion about a concept that isn't even defined in terms that differentiate the concept being discussed from all other conceivable concepts?
I'm going to repeat this bit, since you didn't respond to it:
quote:
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?
quote:
Is it not reasonable to conclude that it is highly unlikely at best that any such supernatural entity exists?
I think its a bit of a stretch, and I wouldn't call it unreasonable, but I don't really know how reasonable I think it is. I'm not so sure you can stretch the logic to any supernatural entity.
Does that not suggest that "supernatural entities" in and of themselves are illogical assertions?
quote:
I think that e) is the most rational and reasonable choice.
Me too. And that is an agnostic position.
By whose definition? I choose e), and yet consider myself to be an Atheist becasue I have no confidence in the existence of any deity, and I consider the likelihood of their existence to be so close to zero that it's on the same level as leprechauns, the Matrix, and the Immaterial Pink Unicorn.
Does the fact that I hold all of my positions to be tentative pending new information (with the degree of tentativity corresponding to available evidence) make me agnostic? I don't think those agnostics who say "I don't know, and we cannot know" would count me amongst their ranks.
quote:
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.
You may think you have ample reason for those beliefs, but I don't think those are objectively verified facts.
You don't think that it is objectively factual that human beings recognise false patterns, maintain beliefs based on wishful thinking, have overactive imaginations, sucumb to social pressure, hallucinate, or otherwise draw false conclusions based on subjective experiences?
Really?
quote:
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?
I don't disagree with how you got there, but I maintain that if you are limiting yourself to the objectively verifiable facts, you would stay within agnosticism and that to get to atheism, you have to use things that are not objectively verified facts.
I have arrived at Atheism - I do not believe any deities exist, and I count them with every other conceived figment of the human imagination. What reasons have I used that are not objective facts?
We know that human beings recognize false patterns, hallucinate, maintain beliefs due to wishful thinking or social pressure, have overactive imaginations, and otherwise draw false conclusions based on subjective experiences. Children believe in Santa Claus. Drug-induced hallucinations are sometimes called religious experiences. We see patterns that don't exist all the time - all of these things are the reason we developed the scientific method for the analysis and description of objective reality in the first place.
We know that human beings have created deities and other supernatural entities from their own imaginations in the past, like Zeus or Thor. In fact, in every instance where we've been able to make a determination based on objective fact, deities and other supernatural concepts have always proven to have no connection to objective reality, but have rather been the product of human imagination. That many people believed these figments of the imagination to be objectively true (and did not make up the entities themselves) had absolutely no relevance to the actual objective existence or nonexistence of the entities they believed in.
How can one not determine that the only reasonable conclusion is that all other asserted supernatural entities are also most likely the figments of human imagination, and do not likely exist in objective reality?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 2:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

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


(1)
Message 243 of 304 (503521)
03-19-2009 7:33 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by New Cat's Eye
03-19-2009 2:36 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
Straggler writes:
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.
CS writes:
Yes, its a fact that humans are able to invent false concepts.
CS writes:
Sure, specific descriptions of gods can be demonstrated to be false.
So you agree that we have objective demonstrable evidence of the fact that humans create false god concepts.
But you deny that the possibility that deistic god concepts are false human inventions is evidenced.
This is inherently contradictory.
Straggler writes:
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.
Straggler writes:
Would we use subjective evidence and faith to determine whether or not the Higgs boson actually exists? No? Why not if this is a valid form of evidence?
Would we use subjective evidence and faith to determine the spread of the Cosmic Microwave Background radiation across the universe? No? Why not if this is a valid form of evidence?
Because the determination is unreliable and future scientific descoveries would be riding on it. Its very important and it matters.
Ahem. So can we make reliable and objectively verifiable conclusions on the basis of subjective "evidence" alone? Or not?
Your previous comment would suggest that you believe not.
Straggler writes:
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.
Yes it does.
Straggler writes:
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.
Wrong.
CS writes:
Yes, its a fact that humans are able to invent false concepts.
CS writes:
Sure, specific descriptions of gods can be demonstrated to be false.
By your own admission it is an objectively evidenced fact that gods are quite possibly the product of human invention.
There is no objective evidence to suggest that gods are anything other than the product of human invention.
To deny this is to contradict yourself.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-19-2009 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 8:20 PM Straggler has replied

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


Message 244 of 304 (503526)
03-19-2009 8:20 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Straggler
03-19-2009 7:33 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
By your own admission it is an objectively evidenced fact that gods are quite possibly the product of human invention.
There is no objective evidence to suggest that gods are anything other than the product of human invention.
Some does not equal all and never will.
What you are confusing is the various verbalizations of a concept being made up, while the reason for the concept remains.
{added}In eliminating conceptualizations that are contradicted by objective evidence, the process is similar to what is done with theory. Here we have untestable, unfalsifiable hypothesis, but can still have specific concepts invalidated. The reason for the hypothesis remains, so the hypothesis is amended to fit the new evidence. (/added)
That reason is not made up no matter how much you try to force the issue.
This gets back to world view issues, as within your own world view all your experiences are -- for you -- objective reality: you have experienced them.
To deny this is to contradict yourself.
To deny your own experience is to contradict yourself.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : add
Edited by RAZD, : added

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 243 by Straggler, posted 03-19-2009 7:33 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by mark24, posted 03-20-2009 6:19 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 246 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 7:56 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 247 by Straggler, posted 03-20-2009 11:02 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 245 of 304 (503550)
03-20-2009 6:19 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
03-19-2009 8:20 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
RAZD,
Some does not equal all and never will
I'm becoming suspicious that you are deliberately missing the point.
You are unable to tell the difference between human constructs that have no supporting evidence, & real things that have no supporting evidence, please don't weasel word me on this, I know some make claims abouth what their god is & isn't, it's immaterial, there is no evidence that any gods exist. As such you are unable to tell which ones are real & which ones aren't, it doesn't matter that "some does not equal all". That isn't & never was the point. What matters is that you can't support any of them evidentially & yet you accept one.
If you have a "god" with no evidence, & another "god" with no evidence, reject one & accept the other, then you are special pleading, intellectually hypocritical, inconsistent & illogical. It is inescapeable. This clearly is the context that straggler is posting in, & your reply sniffs of evasion.
This gets back to world view issues, as within your own world view all your experiences are -- for you -- objective reality
And what experience leads you to conclude a god exists?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 8:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 246 of 304 (503559)
03-20-2009 7:56 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
03-19-2009 8:20 PM


Re: Demonstrably False God Concepts
RAZD writes:
To deny your own experience is to contradict yourself.
Interpretation of experience gathered through imperfect human perception and interpretation is subjective and vulnerable to a host of internal biases, and to acknowledge that is only to acknowledge reality, not to contradict oneself. It is only as a shared interpretation develops that objectivity emerges.
Objectivity also requires reliably establishing that all are interpreting the same phenomenon, something not possible with internal spiritual experience.
So while you can claim shared interpretation as support for your spiritual beliefs, so can literally billions of others for different spiritual beliefs, completely invalidating all such claims. And the inability to establish that common spiritual beliefs are actually about the same phenomenon completely removes the possibility of any objectivity.
While it is extremely common throughout the world and throughout all time, there seems no spiritual necessity for people to seek an objective foundation for their spiritual beliefs. It is instead out of worldly necessity that some try to convince others that their spiritual beliefs are the only ones in the world that are right.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 8:20 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 11:06 PM Percy has replied

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


(1)
Message 247 of 304 (503591)
03-20-2009 11:02 AM
Reply to: Message 244 by RAZD
03-19-2009 8:20 PM


Agnosticism
Some does not equal all and never will.
But some is more than none. Thus the two possibilities are not equally evidenced.
Anyone who thinks that agnosticism is the logical conclusion based on the objective evidence available needs to think again.
To believe in the actuality of that for which there is no evidential reason to even think possible flies in the face of the evidence available.
THE EVIDENCE
It is an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are quite possibly the product of human invention.
It is not an objectively evidenced fact that god concepts are the possible product of the actual existence of any gods.
Every single god concept ever presented that can be refuted by means of objective evidence has been refuted.
The only god concepts that anyone here is advocating are so pointlessly ambiguous and undefined that it would be difficult to conceive of something more immune to direct refutation even if one intentionally set out to do so.
THE QUESTION
Is any particular god concept the product of human invention or is it objectively real?
How can anyone basing their answer on objective evidence alone seriously claim that the answer to this question must be I don’t know. It is 50-50 either way. How can the possibilities on offer be equal when there is evidence only to suggest that one of these possibilities is evidentially valid?
On the basis of objective evidence alone the answer has to be directed towards the side of the equation that represents human invention. The only side of the equation that has any objective evidence in it's favour at all.
The non-belief side of the equation. The atheist side of the equation.
Why is the god side of the equation even considered a possibility in objective evidential terms?
On the basis of objective evidence alone the only question that should remain is to ask what degree of disbelief is justified.
THE EXCEPTION
If you have had subjective personal experiences that you consider to be both reliable and convincing enough to override the inevitable conclusion of non-belief that objective evidence alone suggests then fair enough. Nobody is telling you what you should or should not believe.
But please don’t tell me that I should merit your subjective personal experiences of god with any more objective validity than you would accept that my subjectively derived favourite colour is evidence of any one colour being objectively superior to any other.
Please also do not tell me that I should be agnostic because you choose to ignore the only objective evidence available to you in order to maintain some sort of irrational facade that your religious beliefs in no way contradict anything that the objective evidence suggests.
If you’re subjective experience is so damn convincing why do you even care if it contradicts the conclusion that the objective evidence suggests?
To deny your own experience is to contradict yourself.
I am not denying anybody elses experiences. That is the point you keep missing.
I am denying that wholly subjective personal experience equates to anything that could meaningfully be called "evidence" with regard to objective reality.
You seem to intensely dislike this conclusion because you seem intent on justifying your beliefs in terms of evidence. You are also unable to accept that your beliefs in any way contradict anything that objective evidence might even suggest.
Only you can know why you find these conclusions so disturbing.
What you are confusing is the various verbalizations of a concept being made up, while the reason for the concept remains.
That reason is not made up no matter how much you try to force the issue.
Really?
What attributes does this "reason" have?
Be specific.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by RAZD, posted 03-19-2009 8:20 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 248 of 304 (504259)
03-25-2009 11:06 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by Percy
03-20-2009 7:56 AM


Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
Thanks Percy
It is only as a shared interpretation develops that objectivity emerges.
Agreed.
Objectivity also requires reliably establishing that all are interpreting the same phenomenon, something not possible with internal spiritual experience.
So while you can claim shared interpretation as support for your spiritual beliefs, so can literally billions of others for different spiritual beliefs, completely invalidating all such claims. And the inability to establish that common spiritual beliefs are actually about the same phenomenon completely removes the possibility of any objectivity.
Or an experience involving UFO alien visitations.
Agreed, the interpretatons are subject to scepticism, but different interpretations do not necessarily invalidate each other. The blind men and the elephant issue. All interpretations could very well be due more to a limitation in understanding than in ability to explain the experience. The lack of commonality of interpretation keeps this from becoming objective, per your earlier statement.
There is also a common element of having the experience, rather than the interpretations of the experience, which are biased by cultural and educational factors and subjective bias. This does not mean that any one explanation is necessarily valid, just that the possibility of actual experience is a valid hypothesis. Thus the experience can be commonly shared while the interpretations are not.
That small difference is sufficient for me to see a clear distinction between such experience based beliefs and concepts like the IPU which are not based on experience, but are a constructed straw man used in argument\debate to represent concepts without evidence.
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 246 by Percy, posted 03-20-2009 7:56 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Straggler, posted 03-26-2009 3:43 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 250 by Percy, posted 03-26-2009 8:36 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 251 by mark24, posted 03-26-2009 10:23 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 249 of 304 (504268)
03-26-2009 3:43 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
03-25-2009 11:06 PM


The IPU Is A Logical Argument
Agreed, the interpretatons are subject to scepticism, but different interpretations do not necessarily invalidate each other. The blind men and the elephant issue. All interpretations could very well be due more to a limitation in understanding than in ability to explain the experience. The lack of commonality of interpretation keeps this from becoming objective, per your earlier statement.
If the interpretations are different then on what basis do you have the right to conclude that the thing being interpreted is actually the same?
Why are you privy to the elephant while those experiencing it directly are not? This would seem to be an assumption made by you on the basis of your desire to validate your own conclusions regarding unevidenced entities.
There is also a common element of having the experience, rather than the interpretations of the experience, which are biased by cultural and educational factors and subjective bias. This does not mean that any one explanation is necessarily valid, just that the possibility of actual experience is a valid hypothesis. Thus the experience can be commonly shared while the interpretations are not.
The common experience of exposure to mass media and wider culture is probably the most relevant. How many detailed accounts of alien abduction follow the reporting of a single instance of such a claim? Is this evidence of commonality of alien experience or commonality of cultural experience?
It only takes one spark of creativity to unleash the forest fire that you are asking us to accept as evidence in favour of the shared experience of alien visitation.
That small difference is sufficient for me to see a clear distinction between such experience based beliefs and concepts like the IPU which are not based on experience, but are a constructed straw man used in argument\debate to represent concepts without evidence.
And this leads you to ascribe validity to a form of evidence, "subjective evidence", that tells us that Scarab the Egyptian godly dung beetle that carries the Sun across the sky each day is a viable concept worthy of consideration and respect whilst the Immaterial Pink Unicorn is a self evident absurdity.
The only difference is the motive for creation. Unless you are going to deny that people have the motive to create god concepts the inevitable conclusion to be made from the objective evidence available is that all unevidenced god concepts are the result of human invention and that only the motives for creation differ. In the case of genuinely believed god concepts we have hamanity's desire to answer questions that they cannot otherwise answer. In the case of the IPU we have the atheists desire to show the inherent absurdity of believing in unevidenced god concepts.
Desire for explanation and meaning is the driving force behind most god concepts and a very very powerful force it is too. That is what is common to humanity as a whole and that, I would argue, is what leads to the commonality of experience that you take as evidence in favour of god concepts being actually true.
That small difference is sufficient for me to see a clear distinction between such experience based beliefs and concepts like the IPU which are not based on experience, but are a constructed straw man used in argument\debate to represent concepts without evidence.
ANSWERING THE OP
So is the IPU a logical argument? That was the question originally posed by YOU. You then attempted to show that the comparison of the IPU with deities was the result of some sort of logical fallacy. You failed to demonstrate this. However it has since been demonstrated that your own position, the position that the IPU and deities are not comparable entities in evidential terms, is itself based on the logical fallacy of special pleading.
THE PREMISE OF YOUR OP HAS BEEN REFUTED AND YOUR OWN POSITION HAS BEEN SHOWN TO BE THE RESULT OF A LOGICAL FALLACY.
The original grouping of the IPU and the possibility of alien life was defined by the terms of the OP that YOU wrote. The terms of objective evidence alone.
ANY possibility, no matter how practically improbable, derived from objective evidence is NON-equivalent to the IPU.
ANY possibility which is NOT derived from ANY objective evidence IS equivalent to the IPU.
You have since agreed that both the possibility of alien life and the tangential possibility of alien visitation are in fact NOT equivalent to the IPU in objective evidential terms.
However the concept of deities, the concept which the IPU was specifically designed to be equivalent to in objective evidential terms, REMAINS objectively evidentially equivalent to the IPU.
To Separate the IPU from any other concept by means of anything other than evidential terms, the evidential terms originally specified by YOU in your OP, would be to commit the logical fallacy of special pleading.
The IPU IS indisputably a logical argument when discussing evidence and the belief or non-belief in wholly un-evidenced entities. Notions of subjective evidence or absurdity or whatever else are just examples of special pleading.
Until you are able to accept and acknowledge this fact there is little point in continuing this discussion any further.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 11:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 250 of 304 (504276)
03-26-2009 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
03-25-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
What you appear to prefer to do is not ask the question "Is this objective?" but rather "Is this a valid hypothesis?" and to answer "yes".
Scientifically it's only a valid hypothesis if you can answer affirmatively to the question "Is this objective?" But you can't claim objectivity for a subjective hypothesis, and the inability of religious belief to converge upon a common interpretation even after thousands of years makes the subjectivity very clear.
The IPU is a hypothetical. It's a stand-in for religious beliefs that you reject as clearly false, and it's extremely useful, necessary even, because it removes the difficulty of identifying a real set of religious beliefs that everyone in a discussion rejects. The IPU's only purpose is to help move the discussion forward by playing the role of the "clearly false religion". It's not supposed to be a real religion with real adherents. It's a hypothetical religion with hypothetical adherents that serves as an aid to discussion.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 11:06 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 252 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2009 6:22 PM Percy has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 251 of 304 (504282)
03-26-2009 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 248 by RAZD
03-25-2009 11:06 PM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD,
That small difference is sufficient for me to see a clear distinction between such experience based beliefs and concepts like the IPU which are not based on experience, but are a constructed straw man used in argument\debate to represent concepts without evidence.
The IPU is an hypothetical construct designed to hold up against another hypothesis that lacks even a minimum standard of acceptable evidence in order to show how ridiculous it is to accept one and not the other. In this it succeeds, it isn't a strawman. As far as a deistic god is concerned, an unshared "experience" isn't good enough to come to a positive conclusion.
I have asked this before but not got a response, what is the experience that leads you to conclude a creator exists?
Mark
Edited by mark24, : No reason given.

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by RAZD, posted 03-25-2009 11:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 252 of 304 (504307)
03-26-2009 6:22 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by Percy
03-26-2009 8:36 AM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
Thanks Percy
Scientifically it's only a valid hypothesis if you can answer affirmatively to the question "Is this objective?"
Then you will be relieved to know that this is not what I am looking at doing, rather what I am looking for is methods that can be applied when science can no longer apply.
I still find contradiction by objective reality to be a test to invalidate concepts, but the question is what we can consider when we have no invalidation and no objective evidence.
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 250 by Percy, posted 03-26-2009 8:36 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by mark24, posted 03-27-2009 6:59 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied
 Message 254 by Percy, posted 03-27-2009 7:22 AM RAZD has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 253 of 304 (504330)
03-27-2009 6:59 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by RAZD
03-26-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD,
I have asked this before but not got a response, what is the experience that leads you to conclude a creator exists?
Mark

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2009 6:22 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22393
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 254 of 304 (504332)
03-27-2009 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 252 by RAZD
03-26-2009 6:22 PM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
RAZD writes:
Then you will be relieved to know that this is not what I am looking at doing, rather what I am looking for is methods that can be applied when science can no longer apply.
To others you appear to be arguing that subjective approaches can lead to objective knowledge. In this you are no different from the legions of people who think their religious beliefs actually find expression in the real world.
Your belief is very common, I'm sure many of us here have very similar beliefs. But a la Feynman we must recognize that the easiest person to fool is ourself, and that just because the way we happen to be made has in our minds set the "this is true" indicator for some cockamamie beliefs doesn't mean we're going to give them any credence. Discipline requires that we subject all hypotheses to rigorous objective analysis.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 252 by RAZD, posted 03-26-2009 6:22 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by RAZD, posted 03-27-2009 8:22 AM Percy has replied

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


Message 255 of 304 (504335)
03-27-2009 8:22 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by Percy
03-27-2009 7:22 AM


Re: Commonality of experience does not mean commonality of explanation results
To others you appear to be arguing that subjective approaches can lead to objective knowledge.
No, not to objective knowledge, rather philosophy and tentative logical concepts
Discipline requires that we subject all hypotheses to rigorous objective analysis.
Which still applies to concepts derived from subjective evidence, so we can discard the irrelevant ones, like astrology.
Look at the Perceptions of Reality thread:
quote:
Let me open up the discussion a bit by first proposing the whole playing field of human knowledge and perceptions of reality, in very general terms, using these definitions from Dictionary.com:
science (click)

1.a. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
.. b. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
.. c. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.
philosophy (click)
1. Love and pursuit of wisdom by intellectual means and moral self-discipline.
2. Investigation of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning rather than empirical methods.
3. A system of thought based on or involving such inquiry: the philosophy of Hume.
4. The critical analysis of fundamental assumptions or beliefs.
5. The disciplines presented in university curriculums of science and the liberal arts, except medicine, law, and theology.
6. The discipline comprising logic, ethics, aesthetics, metaphysics, and epistemology.
faith (click)
1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.
If I were to draw a picture of this it would be something like this:
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).
There is nothing within science that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} philosophy or other, and there is nothing within philosophy that is not also {included\accepted} in {some} faith or other.
However, not all of this knowledge is true to reality.
There are many religions that are exclusive of other religions, so logically they cannot all be true as conceived (although it is possible they could all be close to the reality, just in different ways).
Philosophy based on logic is true if the precepts are true, but how do we know if the precepts are true? There are some philosophies that contradict or oppose other philosophies.
We also know that science has a tendency of finding new evidence that invalidates previous theories and shows new theories and understandings to be more valid, but because we cannot prove a theory in science we cannot know that we know.
So how can we judge the validity of perceptions of reality?
We can test concepts against objective reality to see if they are contradicted, but are there any other tests of the validity of concepts that we can use?
Logically, if invalidation is the only test of reality, then concepts that are not invalidated are possible reflections of reality.
Where concepts are (seemingly) contradictory, yet neither is contradicted, we can investigate for logical consistency of the concept/s and common aspects.
But a la Feynman we must recognize that the easiest person to fool is ourself, and that just because the way we happen to be made has in our minds set the "this is true" indicator for some cockamamie beliefs doesn't mean we're going to give them any credence.
Correct, people judge the credibility of concepts based on their personal world view first. The typical fundamentalist mind-set seems to stop at that point - confirmation bias acceptance of congruent concepts and cognitive dissonance rejection of incongruent concepts - while open-minded skepticism investigates further.
This process is more apparent in dealing with subjective evidence than when dealing with objective evidence.
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 254 by Percy, posted 03-27-2009 7:22 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by Percy, posted 03-27-2009 10:24 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 257 by mark24, posted 03-27-2009 10:39 AM RAZD has seen this message but 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