Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Pseudoskepticism and logic
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2476 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 496 of 562 (528671)
10-06-2009 4:10 PM
Reply to: Message 478 by RAZD
10-05-2009 10:08 PM


Any evidence against the proposition "gods are unlikely"?
Hello there, RAZD,
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
I asked you where you were on the Dawkins scale on omphalism, and you replied "4", which is defined as 50/50 on that scale.
Thanks for making my point that the inclusion of pseudoprobabilities by Dawkins makes people focus on the numbers and not the words. Notice that you have completely ignored the words.
Nope. I understand the word "equiprobable" very well.
Dawkins' scale: "4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' "
RAZD writes:
The important part of the definition of "4" for me is "Completely impartial agnostic" as that matches what Truzzi says in the OP
Truzzi defines the "true skeptic" as one who " takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." Atheism of the "6" variety on the Dawkins scale does not claim that the god hypothesis is disproved, neither does atheism claim to explain the ultimate origins of the universe and everything.
RAZD writes:
Now, unless you can actually demonstrate that there is some valid objective method to calculate the actual probabilities of these different positions - nobody else has - then you should agree that calling them "probabilities" is really meaningless subjective personal opinion rather than objective measurements. Capiche?
Certainly. We make rough probability assessments both in science and in day to day life. You do it all the time. If someone here on EvC tells you that they have special psychic powers, and that these powers have led them to know that there is an invisible killer bogeyman in your bedroom who will be there for a week and will try to kill you while you're asleep, would you move out of your bedroom for a week? You cannot know whether the proposition is true or not (you're agnostic on it if you admit this), but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, and sleep in your room as normal.
You will have made this decision due to absence of evidence that the EvC member has psychic powers, and absence of evidence for the existence of killer bogeymen.
The killer bogeyman hypothesis is a zero evidence proposition, and if we are to be consistent, we should assign it a "6" as with all other zero evidence propositions in unknowable areas, like "god created the universe, for example". "6"
Dawkins scale: 6.00: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
Substitute abogeymanist for atheist, and bogeyman for god.
In science, an example of making a probability estimate would be on the question of whether or not there were other planets in the universe outside our solar system before the first wobble on a star was detected. Cosmologists would have probably considered them highly probable once they had started to understand star formation, and knew that there were other stars like our sun. Even before that, the fact that there are 8/9 in this solar system would have led most observers to think them more likely than not.
RAZD writes:
So on your question of omphalism:
Claim: omphalism is true. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
Claim: omphalism is false. "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
The only logical position is impartial agnostic ... unless you have evidence.
No. As with the bogeyman in your bedroom, the logical position is atheist/agnostic "6" towards any omphalistic god, because you cannot know, but it's a zero-evidence proposition.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
The skeptic takes the "6" position on proposition "x" because "x" is not supported with evidence.
No, the true skeptic takes the agnostic position because neither "X" NOR "notX" are supported with evidence.
"6" is agnostic.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Omphalism is a specific proposition. I'm a "6". Why would that make me a pseudo-skeptic?
Taking a position is not what makes you a pseudoskeptic, what makes you a pseudoskeptic is making a claim without supporting it with evidence.
So IF you are truly a "6" (strong atheist) on omphalism, then where is your objective verifiable evidence that demonstrates that it actually IS "highly unlikely"?
"6" on the Dawkins scale is not a "strong atheist". Check the phrasing of "6". It actually says "I think God is very improbable". But never mind. It is complete absence of positive evidence for gods that supports my view, along with the known human tendency to make up such things. Same as with the bogeyman, dragons, etc. Lack of evidence leads to lack of belief (what atheism is) and it is theists who make a special exception for the god hypothesis. To gain consistency, theists should be constantly vigilant about killer bogeymen.
RAZD writes:
What is your test for discontinuity between the actual and the god-did-it part of reality? What are your results?
Such a test is the kind of thing which could shift god from being a "6" proposition to a five or above. The onus is on those who believe in any of the very many "true gods" to support their position. The atheist position is not just that god hypotheses are not "proven" (Truzzi's word) but that they are completely unsupported by evidence.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
Yet you are calling people who choose a "6" in relation to evidenceless propositions "pseudo-skeptics". "6" involves the "very/extremely unlikely" probability estimate, just as "3" involves the "more likely than not" estimate.
I am saying that anyone who claims that their conclusion is more rational than the agnostic position needs to show why they think that.
The "6" position is agnostic. Agnostic is the position that one cannot know something. We could not know that there were planets outside the solar system until they were detected, but we could be reasonably sure. We cannot know that bogeymen don't exist, but we can be reasonably sure that they're human inventions.
RAZD writes:
Do we now move to ad hominem attacks on Truzzi when you can't find evidence to support your claim?
I suggested before that if you wanted to make accusations of ad hominem attacks that you should support them with quotes. There isn't one in my post. I now suggest that you should find out what ad hominen means. The suggestion that someone making an ad hom means that they can't support their position is an ad hom.
RAZD writes:
bluegenes writes:
All Truzzi is really expressing is the age old idea of suspending judgement during investigations.
Including the judgment that god/s are "highly unlikely" ...
Thanks for demonstrating the fact that you are not suspending judment during the investigation, but are actively making a claim ...
Why aren't you being agnostic as to my position when I started my investigation? You cannot know what it was. The conclusion is that there's zero evidence in support of the god hypothesis, and overwhelming evidence of a human tendency to invent supernatural things.
... so: got evidence?
Yes. See above. And why aren't you a "complete agnostic" on the proposition "gods are highly unlikely"? Got evidence against it?
On Omphalism. Biblical Omphalists are a sub-division of Young Earth Creationists. Omphalism is one of the YEC models. You describe YECs as delusional and irrational here:
http://razd.evcforum.net/Age_Dating.htm
RAZD writes:
The bottom line is that the earth is old, way older than any young earth creation (YEC) model can explain. These methods also invalidate the concept of a world wide flood (WWF) occurring in the same time frame, as this would disrupt the annual layers in a noticeable way. Furthermore, this list is by no means comprehensive or complete, the items were selected to build on each other and to show the diversity, validity and accuracy of information available and the number of different disciplines involved.
Denial of contradictory evidence is not confronting the evidence, nor is it faith, it is delusion:
delusion -noun
1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.
The bottom line is that the evidence of an old earth is as overwhelming as the data that the earth is an oblate spheroid that orbits the sun. In fact one could say that the evidence for an old earth is more accessible and easier to comprehend than the evidence that invalidates the geocentric model of the universe.
Thus any "Young Earth Creationist" (YEC) that persists in their belief - in spite of all the evidence to the contrary - is no more rational than any "geocentrist" holding on to their mistaken belief.
Once the irrational belief in a young earth is cleared away, rational people can go further and see that the probable age of the earth is much much older than a few thousand years. Certainly scientists (and people who do not have problems with the results of science) agree that the accumulation of evidence available shows that life on earth is at least 3.5 billion years old and that the earth itself is at least 4.55 billion years old.
I think you need to revise this with your new found view that there isn't enough evidence to make a decision either way on omphalism, which is one of the "YEC models."
Enjoy!
Edited by bluegenes, : clarification

This message is a reply to:
 Message 478 by RAZD, posted 10-05-2009 10:08 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 510 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 8:54 PM bluegenes has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 497 of 562 (528680)
10-06-2009 4:31 PM
Reply to: Message 472 by Straggler
10-05-2009 6:36 PM


More misrepresentation -- a continuing consistent pattern
Hi Straggler,
It is simple denial of facts and evidence on your part.
And once again we have this amusing claim on your part, still without any example of the evidence for me to actually deny.
RAZD on deities writes:
"Unknowable, outside our universe, outside of our perception/s, or is off doing other things."
"Unknowable"? "Outside our universe"? "Doing other things"? Everytime I read this it cracks me up more.
And what is hysterical about it is that this is (1) part of your "logical" argument that god/s do not exist (argument from incredulity fallacy) and (2) is just another in a long line of misrepresentations of what I actually said. It's a quote mine, just like creationists use. Now that's funny.
It is essentially an example of The Ultimate God of The Ultimate Gap - Again. (Message 436)
Which is just another in a long line of logically false arguments, one that still fails to demonstrate that god/s in fact cannot exist. Once again, you fail to provide evidence to support your position.
It is simple denial of facts and evidence on your part.
So: got 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 472 by Straggler, posted 10-05-2009 6:36 PM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 498 of 562 (528687)
10-06-2009 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 481 by Rrhain
10-05-2009 10:53 PM


Other problems.
Hi Rrhain,
Huh? So is the Michelson-Morley experiment evidence of absence or not? Einstein dismissed the results as experimental error, but he was wrong. When you set up an experiment that should have a certain result of a certain cause is in place, how is failing to achieve that result not "evidence of absence"?
My impression was that Einstein said that it showed that there was no aether effect, but not that the aether did not exist.
Huh? You mean if I conduct an experiment where an expected result is not forthcoming, I don't actually have any justification to claim that the cause of that expected result failed to materialize?
Note, this doesn't mean my claim is perfect and without error. After all, examination of my experimental methodology may show that I have inadequately controlled various characteristics that might mask the results. But if there doesn't appear to be anything wrong with the process and the expected results don't turn up, how is that not evidence that the cause of the results wasn't there to cause it?
Another possibility is that your hypothesis of what should show up is in error.
For instance the Coelacanth: the absence of evidence for over 60 million years was not evidence of the absence of the Coelacanth from the living world, but evidence of people looking in the wrong place.
You mean if I conduct an experiment where an expected result is not forthcoming, I don't actually have any justification to claim that the cause of that expected result failed to materialize?
Yes, because your hypothesis for what should show up could be faulty. In science, when an experiment fails to produce an expected result the hypothesis is revised.
So what experiment did you conduct that was designed to show absolutely that god/s could not exist?
What's your 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 481 by Rrhain, posted 10-05-2009 10:53 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 531 by Rrhain, posted 10-08-2009 4:04 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 533 by Straggler, posted 10-08-2009 7:35 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 499 of 562 (528689)
10-06-2009 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 483 by xongsmith
10-05-2009 11:05 PM


Re: Back to the OP
High xongsmith
I have another issue. I think I want to move the goalposts.
I have just concluded that Rrhain's evidence does fit into my Box 3 (Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural).
Except that his hypothesis test could be faulty instead.
What Box 3 item can we think of that will not work with Deism?
While that may help some posters to focus on the kind of evidence they need to provide in order to claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" it doesn't change the fact that a negative claim still needs to be supported by 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 483 by xongsmith, posted 10-05-2009 11:05 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 5:34 PM RAZD has replied

onifre
Member (Idle past 2950 days)
Posts: 4854
From: Dark Side of the Moon
Joined: 02-20-2008


Message 500 of 562 (528708)
10-06-2009 5:31 PM
Reply to: Message 494 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 4:00 PM


I suppose it is, but it's not my problem - and anyway, the second you allow something like "God" into the argument, you have abandoned logical action. Let them wrangle with that.
Fair enough.
I didn't want to get to the details of that kind here, but rather set up the way we can formulate what to look for to support a Universe with NO supernatural things.
But how can anyone assume that "god" is in fact supernatural, if god is unknown, undetectable, etc.?
IOW, how do we know that we're supposed to look for supernatural things?
What kind of evidence would be Present that would rule out ALL possible supernatural events? Yikes.
First I'd have to ask, what is a "supernatural event"...?
Is something considered supernatural because humans can't explain it?
How do we know that god must be supernatural, if god concepts are merely the subjective speculation of humans?
If we value these subjective concepts of god, then any and all concepts put forth are equally good concepts. Why deny those concepts that make god natural for an even less evidenced supernatural concept?
Well, right away, it should be pretty obvious that no mere man can be a God.
By man I also include woman.
But why can't a mere mortal be god?
We don't know what god means (it could be anything), we lack a description and if we give value to subjective speculations and their ability to derive a plausable concept - then why can't that concept (given by someone who had a subjective experience) derive a natural, human being as their version of god?
What limits do the "god concepts" have when they are purely subjective?
My point is this, if any concept is possible, then anything can be conceptually called god...right? If anything can be conceptually called god, then the word "god" doesn't mean anything until someone ascribes it a concept that they believe in. So it becomes circular.
God exists as a possiblity because people give it a concept that they subjectively created in their minds.
Now what about a woman? Oh yeah. I've caught glimpses of many.
I've seen many that have subjectively made me believe in god!
- Oni

This message is a reply to:
 Message 494 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 4:00 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 6:11 PM onifre has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 501 of 562 (528710)
10-06-2009 5:34 PM
Reply to: Message 499 by RAZD
10-06-2009 4:46 PM


Re: Back to the OP
High xongsmith
I have another issue. I think I want to move the goalposts.
I have just concluded that Rrhain's evidence does fit into my Box 3 (Presence of Evidence for NO supernatural).
Except that his hypothesis test could be faulty instead.
No no no...nothing about the test he is running. It's about the body of evidence the scientific method has collected up to now regarding this universe. There is nothing in it that contradicts the claim that there are NO supernatural things whatsoever. All of the evidence gathered thus far supports the claim. The model works, as he is fond of putting it. It is also true that there is nothing in it that contradicts certain Deist positions. All of the evidence thus far also supports those claims. Every time an experiment is repeated around the scientific world, it supports both claims. The YEC people, along with probably most OEC people, however, have run into troubles a-plenty with their claims and the evidence gathered thus far - evidence that may be slightly reinterpreted with new evidence leading to a better understanding, but still, too far off their model to ever get back into it.
What Box 3 item can we think of that will not work with Deism?
While that may help some posters to focus on the kind of evidence they need to provide in order to claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" it doesn't change the fact that a negative claim still needs to be supported by evidence.
Enjoy.
So we have all the scientific evidence to date supporting the claim that there are NO supernatural things. Yes, I got evidence...but...
Since it also supports other claims, it is not as useful as it could be. The search continues....

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 4:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 6:46 PM xongsmith has replied

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


(1)
Message 502 of 562 (528711)
10-06-2009 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 493 by RAZD
10-06-2009 3:16 PM


Denial II - The Revenge of The Deist
What objective evidence do you have that god/s do not exist.
What do you want? A refutation of every individual irrefutable god concept? A logical proof that gods could not possibly exist? What will satisfy you RAZ? You are blatantly unable to meet your own criteria with regard to demonstrating that you are not a pseudoskeptic towards immaterial toilet goblins. So on what basis do you claim that your silly and self defeating criteria are even remotely valid?
None of the arguments advanced so far have demonstrated that god/s could not be involved.
And so you miss the entire point. Yet again. No evidence has been presented to disprove that religious experiences are the result of telepathic dolphins or cosmic rays affecting the human brain either. Yet you don't seem to consider yourself a pseudskeptic with regard to these possibilities. Why? Is it "world view"? Is it "confirmation bias"? Is it "cognitive dissonance"? Or is it a conclusion borne from the objective evidence available? The exact same objective evidence that suggests that god answers are also human inventions.
So what evidence am I in denial of?
You are in denial of the objective evidence that favours human invention over the actual existence of gods. You are in denial of the ever diminishing role of the god of the gaps. You are in denial over the full range of possibilities that could be presented as unevidenced explanations for religious experiences. You are in denial of the circularity of citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief. You are in denial every single time you cite "absence of evidence" because no claim operates in a total vacuum of all objective evidence.
You are in denial.
Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 493 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 3:16 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 505 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 6:30 PM Straggler has replied
 Message 506 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 6:31 PM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 503 of 562 (528722)
10-06-2009 6:06 PM
Reply to: Message 487 by Modulous
10-06-2009 7:34 AM


Re: Dawkins's scale - a needed clarification
Hi Modulus,
I assume you haven't read The God Delusion and you don't understand the scale or its application. I don't think Dawkins is to blame for you not having read his book and thus not understanding how to apply his scale or the justification for including probability statements at all.
No, I have not read this book, I find his personal opinion outside of biology to be rather irrelevant, and that he displays an anti-theist tendency that would qualify as pseudoskeptic. I see no reason to believe (or disbelieve) his personal opinions.
You have identified yourself as essentially a PAP - and you are defending the PAP position. The scale isn't intended to reflect PAP positions, but TAP positions. As Dawkins explains, the PAP's position is that one.
And you make this conclusion based on what? My initial positions on certain topics? My position on the Age of the Earth?
Curiously, what I am defending is the middle position on the "Dawkins scale" - and that of the "true skeptic" in the Truzzi quote in the OP.
And, like other scientific decisions it might be possible to assign a degree of likelihood to various hypotheses (It might be a toss up between disease and asteroids for certain extinction events (A "4", say) but I think we can all comfortably say it is incredibly unlikely time travelling Mormons created large prehistoric extinction events).
So where is your evidence that god/s are "highly unlikely"?
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 487 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 7:34 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by Modulous, posted 10-06-2009 8:36 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 504 of 562 (528723)
10-06-2009 6:11 PM
Reply to: Message 500 by onifre
10-06-2009 5:31 PM


First I'd have to ask, what is a "supernatural event"...?
Yeah. Fair question. This is just a word I'm using to cover all of the things people in this thread and elsewhere in this forum having been talking about. Rrhain calls them chocolate sprinkles. Straggler calls them "LindaLou's something". Certainly God & deities of a lessor nature, psychic experiences, paranormal things, things like that. I could have been flippant and said "whatever the scientific method cannot explain", but that is a definition by talking about what it is NOT. Sasquatch & Nessie are probably best left out, since their existence is posited in a way that the scientific method could explain and in a way that would not disprove the model. ETs too. Those things are in a different category for me. But it doesn't have to be for you. I want to leave that vague at this time.
There is a thread consensus developing, I think. On the whiteboards we used to diagram such things as "clouds". They will be filled in later, but we can go ahead and proceed to examine the diagrammed graph. There may be a lot of stuff we can do before we have to go back and fill in the clouds with real stuff.
By man I also include woman.
Sorry - just being flippant that time...couldn't resist.
I suppose in some other meta-universerve there might be some equivalent of Joe The Plumber, finishing of a 6-pack and peeing in a toilet some meta-where. The toilet bowl is frothing up with bubbles. Some of the bubbles are expanding, some popping, some just drifting around with the others. We might happen to be on one of those expanding bubbles and think we're in a Big Bang. You can almost imagine the meta-Joe hitching up and zipping his pants and reaching for the meta-lever right about...........now....
But anyway, it's a cloud, what difference would it make to the idea of the OP? The Presence of Evidence for a negative position. Not the Absence of Evidence for the positive position.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 500 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 5:31 PM onifre has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 519 by onifre, posted 10-06-2009 11:52 PM xongsmith has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 505 of 562 (528727)
10-06-2009 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Straggler
10-06-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Denial II - The Revenge of The Deist
Hi Straggler, still not understanding YOUR problem are you?
What do you want? A refutation of every individual irrefutable god concept? A logical proof that gods could not possibly exist? What will satisfy you RAZ? You are blatantly unable to meet your own criteria with regard to demonstrating that you are not a pseudoskeptic towards immaterial toilet goblins. So on what basis do you claim that your silly and self defeating criteria are even remotely valid?
The fact that you do not have such evidence is not my problem - I haven't made the unsupported claim.
What you need is evidence that supports your claim that god/s are "highly unlikely" - a claim that you have asserted is more rational than the agnostic position.
You need to provide evidence if you are NOT a pseudoskeptic.
And so you miss the entire point. Yet again. No evidence has been presented to disprove that religious experiences are the result of telepathic dolphins or cosmic rays affecting the human brain either. Yet you don't seem to consider yourself a pseudskeptic with regard to these possibilities. Why? Is it "world view"? Is it "confirmation bias"? Is it "cognitive dissonance"? Or is it a conclusion borne from the objective evidence available? The exact same objective evidence that suggests that god answers are also human inventions.
Sorry, the point is that you have made a negative claim and have not supported it.
You are in denial of the objective evidence that favours human invention over the actual existence of gods. You are in denial of the ever diminishing role of the god of the gaps. You are in denial over the full range of possibilities that could be presented as unevidenced explanations for religious experiences. You are in denial of the circularity of citing belief as evidence upon which to justify belief. You are in denial every single time you cite "absence of evidence" because no claim operates in a total vacuum of all objective evidence.
You are in denial.
None of which demonstrates that no god/s can exist, all of which reduces to logical fallacies of one kind or another:
  • people make things up, people have religious experiences, therefore religious experiences are made up, and
  • "the absence of evidence is evidence of absence" ...
  • pseudo-probabilities that are nothing more than made up opinions
  • etc
To be in denial you need to have presented more than your personal opinion supported by bad logic for me to deny: you need evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your claim is true. Without that evidence all I am in denial of, is the absolute absence of objective evidence that has been presented by all the atheists on this thread.
The fact that theists look at the religious experience as validation of their belief, while several atheists here use the same evidence for brain dysfunction but can't show that this applies across the board, makes it apparent that these conclusions are really opinions and not based on objective analysis. Opinion is not objective.
So if we throw out the religious experience as inconclusive, then the question comes down to other evidence. Do you have any OTHER argument?
You have not supported your claim with evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that your position is supported.
So: are you a pseudoskeptic or do you have evidence that supports your position?
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 502 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2009 5:38 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 521 by Straggler, posted 10-07-2009 8:53 AM RAZD has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 506 of 562 (528728)
10-06-2009 6:31 PM
Reply to: Message 502 by Straggler
10-06-2009 5:38 PM


Re: Denial II - The Revenge of The Deist
What objective evidence do you have that god/s do not exist.
What do you want? A refutation of every individual irrefutable god concept?
Showing that every god concept thus far, under careful scientific scrutiny, is made up is a Box 4 argument and off topic.
A logical proof that gods could not possibly exist? What will satisfy you RAZ?
Logical proof is not on topic. As on the bathroom wall:
Descartes: To be is to do!
Sartre: To do is to be!
Sinatra: Do be do be do!
This is not a Thought Experiment.
It's Physical Evidence, the Presence of it, for a Universe with NO supernatural things. That is the OP.
You and I are '6's. We have a tough challenge here. What fits in Box 3 that supports a '6' but not a '3'? Something Present. Not something of the other guy's position that's Absent.

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 502 by Straggler, posted 10-06-2009 5:38 PM Straggler has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 507 of 562 (528732)
10-06-2009 6:46 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by xongsmith
10-06-2009 5:34 PM


Re: Back to the OP
Hi xongsmith
No no no...nothing about the test he is running. It's about the body of evidence the scientific method has collected up to now regarding this universe. There is nothing in it that contradicts the claim that there are NO supernatural things whatsoever.
But that's only valid for showing that the claim has not been contradicted.
Truzzi: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
There is nothing in it that contradicts the claim that there are NO supernatural things whatsoever. All of the evidence gathered thus far supports the claim. The model works, as he is fond of putting it. It is also true that there is nothing in it that contradicts certain Deist positions.
And the Deist Model also works, while there has been no evidence that contradicts it, so once again:
Truzzi: "The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved."
The problem of pseudoskepticism is not that these positions exist and that they have not been falsified, but in the assertion that one or the other position is true or very likely true.
So we have all the scientific evidence to date supporting the claim that there are NO supernatural things. Yes, I got evidence...but...
Since it also supports other claims, it is not as useful as it could be. The search continues....
Which is the crux of the issue. The question is what you believe is the truth while making the search - does one take a pre-conception biased view while looking for evidence or does one remain agnostic until the evidence is available?
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 501 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 5:34 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by xongsmith, posted 10-06-2009 7:34 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 508 of 562 (528736)
10-06-2009 7:34 PM
Reply to: Message 507 by RAZD
10-06-2009 6:46 PM


Re: Back to the OP
The question is what you believe is the truth while making the search - does one take a pre-conception biased view while looking for evidence or does one remain agnostic until the evidence is available?
It's even worse than that. I'd be happy now to even have a pre-concepted biased view. That would at least be something. Take my alluvial fan example I was trying to verbalize to Onifre. All I can see are the grains of sands and minerals and clay and muck and crud from the river nicely spread out before me. What can I look for in there for Evidence that there is no dock of some fashion up around the bend of the river where I cannot see? Something to distinguish it from a branch of tree fallen into the river?

- xongsmith

This message is a reply to:
 Message 507 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 6:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(1)
Message 509 of 562 (528749)
10-06-2009 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 503 by RAZD
10-06-2009 6:06 PM


Re: Dawkins's scale - a needed clarification
You have identified yourself as essentially a PAP - and you are defending the PAP position. The scale isn't intended to reflect PAP positions, but TAP positions. As Dawkins explains, the PAP's position is that one.
And you make this conclusion based on what?
Your words. You claim to be saying that you are not talking about someone who is 50/50 as being a true skeptic. You seem to be more inclined towards someone who is a PAP (ie., you define god as unknowable therefore the rational position is Permanently Agnostic in Principle). A TAP might also reject the probabilities, of course. The entire purpose of the scale was about those that think it possible to assign relative probabilities to propositions - and they are all TAPs.
So where is your evidence that god/s are "highly unlikely"?
My evidence is that the god hypothesis is equally evidenced and unfalsified as any of a potentially infinitely large pile of other hypotheses and that there is no way to discriminate between any of them. It is therefore incredibly unlikely that guessing one (or using any method to pick for that matter) will strike it lucky.
You have seemingly conceded that there are large numbers of such hypotheses.
You have seemingly conceded that the god hypothesis is amongst them.
That is the evidence.
Unless there is some evidence to give any one of those hypotheses some preponderance...then I regard any one of them as equally unlikely. And as such I withhold the belief that they are true.
I predicted you would not find the argument compelling - otherwise you would already have agreed with it. I hope you are able, at least, to understand it.
Is there agreement on this proposition though? That all unevidenced unfalsified hypotheses should be treated equally, and that belief in any one of them should be withheld until sufficient evidence comes in?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 503 by RAZD, posted 10-06-2009 6:06 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 510 of 562 (528755)
10-06-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by bluegenes
10-06-2009 4:10 PM


Any evidence FOR the proposition "gods are unlikely"? ANY AT ALL?
Hi bluegenes, this is getting tiresome.
Dawkins' scale: "4.00: Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.' "
Ultimately your continued insistence on nit-picking a secondary argument is unproductive, off topic and irrelevant. The primary argument is from Truzzi and his definition of true skeptic. That this matches "Completely impartial agnostic" is all that is relevant to the thread.
Truzzi defines the "true skeptic" as one who " takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved." Atheism of the "6" variety on the Dawkins scale does not claim that the god hypothesis is disproved, neither does atheism claim to explain the ultimate origins of the universe and everything.
The problem is that you are still asserting that god/s are unlikely and that is a negative claim. On this claim the true skeptic would say "the claim is not proved rather than disproved" AND that if you claim a truth - that god/s are unlikely - you need to bear the burden of proof.
The "6" position is agnostic.
LOL
Over 500 posts on this thread and this is the best you can do? Special pleading anyone? Equivocation anyone?
This provides me with this humorous image:
Atheist: I'm an atheist, a "6" on Dawkins Skalea strong atheist, I believe that god/s are highly unlikely.
Skeptic: where's your evidence?
Atheist: I don't need to provide evidence because I'm an agnostic.
Skeptic: so you are not really an atheist?
Atheist: No I'm an atheist,
Skeptic: Why are you an atheist?
Atheist: because there is all kinds of evidence that shows that god/s are unlikely
Skeptic: where's your evidence?
Atheist: I don't need to provide evidence because I'm an agnostic.
and on it goes, post after post after post.
Yes. See above. And why aren't you a "complete agnostic" on the proposition "gods are highly unlikely"? Got evidence against it?
But I am agnostic about it, it certainly is NOT PROVEN, nor has it been proven. I am not claiming that your assertion is wrong, but that it is UNSUPPORTED.
As an agnostic deist my primary position is that we don't know, that there is insufficient information to know or form a logical conclusion. I believe there may be gods, but I don't assert that this is true or even necessarily likely, it's just what I believe, my opinion, my entirely subjective analysis, and I do not try to convince a single other person that my personal view is true.
... but you'd probably treat it as a high "6" on the Dawkins scale, ...
Nope, for the same reason I have not been a 6 for a single hypothetical scenario that has been posted since the beginning of this thread. I have to wonder when this information will actually sink in.
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 496 by bluegenes, posted 10-06-2009 4:10 PM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 520 by bluegenes, posted 10-07-2009 5:31 AM RAZD has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024