An Exploration Into"Agnosticism"

"Know" in the sense of certainty? No. Quarks may have consciousness. Who knows? Everything we empirically know about material consciousness suggests not. Aside from the acknowledgement of the possibility you are basically wrong. Let's admit that and then drop it?

I was not choosing allies. I was simply reporting a relevant observation.

If your "relevant observation" is that you and CS are on the same wavelength then I can only continue to advise that you exercise discretion.To put it politely.....

Or what?And is that some kind of ad hominen squared or something? Be weary because this other guy understood your point Not quite. Treat with skepicism? Sure, that can be justified. Positively disbelieved from objective evidence is where I see the problem. Wrong again. The point was that the objective evidence cannot yield a likilhood of itself being correct.I don't like that you'd rather try to make me look wrong than understand what I'm saying.

Let’s put this nonsense to the test. I am going to drop a pen from shoulder height and see what it does.According to you my pen is no more or less likely to simply fall to the floor than it is to do a loop the loop before flying out of the window towards Mars powered by ethereal pilchards because we are unable to refute the possibility that the entire universe was omphamistically created 1 nano-second ago for the sole purpose of making me look like an empirically gullible fool.So CS how much do you want to bet against the likelihood of my pen just falling to the ground? Let's take this to the Omphalism thread to avoid filling this thread up with your irrepressible nonsense. I keep asking you to explain what you are saying and you keep coming back with ever more reasons to think you are talking out of your arse. Message 151All I need to do to show that you are wrong in practise is drop my pen a few times.....Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, still trying to wordsmith your position into something that you can call logic? Curiously, we both know that your evidence is still inconclusive on the issue of whether or not gods exist, because it is incapable of proving that no gods can exist. You have admitted this. Nor can you show that human invention is incapable of coming near to modeling reality (something I'd be very surprised to see) even with little information to work from. Even if you could actually demonstrate (rather than just assert over and over again) that all concepts of god are in fact made up, this would not demonstrate that none of them could be true. Nor would such a demonstration show or even imply that god/s could not exist. As nwr has been at pains to try to show you, it is the wrong kind of evidence for the question. It's like saying that concept (X) is true because mushrooms grow in the dark of a new moon in the woods at night while it is raining. The fact that mushrooms do in fact grow in those conditions has nothing to do with the validity (or invalidity) of concept (X).You have now badgered a bunch of other people with this poor excuse for evidence, and amusingly, nobody is buying it, except the confirmation bias pseudoskeptic atheists.All you are doing is using confirmation bias to say that the evidence supports your worldview position, and that this should be sufficient for anyone else. It isn't, because not everyone has your worldview (opinions and biases), and it isn't because it just is not conclusive.The rest of your argument is more made up muddled balderdash that typically has also already been addressed in other threads and run into the ground. Amusingly, nobody has demonstrated that my replies on agnosticism involve anything more than agnostic views, and any claims otherwise are wishful thinking. Frankly, it appalls me that you guys seem incapable of comprehending agnosticism, and yet claim to be logical. And I freely admit that this is based on my opinion and biases due to my worldview. I don't pretend to have made a decision based on conclusive evidence of the level III category necessary to qualify as an (A) decision. I've pointed out that the logical position is agnostic, and you have been incapable over several threads of demonstrating otherwise.People who try to pretend their opinion and bias are sufficient grounds for making an (A) decision are pseudoskeptics (as has been demonstrated to be the case for both you and Bluegenes - see Pseudoskepticism and logic if you have forgotten - so it doesn't surprise me that you are repeating the same weary arguments from that thread). Yawn.And fascinatingly, you still have not addressed the question of why you think an answer is necessary. LOL. Nice joke. Now can you answer the question?Enjoy.

---

At first glance, its seems to me that you are just failing inductive logic. Giving that all we've seen is black ravens does not mean that there isn't a white one out there. The observation of only black ravens does not yield a probability of the existence of a white one.I googled the phrase "inductive probability" (that I came across in the wiki page on inductive logic), and found this paper: The Concept of Inductive Probability

quote:

---

Abstract.
The word ‘probability’ in ordinary language has two different senses, here called inductive and physical probability. This paper examines the concept of inductive probability. Attempts to express this concept in other words are shown to be either incorrect or else trivial. In particular, inductive probability is not the same as degree of belief. It is argued that inductive probabilities exist; subjectivist arguments to the contrary are rebutted. Finally, it is argued that inductive probability is an important concept and that it is a mistake to try to replace it with the concept of degree of belief, as is usual today.

---

At the beginning there's a good distinction of the two:

quote:

---

It has often been noted that the word ‘probability’ is used in two different senses in ordinary language.1 In one sense, probability is relative
to the available evidence and does not depend on unknown facts about the world; probability in this sense has something to do with inductive
inference and so I will call it inductive probability.2 In the other sense, probability is a fact about the world and not relative to the available
evidence; I will call this physical probability. As an illustration of the difference between these two concepts, suppose
you have been told that a coin is either two-headed or two-tailed but you have no information about which it is. The coin is about to be
tossed. What is the probability that it will land heads? There are two natural answers to this question:

​

(i) 1/2.
(ii) Either 0 or 1 but I do not know which.

​

Answer (i) is natural if the question is taken to be about inductive probability, while (ii) is the natural answer if the question is taken to be about physical probability.

​

Continuing with this example, suppose you now observe that the coin has a head on one side. Given the information you now have, the inductive probability of it landing heads on the next toss is 1. Thus the inductive probability has changed with the new evidence. You also now know that the physical probability of the coin landing heads is 1, but this probability has not changed, it was 1 before as well, only yourknowledge about it has changed. This further illustrates how inductive probability is relative to evidence and physical probability is not.

---

So I think you're arguing about inductive probability and I'm arguing about physical porbability.I haven't read through the paper fully yet, and I have to go do some stuff in real life now. But I did want to offer it in case your just sitting around getting drunk today with nothing to read The abstract says "that inductive probability is an important concept and that it is a mistake to try to replace it with the concept of degree of belief".Skipping to the conculsion, that is expounded:

quote:

---

The concept of inductive probability is the evidence-relative sense that the word ‘probability’ has in ordinary language. I have tried to clarify this concept by giving examples of its use and by distinguishing it from other concepts with which it is often confused. Thus I showed that inductive probability is not the same as degree of belief. It is also not the same as rational degree of belief, justified degree of belief, degree of confirmation, or logical probability, on at least some common ways of understanding these terms.We can, however, say that inductive probability is the concept of probability in ordinary language that is logical in Carnap’s sense (that is, its elementary sentences are logically determinate).

---

My argument has nothing to do with Ravens. It has to do with your denial of the reality in which we all operate all of the time. You have made it the absolute cornerstone of your entire argument that unless something has actually been refuted it cannot be considered unlikely.But at any given point in time we cannot refute the notion that the entire universe has literally just been created with the illusion of empirical age and empirical consistency in order to make us look stupid when we drop a pen (or whatever) and expect it to behave in a certain way.So when I drop my pen on what basis can I reject as unlikley that it will do anything other than that which is empirically consistent?Bearing in mind you position on the unrefuted and likelihood - On what rational basis can I consider it more likley that my pen will simply drop to the floor than zig zag around or loop the loop before shooting off to Mars?Or are you saying it is irrational to expect my pen to just drop to the floor?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

I was a bit beered up on Friday. As you seem to have worked out for yourself. As ridiculous as I find your "the unrefuted is immune from any suggestion of unlikelihood" arguments this is no excuse for me being an antagonistic dick.So - Sorry for that.

You are still conflating the (very reasonable) position of genuine agnosticism which says "I don't know based on the evidence available to me" with your agnostic fundamentalist position of "you can never claim to know because you cannot disprove the unknowable".Which you apply inconsistently to the "unknowable" anyway. Dude in that sense our evidence in favour of the second law of thermodynamics is inconclusive because we are incapable of proving that it will apply in any case not yet tested.In that sense our evidence favouring the Easter Bunny or fat jolly undetectable magical Santa as a products of human invention rather than actual entities is insufficient for scepticism because we are incapable of proving that no fat jolly undetectable magical Santa can exist.I could go on.Your position on the absolute and utter intrinsic "unknowability" of gods such that they are immune from anything but actual disproof is a baseless assumption that is both contradictory and incoherent. It is a baseless assertion that lies at the heart of everything you have ever said on these issues. What question?Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Hi Straggler, still making stuff up I see. And yet what I keep pointing out to you is that your evidence -- the best evidence you can muster -- is not sufficient to form a reasoned opinion based on the evidence available. Look at it this way:If there are no god/s
Then all human concepts of god/s are made up.And compare this to what you are saying:Some evidence indicates that some concepts of gods are made up,
Therefore there are no god/s.There is a sever logical fault in that structure, and a logically false structure means logical false conclusion/s. I've pointed this out many times before, yet you keep making this basic logical error, again and again.Because people sometimes make some things up is not evidence that all human concepts are not true. Another logically false argument. Amusingly thermodynamics does not rely on the assumption that everything people make up is false as evidence. And it will be just as pointless as the last time. Is another conflation that you have manufactured in your head. You fail to understand the argument/s for what they are - simple examples of why you are wrong. Why you feel you need to make a decision. If you have (A) category III evidence, then let's see it.If your reason is (B) that it is a life-and-death decision, then tell us why.If all you have is (D) -- which is all you ever have had before -- then you are just being a pseudoskeptic, or a hypocrite.Without convincing evidence for (A), without being rushed into (B) and without premature decision (D), the logical place is (C).This also has been demonstrated before on Pseudoskepticism and logic and If it can be, how can the "Absence of Evidence" be "Evidence of Absence?". (see Message 308 for an amusing example)Enjoy.

---

I still think it is the height of hypocrisy for someone who emblazons the fact that they are a deist across everything they write to be suggesting that others are unjustified in stating any conclusion at all. But then your position on this, like so many other things, is deeply contradictory. You are apparently a faith based deist who is so uncertain about the existence of deities that he is primarily an agnostic. You are a faith based agnostic (with an opinion). Which I do find kinda funny. Those terms are usually considered somewhat incongruent. But hey ho. Each to their own. Anyway to answer your question — Because we can. Why wouldn’t we draw a conclusion if we are in a position to do so? Why do we study philosophy? Why do we go to art galleries? Why send a rocket to the moon? To only ever consider questions that are of life and death relevance would be rather intellectually limiting would it not? Is not asking this sort of question regardless of it’s relevance to survival partly what makes us human? Are you seriously suggesting that the only questions you ever seek to answer are ones on which your survival depends? If so — Poor you. And nor do I. RAZ do we have to disprove every single conceivable perpetual motion machine individually? Or can we discard all such concepts as unlikely based on the (necessarily incomplete) evidence favouring the principle we have found to be wholly reliable? Do you truly not see the comparison here? And what I keep pointing out to you is that the evidential criteria you are demanding are inconsistent and incoherent.Do you agree that no amount of evidence favouring human invention can ever in practise actually disprove the existence of any concept envisaged to be empirically irrefutable? Then on what basis can you consider some concepts to be immune from scepticism based on such evidence whilst simultaneously considering other equally irrefutable concepts to be the products of human invention?

Hi Straggler, still full of yourself I see. That would be so IF I claimed that my faith was derived logically AND that I held it as an evidence based conclusion. I don't, you do. Unfortunately, for you, your claim and reality don't match: your evidence fails to provide a basis for a logical conclusion regarding the existence of god/s. Yes, your inability to wait for sufficient evidence before rushing to judgment is quite amusing, and in the wrong hands can be dangerous. One need only look at Schrubbia and his rush to judgment invasion of Iraq to see how dangerous making decisions on inadequate evidence could be.Amusingly, there is no life-or-death situation I am aware of that would force you (or anyone with a logical bent) to make a decision on the existence of god/s. Like Schrubbia did? Curiously I don't find the willingness of some people to make snap decisions to be a criteria for emulation.You can draw a conclusion anytime, but to make one based on evidence you need to wait for the evidence. Schrubbia did not. You have not.Interestingly, you have still failed to demonstrate that you are in a position to make an informed decision. I wonder if you will ever get around to making a logical argument, rather than one based on straw men, begging the question and, as here, incredulity. Yes, I see you are still fond of the All A is B, B, therefore A logical fallacy, coupled with poor analogy.Simply put, the law of thermodynamics means that perpetual motion is impossible in the long run. It may be possible to have isolated pockets where there is an appearance of perpetual motion, but at the end of time everything runs down. One or the other must be false.Your evidence - that some people make some things up sometimes - fails to meet that standard of evidence by a universe wide margin.Do you truly not see the failure of your purported evidence to be anything more than evidence of your personal opinion and bias?It's hysterical that you think your position is logically derived, while it is actually built on logical fallacy after logical fallacy, and fallacies you appear perpetually blind to understanding. Perhaps you have trouble understanding it -- all you need is evidence that shows god/s do not, or can not, exist. And if you know this, then why do you keep bringing up this failed evidence? Because it is the best you have? That's a pretty sorry excuse for a supposedly logical conclusion.I agree that this means your evidence - that some people make some things up some of the time - is useless in proving your case. Amusingly, it is not my problem to disprove whatever word jumble you think up next.Certainly I agree, as I have been arguing for many threads now, that it is inadequate for making a decision on the existence of god/s. Fascinatingly, I agree that any decision based on this evidence is not one based empirical evidence of level III category, that it is not evidence that leads to an (A) decision. But they are not immune to skepticism, especially skepticism tempered with an open mind. Skepticism does not mean you must make a decisions against whatever you are skeptical of, rather it means you hold off on accepting it until it is demonstrated to be at least possibly true.Certainly when the evidence is poor and insubstantial for any counter claim, such as the evidence that some people make some things up some of the time, then one also needs to be skeptical of the counter claim as well. Failure to do so is just not being honestly skeptical.So once again we come down to why you feel that a decision is necessary?What is your reason for your rush to judgment?Your evidence fails to meet the criteria for an (A) decision, you have abandoned (C), and that leaves you with (B) or (D).Given that you have not provided any reason for having to make a decision, the evidence points towards your decision being based on opinions and biases in your personal worldview. But then this is old news. Sadly no new arguments seem to be in the offing.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : [

---

Why do we need to disprove the existence of gods in order to legitimately conclude that the concept of god is most likely a human invention? No amount of evidence favouring human invention can ever in practise actually disprove the existence of any concept envisaged to be empirically irrefutable. No matter how blatantly made-up that concept may be. From gods to the Easter Bunny via the IPU and her infinite army of allies. As such there is no point discussing evidence with you until you accept that disproving things is as unnecessary as it is futile. No. That is not, nor has it ever been, my argument. Why must you attribute such imbecilic arguments to me? Is it some sort of debate tactic on your part?I have tried to discuss the evidence favouring human invention of gods as more likely than their actual existence with you many times previously. But it always falls on deaf ears because you are only interested in "proving that no gods can exist".No evidence can be considered until you remove your fingers from your ears and stop reciting the mantra of fundamentalist agnosticism GODISUNKNOWABLE GODISUNKNOWABLE GODISUNKNOWABLE GODISUNKNOWABLE. God is no more or less knowable in principle than any other concept designed to be empirically irrefutable. Your insistence otherwise is nothing but a baseless presupposition on your part. How can "perpetual" mean anything but "the long run"?Impossible? You know this with 100% certainty do you? It is indeed desperately unlikely that any perpetual motion machine will ever exist and it would revolutionise our thinking if it did. But even this most established of laws is tentative to some tiny degree. Even this is based on the extrapolation of necessarily incomplete empirical evidence. As is the case with every single scientific conclusion. Even the second law of thermodynamics. As such even this cannot be said to have been proven to be true.Now you have made it the absolute cornerstone of your entire position that it is unjustifiable to be highly sceptical of anything that has not been specifically proven to be unable to exist. Bearing this in mind — Do we need to disprove every perpetual motion machine on a case by case basis before scepticism is justified?More generally — Why do you insist that we must disprove some things but not others before scepticism is justified? Might it be that your subjective beliefs and baseless presuppositions about the intrinsic unknowability of gods is causing you to special plead some concepts over others?Edited by Straggler, : Fix quotesEdited by Straggler, : No reason given.Edited by Straggler, : No reason given.

Let us dispel this nonsense about proof and "unknowability" once and for all. Let us put these particular rabbit holes to rest. Can we prove that the magical and empirically unknowable Easter Bunny can not exist? Does this have any bearing on our conclusion as to whether or not this particular entity actually exists?Where there is sufficient evidence that a concept is nothing but a human invention we quite rightly follow the evidence. Presumed unknowability has no bearing on this. All I ask (all I have ever asked) is that we treat the question of god in a manner consistent with the way we treat every other empirically irrefutable concept. All I ask is that we weigh up the evidence favouring the concept of god as being a human invention against the evidence that gods exist. Baseless assertions of unknowability and ridiculous demands of proof are nothing more than smokescreens and distractions. The asserted unknowability of god is of no more relevance than is the asserted unknowability of the Easter Bunny. Let us instead examine the balance of evidence.Why do you consider this to be so contentious, unreasonable and worthy of your indignant mockery? So RAZ are you prepared to say that the magical Easter Bunny is a product of human invention rather than a real entity? Despite an absence of proof. Or not? When a man of your years finds himself unable to denounce the Easter Bunny as a fiction things have gone seriously amiss. You may believe that as a baseless and unjustifiable presupposition. But that does not make your agnostic fundamentalist arguments regarding the intrinsic unknowability of god any more legitimate. The concept of god is as susceptible to sufficient evidence favouring contradictory conclusions as any other concept designed to be empirically irrefutable. Uh oh — This should be good No. That is an imbecilic argument. Apart from anything else I am not making proclamations of logical certitude. I am instead advocating a position of relative likelihood. And even taking that into account the position that ‘man is the creator of god rather than vice versa’ has much more to do with the general and demonstrable principle that humankind is deeply prone to invoking the unknowable to explain the unknown than it does refuting specific instances of god as made-up. How many times need I say this to you? The fact that you keep refuting an argument not being made does nothing but highlight the paucity of your own position. Should you ever get past pointlessly demanding proofs and relentlessly asserting that there is an absence of evidence or insisting that gods are intrinsically unknowable you might want to consider any one of a number of posts in multiple threads in which I have tried to engage you in actual discussion about the actual evidence in question. We answer the question both because we are in an evidential position to do so and because it pisses off those fundamentalist agnostics who baselessly presuppose that gods are unknowable and relentlessly assert that the question is utterly unanswerable. Necessity has bugger all to do with anything.In fact I personally would say entertainment value plays a larger role.