Is there evidence your god beliefs are true while other god beliefs are false?

[Beth]

I've answered the question.

Twice.

Again:

It is simple.

If it is serious it requires evidential rigour.

If it is not serious it does not.

I understand you feel you have answered the question, but unfortunately, you have still failed to communicate to me the nuance of your meaning that will allow me to understand your approach. How do you decide what is reasonable to take people’s word for and what is not? If you like, I can then go back a level and ask you how you decide what is serious and what is not.

So:

Is the question of "god" serious or is it entertainment?

I think it’s both. Think of it like “Schnindler’s List”. I think that there is no verifiable objective evidence for the existence of any sort of god by any definition of the term I’m acquainted with. So the question is, can we rely on the testimony of others and our own personal experiences? In fact, we can and we do rely on that for all sort of other unverifiable questions. Atheists here keep insisting that believers treat the evidence for their particular belief differently than the evidence for other things. I don't agree with that, my observation is that most (not all) atheists and theists both will treat the evidence available the same as they do for other questions. They just set up the default assumption differently.

Atheists set up the non-existance of god as the default assumption, known as the null hypothesis, that is a subjective choice you are making. You set up the null based on what is important to you and what you are trying to learn. The consequence of your choice is you cannot affirm the null. You can only disprove it. By any decent scientific standard, that null of 'no god exists' has never been shown false and for that reason I don’t have any problems with the atheist argument. It’s quite sound.

The only thing is, it’s also quite reasonable to set up the default as ‘god exists’. Particularly if the believer is willing, like epeos has mentioned, to let go of any specific religious beliefs that conflict with known empirical scientific results. By any decent scientific standard, the general null assumption of some greater entity that created our universe has never been disproven either.

I will grant that literal interpretations of all the worlds religions can be proven false and contradictory. I agree that many religious believers accept the literal interpretations without thought. However the more general common thread of a greater supernatural unity has not been shown false.

So, the question of the existance of god falls into the unproveable space. What's somewhat odd to me, as someone who spends a lot of time developing and testing null hypothesis, is that in a scientific application, the null is set up as the hypothesis you wish to reject and the alternative is what you are trying to establish.

I beg to differ. A material object containing the representation of mathematical symbols is helpful, but not necessary.

It is entirely necessary is you want to claim "mathematics" is a stimulus.

Why must a stimulus be made of matter? Do you not find ideas stimulating? You can certainly react physically to them? Think of someone who receives news that a loved one has died? The physical medium of presentation of the information does not matter. Words on a screen. Sounds on a telephone. Someone making them sit down and telling them they have bad news for them. Good news can have a similar physical response. You cannot predict, without knowing both content and context of information, what that response will be. How do we examine the effect of ideas on ourselves? I am not claiming to know the answers to these questions. Better minds than mine have given it great thought and not been able to come to consensus. It’s a very interesting question to me, so I like to hear how other people think of it.

And your mathematical background is...? Because I don't think you understood what I told you.

If all goes well, I’ll be receiving my Ph.D. in it before this year is over. I work full-time as a professional statistician at a research institute affliated with my university. What's your background in mathematics?

Zero is a useful concept. As such its independent invention is assured if it is useful to someone to use it.

And of course, you ignore the fact that "zero" was not a concept that was missing one day and there the next but the result of an evolution of ideas - just like other areas of mathematics have developed such as the concept of negative numbers, complex numbers and so forth.

So you seriously want me to entertain the idea that zero is, essentially, sitting under a rock?
?

Well, that’s an interesting way to put it. I could, of course, argue that what is sitting under the rock is nothing – i.e. zero. But that would be whimsical of me and we’ve already established you don’t care for my style of whimsy. So forget what I just typed and perhaps other readers will be amused.

Zero is, indeed, a very useful concept. Does the concept of zero exist independent of human brains to think of it? If all human beings died off, would the concept of zero die off with us? Or would it still exist, hanging around under abstract metaphorical rocks waiting for some other intelligent species somewhere to discover it?

I'm clipping a bunch of stuff in the middle here. Let me just say thank you for answering my questions.

So, as ever, we come back to the basic thrust here.

You are arguing from a position of ignorance for the validity of the concept that some X, which cannot be known, is an existent with impact on our reality.

You appear to be being serious about it. Therefore, as I expressed at the beginning of this post:

I WANT SOME ****ING EVIDENCE.

I'm sorry, I seem to have given you the wrong impression. I am not arguing that some X, which cannot be known, is an existent with impact on our reality. I’m arguing that it is just as reasonable for people to assume that such an X exists as it is to assume that it doesn’t. I don’t claim to have any evidence for unknowable proposition such as the existence of god or free will or the independent reality of abstract ideas such as mathematics. I not only don't know the answers to any of the questions, I think they are unprovable propositions in our material reality. I'm trying to understand why you feel so certain of the conclusions that you have made. You make a default assumption, fail to disprove your null hypothesis and conclude it must be correct. Why do you feel so strongly that it is the only reasonable conclusion?

 

[HghrSymmetry]

Quote:
P.S. "Your" ?

If you say so. There is a lot I don't understand.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
you're
contraction of you are: You're certain that's right?

 

[cyborg]

How do you decide what is reasonable to take people’s word for and what is not?

It's a complicated matrix of time, space, resources and importance.

If you like, I can then go back a level and ask you how you decide what is serious and what is not.

It's a matter of mutual agreement.

Atheists set up the non-existance of god as the default assumption, known as the null hypothesis, that is a subjective choice you are making.

No, it's an epistemological choice. There is no subjectivity nor objectivity to it since it does not concern subjects or objects.

The only thing is, it’s also quite reasonable to set up the default as ‘god exists’.

Reasonable how?

However the more general common thread of a greater supernatural unity has not been shown false.

The point you seem to fail to grasp it that it is impossible under the given epistemology.

Not just "not shown false," impossible by definition to be shown as such.

That is how the epistemology works. I cannot demonstrate that it is not the case that even though upon observation of all the mechanisms that lead to the eventual transmission of this information to you the explanation is natural that there is not a supernatural entity that is in fact responsible and that the natural explanation is a false one.

This is why the supernatural entity is always assumed false. It is how the epistemology works.

So, the question of the existance of god falls into the unproveable space.

NO.

The existence of "god" is dependant on what it is one says "god" is.

If one says "god" is, "that which upon all attempts to demonstrate its existence will hide its existence," then it is definitionally in the unprovable space.

It is NOT my fault that as the concept of god has evolved and man has NOT found his gods in the high or the low places that those who wish to keep the word must push their god into ever more inaccessible places until it has reached the only logical endpoint - that of infinite inaccessibility.

Why must a stimulus be made of matter?

By definition.

Do you not find ideas stimulating?

I find ideas matter.

Think of someone who receives news that a loved one has died?

Why single out such a particular case?

Do you really expect me to care about the emotional context of that statement?

Think of someone who receives news that 1+1 = 2?

Think of someone who receives news that the Earth revolves the Sun?

Think of someone who receives news that E = mc^2?

Physical reactions all - what else would one expect in a physical universe?

You cannot predict, without knowing both content and context of information, what that response will be.

What is the output of function f?

How can I know without both content and context of information what the behaviour of f will be?

If all goes well, I’ll be receiving my Ph.D. in it before this year is over. I work full-time as a professional statistician at a research institute affliated with my university. What's your background in mathematics?

I am a Computer Science graduate and I now work in the financial sector.

Since you do know mathematics this should make this easier.

Well, that’s an interesting way to put it. I could, of course, argue that what is sitting under the rock is nothing – i.e. zero. But that would be whimsical of me and we’ve already established you don’t care for my style of whimsy.

It is not whimsy I object to - I object to you using it as if it made a point.

Zero is, indeed, a very useful concept. Does the concept of zero exist independent of human brains to think of it? If all human beings died off, would the concept of zero die off with us? Or would it still exist, hanging around under abstract metaphorical rocks waiting for some other intelligent species somewhere to discover it?

The expression of zero exists in the physical. The concept of zero requires physical self-representation.

Put simply there is a relationship between zero and the concept of zero.

The former is not required for the later to exist. Nor is the later required for the former to exist.

I’m arguing that it is just as reasonable for people to assume that such an X exists as it is to assume that it doesn’t.

Why?

I'm trying to understand why you feel so certain of the conclusions that you have made.

The alternative is inconsistent.

 

[articulett]

I want you to tell me the difference about being agnostic about god than being agnostic about Xenu or ESP or demons. Is there a difference. Are we talking nebulous fuzzy truths again.... personal ideals. I don't care about personal truths... I'm just wonder if any believe has an actual logical reason for whatever they believe versus the stuff they don't. But it's just self important explanations... nothing logical... the same rationalizations that another woo would use to support their "agnosticism" or belief over yours.

That's why I"m an athiest. All other positions just never make sense or sound clear. They are fuzzy and when you boil it down it down they are just saying "I know my woo is true and different than that other woo and I'm better than you for believing in my woo".

And they must have gotten their woo from similar sentiments expressed by other people in their culture. It's a an endless regress of nothingness to make people feel special or chosen or "in on" answers to deep questions... and so they can imagine themselves as better than those who believe differently or who don't believe at all.

I keep wanting to believe it's more than that... but there never is anything more than that. You all do sound the same in regards to your mystical explanation beyond scientific understanding that you think you understand.

Why is believing in god (however defined) more rational that believing in psychic powers (however defined)... or demons (however defined)? You guys never say way.... you allude to god being an explanation for the cause of the universe or as making humans part of a plan... but that just makes "god" a pseudo filler for things that humans don't understand yet... which is a logical fallacy humans have been making for eons as they attribute events they don't understand to invisible entities or forces. How is it you've managed to convince yourselves that your feelings about this god (however you've defined it) are more than that and why in the world should it be respect worthy or good to exhibit this hubris or ignorance? You cannot give reasons why your "open mindedness" about the god you avoid defining is more respectable than open mindedness about demons roaming the earth causing people to sin. And so, of course, you sound like every woo... you cannot give a single explanation for how it's different.

It is the same spin. The same non reasons and personal feelings and self aggrandizement as you imagine yourselves "nicer" or more "diplomatic" or "more open minded" and atheists as (insert all the negativity and strawmen that you are so fond of).

And yet, like your god... it just exists in your mind. The evidence isn't there to support your conclusions... but people of faith don't need evidence... they just spin the world they want as though reality could be objectively molded by their conclusions about it.

And, Beth, it is not just as likely for gods to exist as to not exist any more than it is just as likely for demons or fairies to exist or not exist. You use zero which is a well defined term... and confuse it with things that people define all sorts of ways so that they can pretend that it's as equally likely to exist as not exist. But you apparently give the impression that "god" is as likely to exist as not... but not Satan.... or ESP or Astrological influences or other similar vagaries. And yet you give to actual reasons why. Why we should respect your "agnosticsm" about this stuff more than agnosticism (or whatever it is you define your belief) about the others. Why?? Why do you think god is a 50-50 proposition and demons aren't? Or Thetans? I think it's because you play fast and loose with definitions and semantics.

Why shouldn't everyone treat god belief like demon belief? Is one more likely than the other? How so?

 

[thesyntaxera]

I want you to tell me the difference about being agnostic about god than being agnostic about Xenu or ESP or demons. Is there a difference. Are we talking nebulous fuzzy truths again.... personal ideals. I don't care about personal truths... I'm just wonder if any believe has an actual logical reason for whatever they believe versus the stuff they don't. But it's just self important explanations... nothing logical... the same rationalizations that another woo would use to support their "agnosticism" or belief over yours.

Well..this difference is huge. I will only refer to my posts in this thread, because I am not about to make blanket assertions of what others think or feel.

I believe that science as you and I think of it is the best tool for discovering HOW this reality works the way it does. Science should never intend to express the WHY, because it can't. When has it ever? When could it ever?

A simple example is a criminal case: The forensic evidence is used to explain how a person committed a crime. This evidence used might say a lot about the person involved like, was it a crime of passion or premeditated...etc. That only takes one so far though. Eventually a conference of peers has to determine the guilt based on the evidence and what they as individuals subjectively think about the person in question based on their testimony.

No one in the courtroom knows objectively WHY this person did what they did...they just know that they did something.

The shorties...this is a purely subjective topic. An athiest cannot prove the non-existence of any type of god....no matter how contrived. That does not and will not invalidate the question of whether or not there is one. It's an important question that an individual has to decide for themself because there is NO objective way to prove it or disprove it.

"..a coincidence is what you have left over when you apply a bad theory.."

Percy W. Bridgeman

I don't buy that there is no reason behind what ever happened to cause the creation of the universe...if it is even a uni-verse. If I were to chase the mechanism all the way down the rabbit hole in the end there is still the same problem. Both religion and non-religion have to account for the existence of it all, and either way there is always the question..."Well..what came before...and what came before that...and that...". I have already stated this on a few different occasions posting to this thread...infinite regress.

I really don't care what the reason is to be honest, I just feel that there is one because how could there not be? Our entire understanding is derived from cause and effect relationships, and this problem is no different...the only thing I feel I can posit is that whatever the answer is, it is not defined by our measure of logic.

That's why I"m an athiest. All other positions just never make sense or sound clear. They are fuzzy and when you boil it down it down they are just saying "I know my woo is true and different than that other woo and I'm better than you for believing in my woo".

No, it's not that simple at all. Maybe for you, but not for people who are genuinely grappling with these questions. The reason most things are fuzzy is because humans are fuzzy. Our understanding is fuzzy. So much so that we need hundreds of years of debate and evidence to determine something isn't fuzzy.

And they must have gotten their woo from similar sentiments expressed by other people in their culture. It's a an endless regress of nothingness to make people feel special or chosen or "in on" answers to deep questions... and so they can imagine themselves as better than those who believe differently or who don't believe at all.

Go on. Keep thinking thats all it is...perfectly fine. It could be that people just want to know, and that desire gets channeled in all sorts of different ways because we are fuzzy to begin with.

I keep wanting to believe it's more than that... but there never is anything more than that. You all do sound the same in regards to your mystical explanation beyond scientific understanding that you think you understand.

Yes we are all the same. "GREATER GOOD"....for those hot fuzz fans

Why is believing in god (however defined) more rational that believing in psychic powers (however defined)... or demons (however defined)? You guys never say way.... you allude to god being an explanation for the cause of the universe or as making humans part of a plan... but that just makes "god" a pseudo filler for things that humans don't understand yet...

I predict that humans won't exist long enough on this rock to come to a conclusion. I also think that when you are dealing with the "...where did the universe come from and why is it here?" questions in light of the vastness of it's implication it is not unreasonable to posit that some greater intelligence may exist within it or before it...or as it.

which is a logical fallacy humans have been making for eons as they attribute events they don't understand to invisible entities or forces. How is it you've managed to convince yourselves that your feelings about this god (however you've defined it) are more than that and why in the world should it be respect worthy or good to exhibit this hubris or ignorance? You cannot give reasons why your "open mindedness" about the god you avoid defining is more respectable than open mindedness about demons roaming the earth causing people to sin. And so, of course, you sound like every woo... you cannot give a single explanation for how it's different.

Explain to me why anyone has to define personal feelings to anyone else.

It is the same spin. The same non reasons and personal feelings and self aggrandizement as you imagine yourselves "nicer" or more "diplomatic" or "more open minded" and atheists as (insert all the negativity and strawmen that you are so fond of).

No one has claimed any of that here...although you are sure demonstrating your fair share of closemindedness.

Why shouldn't everyone treat god belief like demon belief? Is one more likely than the other? How so?

Who knows. I don't believe the questions are compatible because one can be easily falsified, whereas the other cannot be. Unless you have a time machine and a video camera that is. We aren't talking about idea's that were invented by humans, we are talking about a universe and all that it contains and why it is here.

 

[Beth]

You can't make up your own rules about what is and what is not evidence if you want to talk about the evidence based beliefs of skepticism.

I think we all make up our own rules about what is and isn’t evidence. But let’s discuss your rules of evidence for a change. When we most recently discussed this you said:

Inner experience, inner feeling, subjective feeling, whatever... it doesn't matter what you label it. I've said it repeatedly here, the feeling is evidence even if it is subjective that a person feels something. But the conclusion as to what the feeling or experience is is not evidence. It is a conclusion. ….

I responded and you continuing in this vein with:

I'll say it again, whatever you 'feel' IS the EVIDENCE. What you 'believe that feeling means' is a conclusion. Conclusions are not evidence.
…..Perhaps if I put it another way. What a person sees is the evidence. The fact they recognize it as red is not the evidence.

I responded to this post in post #799 which you did not reply to. Would you care to pick up that part of the discussion again? We can then go into the details of how we distinguish between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusions’ about such things as the color ‘red’ and ‘feeling nauseous’ versus ‘got the flu’ versus ‘got the flu at a result of getting the flu shot’.

I think that what you decide to consider ‘evidence’ is predicated on what your default assumption is. I don’t agree that your default assumption ‘no god exists’ is the only reasonable default assumption.

 

[articulett]

Well..this difference is huge. I will only refer to my posts in this thread, because I am not about to make blanket assertions of what others think or feel.

I believe that science as you and I think of it is the best tool for discovering HOW this reality works the way it does. Science should never intend to express the WHY, because it can't. When has it ever? When could it ever?

A simple example is a criminal case: The forensic evidence is used to explain how a person committed a crime. This evidence used might say a lot about the person involved like, was it a crime of passion or premeditated...etc. That only takes one so far though. Eventually a conference of peers has to determine the guilt based on the evidence and what they as individuals subjectively think about the person in question based on their testimony.

No one in the courtroom knows objectively WHY this person did what they did...they just know that they did something.

The shorties...this is a purely subjective topic. An athiest cannot prove the non-existence of any type of god....no matter how contrived. That does not and will not invalidate the question of whether or not there is one. It's an important question that an individual has to decide for themself because there is NO objective way to prove it or disprove it.

"..a coincidence is what you have left over when you apply a bad theory.."

Percy W. Bridgeman

I don't buy that there is no reason behind what ever happened to cause the creation of the universe...if it is even a uni-verse. If I were to chase the mechanism all the way down the rabbit hole in the end there is still the same problem. Both religion and non-religion have to account for the existence of it all, and either way there is always the question..."Well..what came before...and what came before that...and that...". I have already stated this on a few different occasions posting to this thread...infinite regress.

I really don't care what the reason is to be honest, I just feel that there is one because how could there not be? Our entire understanding is derived from cause and effect relationships, and this problem is no different...the only thing I feel I can posit is that whatever the answer is, it is not defined by our measure of logic.




No, it's not that simple at all. Maybe for you, but not for people who are genuinely grappling with these questions. The reason most things are fuzzy is because humans are fuzzy. Our understanding is fuzzy. So much so that we need hundreds of years of debate and evidence to determine something isn't fuzzy.



Go on. Keep thinking thats all it is...perfectly fine. It could be that people just want to know, and that desire gets channeled in all sorts of different ways because we are fuzzy to begin with.



Yes we are all the same. "GREATER GOOD"....for those hot fuzz fans



I predict that humans won't exist long enough on this rock to come to a conclusion. I also think that when you are dealing with the "...where did the universe come from and why is it here?" questions in light of the vastness of it's implication it is not unreasonable to posit that some greater intelligence may exist within it or before it...or as it.



Explain to me why anyone has to define personal feelings to anyone else.



No one has claimed any of that here...although you are sure demonstrating your fair share of closemindedness.



Who knows. I don't believe the questions are compatible because one can be easily falsified, whereas the other cannot be. Unless you have a time machine and a video camera that is. We aren't talking about idea's that were invented by humans, we are talking about a universe and all that it contains and why it is here.

Nope demons are no more falsifiable than gods. All invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness are non-falsifiable. You can't prove them or disprove them. My feelings about god are identical to your feelings about demons. It's not closed minded. It's logical.

You presume that there IS a reason for the universe or a cause and that cause has consciousness. Therefore you presume, at the very least, that it's possible for invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness to exist-- consciousness that does the things that human brains do-- like think, wonder, want, desire, feel, etc. And yet you only believe in the possibility of a few versions of those invisible entities. You believe in the possibilities of gods and probably souls... and you imagine this god created the universe and who knows what else-- you believe in conscious entities that are invisible, immeasurable, and lack a material brain. But you have no more evidence for them no matter how you define them then all the other invisible entities you don't believe in-- Xenu, demons, ghosts, angels, etc.

In your crime example... there is only one objective truth. The best way to find it is through the evidence. We may not ever know the answer... but only one thing happened no matter how many things humans can imagine. Either some god of some type exists which evidence is the best way to uncover or it (they) do not... despite the various imaginations of humans over the eons as to what "happened" in the past. One truth. Lots of human imaginations. Evidence is the only method for reliably finding that truth. Not human imagination.

You congratulate yourself for believing in one brand of invisible being that you've ascribes some nebulous things to and call others closed minded when they feel identical about the invisible entities you do believe in as the ones you don't believe in. We feel towards your god like you feel towards Xenu and demons and thetans. And for the same logical reasons.

You think you know what falsifiable means. You do not. Empirical things are able to be falsified. You cannot prove the non existence of any invisible entities. You can only look for measurable evidence for them. You can't prove psychic powers aren't real... only that some people aren't really doing what they say they are doing or that there are other ways to appear to do what they claim to be doing. Hence the MDC. Prove it's real; since we can't prove magic is not! You are dishonest, hypocritical and imagine yourself better than those who don't have any more faith in your god than you do in their demons... and yet, the two are identical as far as the evidence is concerned. Both are human inventions used to explain that which we don't understand. Both are invisible and immeasurable forms of consciousness that cannot be measured in any way and yet millions of humans have believed in some version of them or another at some time and even died for them. They have often been used in various forms as filler explanations just like you do for your god.

You are doing mental gymnastics to pretend they are different and to lie to yourself to say that those who feel the way you feel about demons towards all invisible beings are "close minded", "have their own faith and magic" and "think they know everything". Yet none of you believers of such woo EVER give any of us a reason to believe in one over the other. Your bluster is so full of self important banter, logical fallacies, goofy quotes, insults, and nothingness that your invisible friend is indistinguishable from all the other unfalsifiable invisible immeasurable untestable entities and forces of all other humans on this forum and proffered by people through the eons. Your arguments could be used to support belief in Demons Xenu or other woo and you are too blind to notice that fact.

But the atheist does... and that's why we can't believe in your woo or any woo.... it all sounds like that. People who think they know what words mean or logic means--who don't. You can't give a good reason why your feelings about gods are less woo-ish than similar feelings about demons or things you consider woo. You resort to logical fallacies in the absence reasons. Every time.

You've been pawned by your own ignorance. You are only fooling yourself and those with a need to believe in your delusion as badly as you do. You haven't made a case for your purported agnosticism about god being any more respect worthy or open minded than "agnosticism" about demons. But you are probably too wrapped up in your self delusion to notice. The rest of us do. It's why we are atheists. All woo sounds the same.

BTW, there's no way to disprove the existence of Leprechauns. Really. When it comes to the existence of things... you can only gather evidence that it exists via empirical data or that it is indistinguishable from things that don't exist like delusions. God falls in the latter category --or that it is logically impossible (a round square)-- which god also falls in when you start probing people about what they believe god is and does and where he came from and why (omnibenevolence; omnipotence, etc.). They claim some divine knowledge but then run and hide behind "beyond human understanding" when they are about to reveal their ignorance as you have.

Neither you nor Beth nor any of the apologists can explain why a default presumption that god exists makes more sense than a default presumption that demons exist. This "default presumption" makes sense to you... but not in the world of logic. You pretend that there must be a god explanation for the creation of the universe... but I could reply there must be a demon explanation for suffering and "evil"... it's the same nebulous nothing. The exact same. But you feel important for believing in the possibility of certain invisible entities while rejecting others as silly or "falsifiable" (wrong) or whatever other semantic games you play.

Oh, and god is even a bigger problem with a bigger infinite regress that goes against everything we understand about evolution and entropy and thus cannot be an explanation that satisfies "what came before". But it takes a wee bit of education to understand this... and the faithful aren't big on learning things that might ruffle their pet delusion.

To sum up... not that it matters to one who believes that personal truths trump objective truths...:

Your belief or "openess" to god is not more respect worthy and valid than openess to demons... or at least no one has made a logical case for such... even though you think your quotes of others are deep and make a case for god belief of your type. And our lack of belief in gods is no more of a "faith" or "arrogant" than your lack of belief in demons. It's the same. Your confirmation bias is the only thing that allows you to perceive a difference. Your confirmation bias needs to believe that you are better for believing in the possibility of "god" and that atheists are (insert all your insults about the "atheist corner of this debate") for not finding a good reason to.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think we all make up our own rules about what is and isn’t evidence. But let’s discuss your rules of evidence for a change. When we most recently discussed this you said:

I responded and you continuing in this vein with:



I responded to this post in post #799 which you did not reply to. Would you care to pick up that part of the discussion again? We can then go into the details of how we distinguish between ‘evidence’ and ‘conclusions’ about such things as the color ‘red’ and ‘feeling nauseous’ versus ‘got the flu’ versus ‘got the flu at a result of getting the flu shot’.

I think that what you decide to consider ‘evidence’ is predicated on what your default assumption is. I don’t agree that your default assumption ‘no god exists’ is the only reasonable default assumption.

I would love to actually get to the bottom of this discussion, Beth, but you keep avoiding the actual problem and you simply repeat your posts without actually discussing the points we differ on.

I looked at post 799. There is nothing new there you haven't said before.

Here is the basic point.

You are confusing scientific standards with the definition of evidence. Those standards, which you refer to as more reliable evidence vs less reliable evidence are not at the root of the problem in this discussion.

For whatever reason, you ignore the problem and keep returning to the "quality of evidence".

Problem:

• evidence and interpretation of evidence
• evidence and conclusion
• evidence and belief about what the evidence means or is

Not:

• scientific standards of evidence
• quality of evidence
• reliability of evidence

Until you address this you will continue to error in what you believe is evidence.

 

[Hokulele]

I believe that science as you and I think of it is the best tool for discovering HOW this reality works the way it does. Science should never intend to express the WHY, because it can't. When has it ever? When could it ever?

Why does there have to be a "why"? As far as I know, "why" is strictly a human construct, and to assume that the universe needs a "why" is just anthropomorphism.

 

[schlitt]

Why does there have to be a "why"? As far as I know, "why" is strictly a human construct, and to assume that the universe needs a "why" is just anthropomorphism.

Exactly.

 

[Beth]

I would love to actually get to the bottom of this discussion, Beth, but you keep avoiding the actual problem and you simply repeat your posts without actually discussing the points we differ on.

I looked at post 799. There is nothing new there you haven't said before.

Here is the basic point.

You are confusing scientific standards with the definition of evidence. Those standards, which you refer to as more reliable evidence vs less reliable evidence are not at the root of the problem in this discussion.

For whatever reason, you ignore the problem and keep returning to the "quality of evidence".

Problem:

• evidence and interpretation of evidence
• evidence and conclusion
• evidence and belief about what the evidence means or is

Not:

• scientific standards of evidence
• quality of evidence
• reliability of evidence

Until you address this you will continue to error in what you believe is evidence.

Can you tell me how you decide what is 'evidence' and what is a 'conclusion' without considering the quality and reliability of the evidence available?

It seems to me that without consideration of your second list above, the first list becomes meaningless. For example, in one of your previous posts, you made the statement "What a person sees is the evidence. The fact they recognize it as red is not the evidence." If you are unwilling to call the labeling of something 'red' as evidence, what then constitutes 'evidence' beyond what we each individually experience.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Why does there have to be a "why"? As far as I know, "why" is strictly a human construct, and to assume that the universe needs a "why" is just anthropomorphism.

Assuming that there isn't an explanation of some kind is just mental laziness, and it answers nothing. Everything that exists in our world has a why behind it...why do we need to think that there isn't a why related to the origins of space and time.

With this kind of logic there would be no scientific knowledge at all.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

Assuming that there isn't an explanation of some kind is just mental laziness, and it answers nothing. Everything that exists in our world has a why behind it...why do we need to think that there isn't a why related to the origins of space and time.

With this kind of logic there would be no scientific knowledge at all.

Actually, I would say there’s a 'how' behind it rather than a 'why'



I would also say that it’s mental laziness to jump to why before trying to answer how. Anyone can cook up some belief in an imaginary entity or some other sort of suspicion and declare it non-provable by scientific means – that’s the mentally lazy solution, I think.

 

[thesyntaxera]

Nope demons are no more falsifiable than gods. All invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness are non-falsifiable. You can't prove them or disprove them. My feelings about god are identical to your feelings about demons. It's not closed minded. It's logical.

It's logical? You base all of your beliefs about this world in the realm of science. Science is the asking of the question of how, in a hope to figure out why. As in, why is the sky blue, or why is water wet....you can follow that line of questioning to our origins, and probably get answers up to a point. Then you get to the existence of the universe, and the host of theories related to that...which is where it stops. There probably isn't a way to look beyond the point of the big bang(or whatever you prefer) because nothing supposedly existed before then. Yet it came from some where...

You presume that there IS a reason for the universe or a cause and that cause has consciousness.

I presume there is a reason because you can't name a single thing that exists that doesn't exist for some reason. I never said I presume it to be conscious...I just said that it could be in theory.

Therefore you presume, at the very least, that it's possible for invisible immeasurable forms of consciousness to exist-- consciousness that does the things that human brains do-- like think, wonder, want, desire, feel, etc. And yet you only believe in the possibility of a few versions of those invisible entities.

Correct. There are only so many things that are potentially possible if you view the natural world as a manifestation of some sort of hidden variable. Sure demons are possible, but they are also likely to be a human construct.

If one is to allow science to do the explaining of how, there are only a number of theories that could feasibly apply...hence not believing in demons.

You congratulate yourself for believing in one brand of invisible being that you've ascribes some nebulous things to and call others closed minded when they feel identical about the invisible entities you do believe in as the ones you don't believe in. We feel towards your god like you feel towards Xenu and demons and thetans. And for the same logical reasons.

Do I really congratulate myself?

You think you know what falsifiable means. You do not. Empirical things are able to be falsified.

When did I say god was an empirical thing?

You cannot prove the non existence of any invisible entities. You can only look for measurable evidence for them.

Perhaps the universe is a example of measurable evidence.

To sum up...

Thanks for saying the same thing over and over and over. You are so smart, and I am so dumb, and blind, and whatever....you hold the keys of knowledge and I am deluding myself.

I get it. Your biased. Thanks for sharing.

 

[Beth]

How do you decide what is reasonable to take people’s word for and what is not?

It's a complicated matrix of time, space, resources and importance.

Okay. That makes it a subjective judgment on the part of each individual. What, exactly, are the relevant portions of your judgment matrix that not only give you cause to decide that belief in the existence of god is not justifiable (that argument I well understand and agree is solid) but also that others who feel differently are not coming to a reasonable or rational conclusion.

It seems to me it comes down to the default assumption of ‘no god exists’ versus a default assumption of ‘some god exists’. I feel both are reasonable default assumptions but neither can be proven false. You clearly don't and I would like to better understand why you feel this way. I know you tried to answer this in your previous post, but I think your response can by summed up as 'because I believe it to be as unreasonable assumption'.

Atheists set up the non-existance of god as the default assumption, known as the null hypothesis, that is a subjective choice you are making.

No, it's an epistemological choice. There is no subjectivity nor objectivity to it since it does not concern subjects or objects.

Oh, come on now, we weren’t talking about subjective and objective as correlates to grammatical entities. Who’s playing fast and loose with definitions now! Calling it epistemological does not make it objective. If it is not subjective, as you apparently feel, what is the objective criteria you are using to justify 'no god exists' as the ONLY reasonable default assumption.

The only thing is, it’s also quite reasonable to set up the default as ‘god exists’.

Reasonable how?[/quote] Reasonable in that when setting up a null to test a scientific hypothesis, there is no objective criteria to decide on it. Choosing the null is a subjective process that is dependent on the goal of the analysis, which is itself, a subjective choice.

However the more general common thread of a greater supernatural unity has not been shown false. So, the question of the existance of god falls into the unproveable space.

NO.

The existence of "god" is dependant on what it is one says "god" is.

If one says "god" is, "that which upon all attempts to demonstrate its existence will hide its existence," then it is definitionally in the unprovable space.

It is NOT my fault that as the concept of god has evolved and man has NOT found his gods in the high or the low places that those who wish to keep the word must push their god into ever more inaccessible places until it has reached the only logical endpoint - that of infinite inaccessibility.

Why would you or I think it is your fault? It matters not that the definition has evolved. So has the definition of ‘atom’. What matters is that for whatever definition of god you use, scientific methods can only prove it false by assuming it true, then making a prediction based on that assumption, and finally collecting data designed to determine if the prediction is correct. That isn't what you are doing with the question of 'does any god exist?'.

Why must a stimulus be made of matter?

By definition.

Well, you can certainly define it that way, but it's not the only definition in use. For example, my old pocket dictionary (1964) includes the following definition for stimulus: "an action, influence or agency, that produces a response in a living organism." Ideas would certainly fit this description. Why do you insist on defining stimulus such that ideas cannot qualify?

Do you not find ideas stimulating?

I find ideas matter.

Are you making a pun here? Are ideas made of matter? If not, how do you mean this statement that they matter?

You cannot predict, without knowing both content and context of information, what that response will be.

What is the output of function f?

How can I know without both content and context of information what the behaviour of f will be?

That is, in essence, my question to you. I think content and context are necessary aspects of predicting the behavior of f, but they are also intangible aspects. How do you reconcile your belief that stimuli must be made of matter, yet content and context of information is the key to making accurate predictions regarding the behavior of function f?

Zero is, indeed, a very useful concept. Does the concept of zero exist independent of human brains to think of it? If all human beings died off, would the concept of zero die off with us? Or would it still exist, hanging around under abstract metaphorical rocks waiting for some other intelligent species somewhere to discover it?

The expression of zero exists in the physical. The concept of zero requires physical self-representation.

Put simply there is a relationship between zero and the concept of zero.

The former is not required for the later to exist. Nor is the later required for the former to exist.

I’m sorry, but I don’t understand what this means with respect to the questions I posed. Could you try answering them with a yes or no response.

• 1. Does the concept of zero exist independent of human brains to think of it?
  2. If all human beings died off, would the concept of zero die off with us?
  3. Or would it still exist, hanging around under abstract metaphorical rocks waiting for some other intelligent species somewhere to discover it?

I’m arguing that it is just as reasonable for people to assume that such an X exists as it is to assume that it doesn’t.

Why?

Because choosing the default assumption is a subjective choice.

I'm trying to understand why you feel so certain of the conclusions that you have made.

The alternative is inconsistent.

What inconsistency do you see in assuming some god exists? If, indeed, an inconsistency is inherent in making the assumption, that would very convincing evidence that no god exists.

 

[Hokulele]

Assuming that there isn't an explanation of some kind is just mental laziness, and it answers nothing. Everything that exists in our world has a why behind it...why do we need to think that there isn't a why related to the origins of space and time.

Only the actions of concious organisms involve a "why". For example, if you wanted to know why the Grand Canyon exists, you could study geology and learn something about erosion, which is really explaining "how" the Grand Canyon formed. Alternatively, you could say that Pack-i-tha-a-wi used his knife and club to open a whole in the earth to drain flood waters, which would be a good explanation of "why". Sadly it conflicts with the "why" of various other local tribes and doesn't really get you any closer to any factual version of the Grand Canyon, but rather to a factual version of how people create myths.

Asking "why" can lead you to a better understanding of how different cultures think (and you will get a wide variety of answers depending on the cultures studied), but asking "how" can lead you to a better understanding of things that aren't people.

With this kind of logic there would be no scientific knowledge at all.

Now you are contradicting yourself. Your original quote was as follows:

I believe that science as you and I think of it is the best tool for discovering HOW this reality works the way it does. Science should never intend to express the WHY, because it can't. When has it ever? When could it ever?

As you stated yourself, science focuses on how reality works. There is no why.

 

[Mobyseven]

Atheists set up the non-existance of god as the default assumption, known as the null hypothesis, that is a subjective choice you are making. You set up the null based on what is important to you and what you are trying to learn. The consequence of your choice is you cannot affirm the null. You can only disprove it. By any decent scientific standard, that null of 'no god exists' has never been shown false and for that reason I don’t have any problems with the atheist argument. It’s quite sound.

The only thing is, it’s also quite reasonable to set up the default as ‘god exists’. Particularly if the believer is willing, like epeos has mentioned, to let go of any specific religious beliefs that conflict with known empirical scientific results. By any decent scientific standard, the general null assumption of some greater entity that created our universe has never been disproven either.

Though the explanation will once again fall on deaf ears - if I see this argument used one more time (especially by Beth) I think my head is going to explode - I might as well walk through the basic reasons why this is false again:

You cannot prove a negative. Because of this, you can never disprove the existence of anything. Unicorns, leprechauns, anything. There is, in a finite universe, a finite number of true propositions and a (hypothetically) infinite number of false propositions. In an infinite universe, there is an infinite number of true propositions, but a greater infinity of false propositions. In either case, there are infinitely more false propositions than true propositions. As such, it is more reasonable to not believe in an given proposition until it has be justified. On top of this, Occam's Razor says that we should not multiply entities unnecessarily - if one believes in one unnecessary entity, there is no reason not to believe in any number of unnecessary entities - and this is another reason to not believe a proposition until it has been justified.

My prediction is that this post will be ignored, and we'll see the same argument trotted out again in a few pages time...

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Assuming that there isn't an explanation of some kind is just mental laziness, and it answers nothing. Everything that exists in our world has a why behind it...why do we need to think that there isn't a why related to the origins of space and time.

With this kind of logic there would be no scientific knowledge at all.

I think you may be confusing what & how (describing the thing and how it works, how it was formed, etc) with why, which in this case refers to what is the purpose of something.

How did mosquitoes come to exist could be asked as, why are there mosquitoes? But 'why' in the context of this discussion would be more like what is the 'higher' purpose of mosquitoes?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Can you tell me how you decide what is 'evidence' and what is a 'conclusion' without considering the quality and reliability of the evidence available?

It seems to me that without consideration of your second list above, the first list becomes meaningless. For example, in one of your previous posts, you made the statement "What a person sees is the evidence. The fact they recognize it as red is not the evidence." If you are unwilling to call the labeling of something 'red' as evidence, what then constitutes 'evidence' beyond what we each individually experience.

I gave you a very clear example, Beth. But like Moby, I'll repeat it in the almost lost hope you will eventually get it.

A person gets ill following a flu shot and draws the conclusion the flu shot caused the illness.

The evidence is, the person had symptoms of an illness. But the conclusion is, the person believes the flu shot caused the illness. Regardless of what that person believes, the belief is not evidence the flu shot actually caused the illness.

Where you can't seem to accept reality here is your claim that gods can be felt. You seem to think that is the same as interpretation of visual input in the brain when light with the wavelength of red affects the nerves on the retina.

Well, we can confirm that one's conclusion one sees the color red is correct. That is why we accept their conclusion.

In fact, if you were to hypnotize a person or somehow trick them into concluding something that wasn't red was red, then you would have the same conditions as with the god beliefs. You would have the evidence, what the person was looking at that had been confirmed as 'not red' by other means, and the conclusion drawn by the person that the color they were looking at was red. In that case, the conclusion would not be evidence the thing actually was the color red.

And while we might take it for granted the person is correctly concluding they are seeing the color red, that conclusion is still not the evidence, it is a conclusion. The difference is we have no reason to question the conclusion. In the case of god beliefs, the conclusion cannot be supported. Color red, conclusion is supportable. God beliefs, conclusion is not supportable. Both are conclusions.

 

[Beth]

I gave you a very clear example, Beth. But like Moby, I'll repeat it in the almost lost hope you will eventually get it.

A person gets ill following a flu shot and draws the conclusion the flu shot caused the illness.

The evidence is, the person had symptoms of an illness. But the conclusion is, the person believes the flu shot caused the illness. Regardless of what that person believes, the belief is not evidence the flu shot actually caused the illness.

I agree with you on this point and understand that the belief is not evidence. But I do think the illness is evidence in support of their belief. Do you disagree with that? Because if so, I need you to explain to me how it is that coming down with the flu after getting the shot is evidence when it happens to study participants but not when it happens to an individual of your acquaintance? My contention is that it is evidence in both cases, but the quality and reliability of the conclusions that can be drawn from the evidence is quite different. Hmmm. Is that what you’ve been trying to say? I would agree that it isn’t so much the quality of the evidence as it is the quality of the conclusions you can draw from the evidence.

Where you can't seem to accept reality here is your claim that gods can be felt. You seem to think that is the same as interpretation of visual input in the brain when light with the wavelength of red affects the nerves on the retina.

Well, we can confirm that one's conclusion one sees the color red is correct. That is why we accept their conclusion.

No, I don’t think is the same as seeing red. That merely provides a useful analogy for some aspects of it. You talk about confirming one’s conclusion that the color red is correct. How do you do that? We do that by getting concurrence from other people who can tell red from green. We learn, from childhood, that a particular sensory experience is called ‘red’. I think that people are similarly taught what spiritual experiences are and how to label them in concordance with other people’s experiences.

Do you feel that I am incorrectly saying that the person’s belief that they got the flu from the flu shot is evidence that they did? Because that is not what I am saying. I’m saying that the timing of the person’s illness is evidence in support of their conclusion. It doesn’t make it a correct conclusion; we agree on that aspect.

When a person believes that god exists because they have experienced god’s presence in their life, I think that is evidence of god existance in the same way that the person getting the flu is evidence that the vaccination made them sick. It isn’t proof, but it is supporting evidence.

When you say that people’s experiences are not evidence because they are incorrectly interpreting their experience, well that seems analogous to saying the person who got the flu vaccination is incorrect in thinking they were ill and therefore, it isn’t evidence that the flu shot made them ill because they weren’t actually ill at all.