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

[Beth]

You seem to be using a different definition of valid here. Are you sure you don't mean to say "reasonable"? That gives one more leeway for consideration of the circumstances.

A valid conclusion means the conclusion would be correct and true.

I thought I meant valid, but my recollection from my undergraduate logic class is that valid only implies the reasoning is correct, not that the premises are also true. Perhaps I got it wrong though. Memory is so fallible.

Of course. No one doubts that theists think they are accurately interpreting the evidence.

But the difference is one is a supportable conclusion based on sufficient evidence validly interpreted, and the other is an unsupportable conclusion based on insufficient evidence that was also invalidly interpreted.

This is where we differ. It’s not an unsupportable conclusion, at least no more so than the atheistic position. Basing their belief system on a different set of assumptions can lead to a different conclusion even with the same evidence and the same logic. That happens. Even in math and it’s hard to get more rigorously logical than math.

Conclusions do not change the facts. Believing in gods does not make them real. Drawn conclusions are not equal. If two people draw two different conclusions, 'gods exist', 'gods don't exist', it isn't a matter of fairness that each has an equal right to their conclusion and both conclusions are equally likely just because we should respect each other's beliefs or because there is no reason one person is better than the other.

One conclusion is correct and one isn't. The better we are at recognizing evidence and the better we are at logical/appropriate interpretations of evidence the more likely we are to draw the correct conclusions. Fairness and equal worth or value have nothing to do with the truth of the conclusion.

To put it more accurately, one assumption is correct and the other not. We can’t prove either assumption is correct. My own personal belief, held without proof, is that it isn’t possible for us to prove either proposition rigorously true.

At any rate, the fact that we are actually discussing assumptions, nor conclusions, means that yes, it is a matter of fairness and the equal worth of equally valid arguments. That you believe one side of the proposition has a probability so close to 100% and the other so close to 0 that it doesn’t make any difference is of no more value than the believer who is convinced that they are 100% right in their opposite assumption. That convinction you feel that you are right is balanced atop your assumption that no god exists. Both you and the believer have assumed your null hypothesis true because that’s all any of us can do.

The reason we know the principles of evidence based conclusions are more likely to be the correct conclusions is those principles are overwhelmingly successful. Through trial and error and continual improvement in our techniques of systematic observation we have determined the path of logical conclusions from those systematic observations. The scientific knowledge base has grown but so have the techniques of the scientific process. One doesn't need to formalize and perfect each and every observation and conclusion. One is still more likely to draw the correct conclusion simply by recognizing and using the rules of the scientific process.

Re GeeMack's examples: Fran posted them already.

And I’ve responded already. I agree with you about the value of scientific evidence. I just don’t agree with the conclusion you’ve come to regarding the value and validity of the arguments for the other side. Your conclusion rests on your assumptions, just as surely as theirs do. Both assumptions seem reasonable to me.

 

[Faithkills]

And I’ve responded already. I agree with you about the value of scientific evidence. I just don’t agree with the conclusion you’ve come to regarding the value and validity of the arguments for the other side. Your conclusion rests on your assumptions, just as surely as theirs do. Both assumptions seem reasonable to me.

I don't need belief nor want it. Skepticism as a philosophy is aimed at getting to the truth as best it may be ascertained. As such we readily drop any idea shown to be invalid. We don't cling to demonstrably false ideas.

I've experienced things I couldn't explain. But when I couldn't repeat them I discarded them as coincidence. The person who wins the lottery often claims god had a hand in it. But someone had to win. And if god had a hand in him winning then god had a hand in everyone else losing, many of which almost certainly needed to win more.

Facts are discarded when they can be shown to be false, or shown to be impossible to disprove.

That's the difference.

Both are not reasonable, and I don't think you make allow this sort of evidential free pass in any other aspect of your life except for the one that makes you feel good. I can't speak for exactly why it makes you feel good to delude yourself so, but for most it's fear of death, fear of personal responsibility, or fear of facing the fact you've wasted your life being a dupe, etc.

But in the end you will have wasted whatever chance you had to appreciate reality. But then if you didn't suspect this deep down you would not likely be here trying to spread your delusion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I thought I meant valid, but my recollection from my undergraduate logic class is that valid only implies the reasoning is correct, not that the premises are also true. Perhaps I got it wrong though. Memory is so fallible.

You are still arguing in circles and ignoring the facts which don't fit in your non-evidence based belief system. Valid does imply correct reasoning. In this case the person is not using correct reasoning. Once again, just because the person believes their 'experience' (or whatever you want to call it) is evidence for gods does not make that 'experience' evidence for gods. It is evidence of an experience and nothing more. The "premise" you refer to isn't just wrong, it is invalid. You still don't recognize that.

It is an invalid conclusion to claim cause and effect because two events are coincidental in time. You don't claim, "well the underlying premise is there was cause and effect".

By the same token you cannot claim because you "believe" an experience is evidence of god that you can therefore establish that belief as an underlying premise. This continues to be the finer point you cannot seem to grasp. In this case it remains an invalid conclusion because the underlying premise you are claiming uses a conclusion in place of evidence. Sometimes it may not be as clear as this in which case one could more easily argue the logic was valid but the underlying premise was not. To use that same reasoning when we know the underlying premise is based on a conclusion which the evidence does not support means we perhaps go back a layer to call the conclusion invalid. But the conclusion remains invalid nonetheless.

You can argue semantics further if you want but it only detracts from the real issue, that you still cannot see the difference between a conclusion and the actual evidence.

This is where we differ. It’s not an unsupportable conclusion, at least no more so than the atheistic position. Basing their belief system on a different set of assumptions can lead to a different conclusion even with the same evidence and the same logic. That happens. Even in math and it’s hard to get more rigorously logical than math.
To put it more accurately, one assumption is correct and the other not. We can’t prove either assumption is correct. My own personal belief, held without proof, is that it isn’t possible for us to prove either proposition rigorously true.

At any rate, the fact that we are actually discussing assumptions, nor conclusions, means that yes, it is a matter of fairness and the equal worth of equally valid arguments. That you believe one side of the proposition has a probability so close to 100% and the other so close to 0 that it doesn’t make any difference is of no more value than the believer who is convinced that they are 100% right in their opposite assumption. That convinction you feel that you are right is balanced atop your assumption that no god exists. Both you and the believer have assumed your null hypothesis true because that’s all any of us can do.

If your god beliefs or anyone else's god beliefs are evidence based Beth, feel free to summarize the evidence.

Remember of course, that conclusions are not evidence. You seem to have lost that train of thought and reverted to your previously held false premise that if one believes something that means their belief is evidence based.

You are now trying to exchange "assumptions" with "conclusions". They are the same. They are beliefs as well. None of those, regardless of the definitions, are at the root of this problem. We know woo believers are making assumptions, drawing conclusions, and have underlying beliefs which differ from skeptics.

The difference is in using evidence based assumptions, drawing evidence based conclusions, and having evidence based beliefs vs not using evidence to guide your view of the nature of the Universe.

And I’ve responded already. I agree with you about the value of scientific evidence. I just don’t agree with the conclusion you’ve come to regarding the value and validity of the arguments for the other side. Your conclusion rests on your assumptions, just as surely as theirs do. Both assumptions seem reasonable to me.

And in having this position, you are essentially saying the value of evidence is arbitrary. On the one hand you acknowledge the superiority of evidence based scientific conclusions. On the other hand you can't let go of the fact that god beliefs are not evidence based.

 

[Faithkills]

Double post

 

[Faithkills]

I think it's a little worse than that...

Theists seem to want or need others to defer to or respect their beliefs. They often call lack of a belief a "faith" so they can be as incredulous of our claims as we are of theirs. But they forget that they are all talking about invisible, immeasurable forms of consciousness... as far as we know, consciousness can only be generated by a material brain. This makes all such invisible entities equally delusional until or unless evidence shows otherwise. That is NOT something to be "on the fence" about unless you are equally on the fence to ALL such entities--

Moreover, faith is a self-perpetuating meme. People of faith are told that "people of faith" are better... and they prop they deception up on this forum though it has no more evidence in it's favor than whatever it is they have "faith" in. They also what their illogical fallacy that skeptics should be "on the fence" deferred to. Plus, they spread atheist bigotry though they would be the first to deny it and the first to claim that their feelings were hurt or that they are discriminated against.

..

The faith meme requires that you spread bigotry about non-believers-- after all, they offer the biggest threat to all faiths that there is-- reason.

..

They are angry that we have the audacity not to believe in the woo they think might be true.

Like I said I think there's a part of them that does know it's not true. Most sequester their mind so that the truth never intersects their thought processes, but some are driven to places like this in the very sadly mistaken belief they can stem dissent 'at it's source'.

As you see so many theists start threads which basically say 'atheism is faith'. They get debunked regularly. Some may even think that's true, which is even more depressing. But, how can a mind trained to delude itself form coherent thoughts?

I have a theory about mammalian behavior that may explain part of it. Mammals lacking an extensive set of instincts have to have some way to find sources of information they need to survive. We find parents and bond to them. There's a tropism for authority. There's also a tropism for rebelling against authority that seems to occur later, but not everyone. In a family without religion you can clearly see the mistakes of the parents, it's easy to justify rebellion. But in a religious family they can transfer it to a formless authority that can be readily redefined to be worthy. (and regularly is)

So the phrase 'big sky daddy' may be particularly apt, and I doubt accidentally so. We all can infer what's really going on. God is to parents like pacifiers are to nipples. Both replace but the neither of the latter provides anything useful. Unfortunately people get over pacifiers but god never goes away, and I really do think the natural mental progression is stunted.

We do need to become the responsible parties. We need to take ownership of our destiny, individual, and aggregate, in order to be the responsible parents, genetically and socially, to our progeny.

I think theists are, intellectually, children raising children.

 

[articulett]

I agree, Faithkills. I think god is a story we attach to our need for someone watching over us and guiding us and protecting us. Language gives us a way to encode our instincts in stories to help us make sense of the world--and to pass the info. on to future generations. It's just that the crap gets passed along with the truth just like junk DNA in genomes.

Some of us outgrow the story--but, it's invisible and pervasive, and the meme threatens punishment for those lacking faith. So people just keep propping it up and putting down non-believers... mindlessly ... while feeling like they are being diplomatic and humble even. It really does become like the parable of the Emperor's new clothes.

I mentioned several times that believing in gods is like believing in demons--both are equally likely to be true. But believers never really hear this. They ask questions they don't want the answer to and then they skim the answers and avoid the essence.

My lack of belief in god contains all the arrogance and "know-it-allness" as their lack of belief in demons, and yet in their head they've made me into a bad guy so they can feel better about themselves for whatever invisible entity they have faith in. Like any delusion, the attention they give it makes it important to them, and my inability to give it credence makes them frantic. In their heads, it's better to make us into "bad guys" then to face the fact that they are as delusional as those they find delusional.

I believed and tried to believe in various things throughout my life... but nobody ever really could give me a good reason why what they thought was true was worth my believing in... it's just too obvious that it's all built on the same nothingness.

I don't like to be the bearer of that news--but if people kept their faith in the closet the way they'd prefer I keep my atheism, then I'd never have to rain on their delusional parade.

It's a skeptics forum; where else can we voice these opinions if not here?

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

You weren't describing restraint from making a premature end-point, but rather constraining the search space by eliminating certain possibilities from consideration at the beginning stages. That is what can increases bias. It's not an unreasonable approach, btw, my point is that it is not the ONLY reasonable approach.

What other reasonable approaches are there? I don’t find inserting the god explanation in every stage of the process as particularly fruitful, albeit you can insert god in every stage of the investigation as an explanation, but that doesn’t end the investigation as long as there are other possible options to consider. The god explanation is only one possibility among other possibilities, it does not have pre-eminence.

 

[Beth]

You are still arguing in circles and ignoring the facts which don't fit in your non-evidence based belief system. .

Which facts do you feel I am ignoring? Are you sure I’m ignoring them. I don't think I'm ignoring them, I think I simply weigh them differently than you do. Isn't that possible?

Valid does imply correct reasoning.

Nice to know I got something right!

In this case the person is not using correct reasoning. Once again, just because the person believes their 'experience' (or whatever you want to call it) is evidence for gods does not make that 'experience' evidence for gods. It is evidence of an experience and nothing more. The "premise" you refer to isn't just wrong, it is invalid. You still don't recognize that.

You’re quite right here. I only recognize it as an unproven assumption not as invalid. As far as I can tell, no incorrect reasoning is going on, you are simply rejecting their premise.

And in having this position, you are essentially saying the value of evidence is arbitrary. On the one hand you acknowledge the superiority of evidence based scientific conclusions. On the other hand you can't let go of the fact that god beliefs are not evidence based.

No I’m not saying the value of evidence is arbitrary. I’m saying the value of evidence is subjective, which is not the same as arbitrary.

I’m going to clip the rest of your post. It's mainly a statement of how you perceive my argument. It’s confusing and inaccurate in describing my position. I think we’re going around in circles at this point and I’m getting bored with it. I’m sorry I’ve failed to make my point understandable to you but I'm tired of trying and I think I will give it up for now. Thanks for an enjoyable conversation though.

What other reasonable approaches are there?

Not to exclude 'god' from the space of explanations you are considering. Not rejecting it out of hand prior to beginning an investigation is not equivalent to giving pre-eminence. Nor does it imply that the god explanation would be automatically accepted. The RCC, for example, reviews many reports of miracles, but does not accept all of them as being miraculous.

 

[A Christian Sceptic]

I mentioned several times that believing in gods is like believing in demons--both are equally likely to be true. But believers never really hear this. They ask questions they don't want the answer to and then they skim the answers and avoid the essence.

My lack of belief in god contains all the arrogance and "know-it-allness" as their lack of belief in demons, and yet in their head they've made me into a bad guy so they can feel better about themselves for whatever invisible entity they have faith in.

Not to call down hellfire upon me but ...

Why do you think someone who believes in God doesn't / or wouldn't believe in demons? I'm sure it depends on which religion someone is following - but demons and other supernatural entities are often in those religious belief systems too.

I think believers are not responding to your demons argument because many of them won't say they don't exist (regardless of what they personally believe) because since they believe in the Supernatural demons could very well exist as well as other phenomenon.

 

[-Fran-]

Not to call down hellfire upon me but ...

Why do you think someone who believes in God doesn't / or wouldn't believe in demons? I'm sure it depends on which religion someone is following - but demons and other supernatural entities are often in those religious belief systems too.

I think believers are not responding to your demons argument because many of them won't say they don't exist (regardless of what they personally believe) because since they believe in the Supernatural demons could very well exist as well as other phenomenon.

Well, it is a problem that we as skeptics often run into. We want to show how unlikely we find a mentioned belief by comparing it to a belief that is more widely accepted as unlikely, since, to us, there really is no difference in unlikeliness between the two examples we chose only in the amount of respect that different beliefs are shown (and to us the respect given some beliefs over others makes not much sense either.) But it can, sort of, back fire, yes, to do this, because no matter if you think you have found a belief that all will agree on is totally unlikely... there always shows up some person who actually seriously believes it

I mean, what the heck, soon you can't even use Santa or the tooth fairy, I suspect. For a while I thought it was pretty safe to use Zeus and the other Olympic gods, but then I ran into people who said they were "Hellenistic Pagans" or some such, and seemed to actually be serious about it

Yeah, it's not easy

 

[Faithkills]

Not to exclude 'god' from the space of explanations you are considering. Not rejecting it out of hand prior to beginning an investigation is not equivalent to giving pre-eminence. Nor does it imply that the god explanation would be automatically accepted. The RCC, for example, reviews many reports of miracles, but does not accept all of them as being miraculous.

What does god explain? And how can it be shown?

here has been nothing that god has been used to explain which has born fruit, and much that has been shown to have other more useful and interesting explanations.

'God did it' isn't very useful if it doesn't help us predict events, anymore than saying the IPU did it. What use is god?

 

[articulett]

What does god explain? And how can it be shown?

here has been nothing that god has been used to explain which has born fruit, and much that has been shown to have other more useful and interesting explanations.

'God did it' isn't very useful if it doesn't help us predict events, anymore than saying the IPU did it. What use is god?

It's a handy dandy all purpose ego builder and pacifier. It is frequently invented and reinvented by humans so they can feel superior to others without actually having to do anything more taxing than praying and refraining from swearing.

 

[articulett]

posted to wrong thread...

 

[Mobyseven]

This idea that we are somehow excluding god from the get go is completely and utterly freakin' wrong. Indeed, as many have tried to explain to Beth already, that's exactly the opposite of what we've done.

The main issue of course is defining exactly what people mean by god. It's become somewhat of a meaningless label really, as the same person can use definitions as widely varying as 'man who will judge us all after death, grargh' to 'you know, it's just like, that feeling' in the course of a single conversation. Well excuse me for not believing in your ill or undefined higher being that interferes with our day to day life, only he doesn't and she might have six arms, unless that's the bloke with the elephant head.

I don't dismiss god out of hand. But saying 'god did it' is a bit like saying 'Barchnik did it'.

What's 'Barchnik'? Bingo.

 

[articulett]

And I don't think I've ever seen a forum member understand this no matter how well explained or by how many people. I think to myself, "are they dumb?" "Are they purposely not showing understanding?" "Is this something they aren't aware of--a faith induced cognitive dissonance?" A meme infection with a hidden fear of "losing faith"?

The "apologists" who are posting in this thread have a "need" to believe in a god that is more real than Thor... and all their semantic twisting, failure to understand, sarcasm, vilification of us, mishearing, etc. is all part of propping up that belief. Once you get at the core of such a belief in "those kind" of posters... you can generate their known responses by claiming their belief wrong. For Mijo, if you say "evolution is not random", he must pop into a thread to say it is. For Kleinman it's that evolution must be mathematically impossible. For John Freestone it's the soul. For the twofers it's their conspiracy. The gun nutters think that you are trying to take away their toys if you even suggest that liberal gun laws ensure that some bad moods or clumsiness will turn into huge tragedies.

Whatever it is, they seem to hear things that aren't being said to continue to fight to prop up a belief in their head. And since it's so rare to change it and you end up spending all your time dodging their red herrings, tangents, and ad homs--, I've been enjoying just observing it and trying to figure out what their "core belief" is that they are trying to protect. The majority of people on this forum make ready sense to me... except when they are trying to argue around their their "core belief". Then all conversation goes haywire, and you know you've hit a nerve.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Which facts do you feel I am ignoring? Are you sure I’m ignoring them. I don't think I'm ignoring them, I think I simply weigh them differently than you do. Isn't that possible? ...

It would appear by your reasoning then Beth, that there is no real difference between woo believers and skeptics. That there is no real difference between evidence based beliefs and fantasy based beliefs.

 

[lupus_in_fabula]

What other reasonable approaches are there? I don’t find inserting the god explanation in every stage of the process as particularly fruitful, albeit you can insert god in every stage of the investigation as an explanation, but that doesn’t end the investigation as long as there are other possible options to consider. The god explanation is only one possibility among other possibilities, it does not have pre-eminence.

Not to exclude 'god' from the space of explanations you are considering. Not rejecting it out of hand prior to beginning an investigation is not equivalent to giving pre-eminence. Nor does it imply that the god explanation would be automatically accepted. The RCC, for example, reviews many reports of miracles, but does not accept all of them as being miraculous.

As I already said, you can have god in there as an explanation, but it doesn’t really add much to the investigation at that point.

 

[cyborg]

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.

There is no inconsistency in assuming X exists.

The problem is forming an epistemological system based on this null hypothesis and expecting it to remain consistent.

Null hypothesis: X exists.

I assume p exists.

I assume q exists.

I say p has the property that it cannot be shown not to exist.

I say q has the property that it cannot be shown not to exist.

I say if p exists q does not exist.

I say if q exists p does not exist.

Exists p?

Exists q?

I think it would have been better to assume neither p nor q exists in the first place.

This goes double for things which have the property that their existence cannot be disproved.

Complete. Consistent. Sound.

Choose two.

 

[Beth]

It would appear by your reasoning then Beth, that there is no real difference between woo believers and skeptics. That there is no real difference between evidence based beliefs and fantasy based beliefs.

I notice you didn't answer my question, you only disparaged me for asking it. I think there is no real difference between god believers and atheists*, but I wouldn't extend that sentiment to the larger categories you used as examples.

As I already said, you can have god in there as an explanation, but it doesn’t really add much to the investigation at that point.

I agree with this, I don't think it adds much. As I said previously, it's reasonable to exclude it.

There is no inconsistency in assuming X exists.

Thanks. Nice to hear from you again. I'm afraid I didn't understand your example. You assumed X but didn't mention X again, but started in with p and q. What is your example trying to illustrate. Incompleteness? Unsoundness?

* Actually, there are a lot of differences, including perhaps genetic ones, but in the sense that I think skeptigirl is referring to, I don't think is much difference between strong atheists and god believers.

 

[articulett]

As I already said, you can have god in there as an explanation, but it doesn’t really add much to the investigation at that point.

And that's the trick.. god sticks around because you can never disprove him.

No amount of evidence can get him out the equation once he's there. Scientific explanations just push god into the of of "explainer things that I don't understand yet". Demons, should of course, be given the same privilege by believers... all invisible entities should, --but only god belief can make a person feel "holier than thou".