Are Agnostics Welcome Here?

[FattyCatty]

Fine with me. FattyCatty is arguing against you as though you are making a deductive argument. She should at least realize that isn't what you are doing.

He is stating his conclusion as a certainty, not as more or less probable. That makes it a deductive argument, I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I see that as her responsibility, not his.

See above.

Another wall of stuff not worth reading.

Most people just write tl;dr.

 

[FattyCatty]

Fair enough....I am currently reading the""Warranted Christian Belief" despite my reservations....just to see.

But…as the title indicates…trying to justify Christianity is not just about God….but about a particular god who is part of a TRINITY and who wants to forgive people for a sin they did not commit due to him being an unimpressive moron. And he cannot find a better means to accomplish that except by raping a 13 years old married girl in the middle of a country where they stone girls for that according to his own orders. So he commits adultery and incest and rape and pedophilia so as to impregnate Mary with himself so as to incarnate himself so as to crucify himself to himself so as to redeem the sin…..and 2000 years later the sin is yet unredeemed and he has to take a mulligan.

I can see I have some exciting reading ahead when I start the Bible.

So I am quite intrigued at how all the above is “warranted”???? That is why I am reading the book….to see what new Warping and Writhing and what new CASUISTRY he might come up with that I have not come across before.

I hope there is something new and interesting for you.

Have you read it? If not then have you read similar stuff? But I think you REALLY NEED to read the Bible….just read the Bible….did I mention you need to read the Bible?

No, I haven't read it. So far, I've been reading excerpts from things on the Internet. I can't afford to buy any books right now and haven't been out to go to the library. And yes, I really need to read the Bible. Am I supposed to capitalize Bible? I notice you do. Whoa. Wiki does too. I'd better go back and fix mine.

Do you mean that the fact that I have not read them makes my opinion less valid?

Yes, I think it makes your opinion about what they've written less valid.

Well I was not making my opinion about them.... I was making it about other casuists who I suspect are quite similar and whose works I have read.

Sorry, I misunderstood. I thought you were talking about them and equating them to the others you had read, even though you don't know that they're the same because you haven't read what they've written.

BUT...BUT.... I am going to tell you a joke…. I hope you get it

Two guys were walking down a road when suddenly John stops Tony and tells him to halt.

Tony: Why…what is wrong?
John: Look down…you were about to step in turd
Tony: (looks down) Na… I don’t think it is turd
John: What do you mean…look at it….it is definitely turd
Tony: (Stoops down and scoops a bit of it on his finger and sniffs it) well it smells like turd….but does not feel like it
John: What does it matter what it feels like….it looks like turd and smells like turd….best to assume it is turd
Tony: (licks a little on the tip of his tongue) It also tastes like turd….thanks for stopping me…good thing I didn’t step in it.​

Choked laugh; yuk, gross; groan.

The TRUTH hurts sometimes.....in what way would stating FACTS be BIAS??? And despite the facts hurting...how is stating them Acrimonious???

I don't think what you were saying was all facts. A lot of it was opinion or interpretation or assumption. Also, Leumas, it's the way you say things that makes them acrimonious; e.g., use of words like putrid, excrement, stupidity, morons.

 

[punshhh]

Stop here.

You really shouldn't go any further in your thinking before you've clarified this.

If you really "don't know about" what this thing is, then it cannot either be there or not be there, because you wouldn't recognize it if you ran across it.

So you're talking about nothing.

I have defined two attributes which X may have( reason and creation(not first cause)). There may be many reasons why I don't or can't know what it is if I run into it. However if it satisfies my definition it is god like and I can file it in the set of (god like entities) which I will call (g). There are members of this set already, humans and AI(or at least there soon will be AI)

You have to have something in mind if you're not, in fact, talking about nothing.

I am talking about (g)

You've said that this something is an intelligent creator of this universe, but the "grad student god" example shows that this isn't an adequate description.

Can you link me to the "grad student god" example?

Now here's the problem.... If this God not only is intelligent and not only created this universe but also in some way knows what's going on in this universe, as gods do, then we have to account for how this intelligence -- which itself must depend on some kind of dynamic structure to maintain its functioning -- gets information from his creation.

If the creator of our universe is intelligent, then it has something corresponding to a brain. (If you want to grant God intelligence without something like a brain, you're going to have to explain how that's possible.)

Whatever the godbrain is, it's got to interact in some way with whatever it "knows".

(So even God can't know things when they happen. God will always be a little behind.)

OK, now we're talking about something like a hyperdimensional brain that is responsible for our world existing and in some way knows what's going on here.

That last bit's the toughie, because even if you imagine the hyperbrain, or hyperbeing if you like, studying this thing it created and observing it in some level of detail, it would still remain fundamentally separate and removed from its creation -- in whatever its equivalent of spacetime is -- in a way that gods aren't.

I am familiar with these considerations, they are however irrelevant to my definition. Many of the entities in (g) may have various abilities such as these or not. If they have the two attributes I have specified I put them in (g)

Not to mention, it doesn't appear to manipulate its creation in any way.

God as hyperscientist ain't very goddy.

In acknowledgement of humanity's limited understanding of existence at this time, it is fruitless to speculate about these god like attributes because;

1, we can only consider things in the terms of our current understanding of the universe we find ourselves in. Members of (g) may have qualities beyond what these terms can address.

2, we are inclined to think it is impossible to exist outside time, or to be everywhere simultaneously etc, things which seem entirely impossible from our perspective. Again this might not be the case for members of (g) it might well be second nature to them or something entirely different about which we are oblivious.

3, everything we, humanity, might care to say about these things is irrelevant to the truth of the situation as there may be a god regardless.

So tell me... when you say "if it's there"... how would you know it if you encountered it, or evidence of it?

I may encounter it every day, but if I don't have the ability to see it I won't know.

For example, an advanced alien could turn up and give me a curious pair of glasses. I put them on and suddenly everything I look at is a being rather than an object. I look at the ground it is actually the body of an enormous being(the earth), I look in the sky and see instead of the sun an old man with a white beard. I look at the night sky and the stars form the outline of a cosmic boat. I look down at my body and it is made up of stars and planets with billions of minute beings living there.

These special glasses might reveal the truth about reality so that one realises that our current understanding of reality is a fairytale, nothing more.

How can anyone say that these glasses don't exist? All we can say is it seems in the light of what we know that they probably don't exist.

 

[tsig]

It's the lack of facts and evidence for god that informs my judgment that there is no god.

There is also the fact that there are as many definitions of god as there are believers that lead me to the conclusion that they are deluding themselves.

d exists')."
[/LIST]
I Besides, the statement tsig made, to which I responded, was a fallacy, as I pointed out (and gave links that also pointed it out).

Then you have evidence of god?

ETA:Actually you didn't supply any links in the post you quoted.

 

[Belz...]

Well, I had the impression that I am the only one expected to change their mind, which means it isn't a debate.

Well, working on impressions isn't the way to engage in a debate.

You omitted this part of my post, including the question I asked. Please indicate when you snip part of my posts, for reasons of clarity and courtesy.

No. I only include and answer the parts I feel like including and answering.

Also, please answer the highlighted question when you get a chance.

Ok. "Belief". "uneducated guess". "gut feeling". "Opinion" isn't one of them because it covers a much wider spectrum.

That blue is nicer than orange is my opinion

Assuming, for the sake of argument, that it's an opinion, it's an opinion in the most subjective part of the spectrum, something we call "taste".

it is, therefore, also a subjective, unsubstantiated belief.

Well that's the crux of the problem, isn't it ? You equate "opinion" with "subjective, unsubstantianted belief". So you ARE using a very narrow definition of "opinion". Furthermore, I completely disagree that "I like blue" is a belief. "I like blue" is a statement of fact.

Your Premise 2 doesn't allow for the possibility that there is a god; mine does. Your Premise to leads to an argument from ignorance; mine doesn't.

Would you mind quoting my (2) again ? I don't remember dissalowing that possibility.

I thought in logic a valid argument was one where if you assume the premise(s) is true, the conclusion cannot be false. Is this incorrect?

Not strictly. Where have I assumed anything ?

Here's two: the Christian God of the Anglican/Episcopalian Church and the God who created the universe such that it developed into something that produced among other things, a natural universe, physics, mathematics, and humans who could question and learn about those things and who could believe in God.

The second god is not very specific.

The Christian god is easy to disprove: omnipotence. QED.

 

[dafydd]

I have defined two attributes which X may have( reason and creation(not first cause)). There may be many reasons why I don't or can't know what it is if I run into it. However if it satisfies my definition it is god like and I can file it in the set of (god like entities) which I will call (g). There are members of this set already, humans and AI(or at least there soon will be AI)

I am talking about (g)

Can you link me to the "grad student god" example?
I am familiar with these considerations, they are however irrelevant to my definition. Many of the entities in (g) may have various abilities such as these or not. If they have the two attributes I have specified I put them in (g)
In acknowledgement of humanity's limited understanding of existence at this time, it is fruitless to speculate about these god like attributes because;

1, we can only consider things in the terms of our current understanding of the universe we find ourselves in. Members of (g) may have qualities beyond what these terms can address.

2, we are inclined to think it is impossible to exist outside time, or to be everywhere simultaneously etc, things which seem entirely impossible from our perspective. Again this might not be the case for members of (g) it might well be second nature to them or something entirely different about which we are oblivious.

3, everything we, humanity, might care to say about these things is irrelevant to the truth of the situation as there may be a god regardless.


I may encounter it every day, but if I don't have the ability to see it I won't know.

For example, an advanced alien could turn up and give me a curious pair of glasses. I put them on and suddenly everything I look at is a being rather than an object. I look at the ground it is actually the body of an enormous being(the earth), I look in the sky and see instead of the sun an old man with a white beard. I look at the night sky and the stars form the outline of a cosmic boat. I look down at my body and it is made up of stars and planets with billions of minute beings living there.

These special glasses might reveal the truth about reality so that one realises that our current understanding of reality is a fairytale, nothing more.

How can anyone say that these glasses don't exist? All we can say is it seems in the light of what we know that they probably don't exist.

You are very good at using a lot of words to say nothing.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

This is where I am confused. If there is evidence against the existence of god(s), why is it still possible for gods to exist? Is it because you can't have evidence of non-existence? Because it seems to say "there is no evidence of p; there is evidence of not-p, therefore not-p."

Because evidence does not equal proof. If I find your gun lying on the ground next to the body of your most hated rival, killed by a bullet fired by that very gun, I have evidence that you killed your rival. It may be possible, however, that someone stole your gun and shot your rival for entirely different reasons. Evidence is anything that is used to support a particular argument or position. It can be strong, weak, or somewhere in the middle. Strength of evidence depends on how closely it fits with a particular argument and the number of possible alternatives explanations. So, the evidence supporting you as a murderer of your rival is strengthened if your fingerprints are on the gun and you have no alibi (there are few alternative explanations that fit those facts).


The fact that we have very strong evidence that god(s) are human inventions does not preclude the possibility that god(s) actually exist. God(s) may simply be and humans invented certain types of god(s) as an expression of our intuition of that fact. The absence of evidence for god(s) could reflect the fact that god(s) prefer to stay hidden. The conjunction of evidence against the existence of god(s) and the absence of evidence for the existence of god(s) works very well with inductive arguments but does not provide a valid structure for a deductive argument.

If one wants to view god(s) as beings worthy of worship, however, the conjunction of those two findings (no evidence for and evidence against) virtually erases any possibility. What god worthy of worship hides?

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

He is stating his conclusion as a certainty, not as more or less probable. That makes it a deductive argument, I believe. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

See above.

Yes, that is why I addressed it to Belz. He seemed to write to me that he was proposing something nearly 100% certain but not absolutely certain. I hoped to clarify the situation.

People often structure inductive arguments in the same form as deductive arguments; I think it is important to highlight the distinction because this issue arises in more than one context here. I noticed that Belz did not signal his conclusion with a 'therefore' or 'so', as most do with deductive arguments. Whatever deficiencies anyone shows and for whatever reasons, I think it is safe to say that both Piggy and Belz are proposing inductive arguments; they are stating them very forcefully, though.

Arguing against such an inductive argument is easier in one sense -- you can say, 'see there is a possibility of god(s)' -- but it is much harder in another sense since you must provide a better explanation of the evidence than they have. You beat an inductive argument only with a stronger inductive argument.

 

[Dani]

I also suggest you watch this AMAZING video series (20 of them ) The link is to the first in the series. Once the video finishes it should proceed on to the next part automatically....but in case it does not see this page for the list of the videos.

They are all on average about 10 minutes so altogether you have under 4 hours of watching....worth EVERY MINUTE.

I watched it. You're right, it's amazing. I recommend it to everyone, believers and non believers.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You mean if it were indistinguishable from randomness?

If that's its only feature, then we don't need to.

But that is an argument from consequence; it has nothing to do with what actually *is*. Let's say there is a god; and this god works in such a way as to produce exactly what we see before us -- what we call random chance occurrences. Sure, it's of no consequence to believe or not believe in this god, but that sort of argument doesn't tell us if there is or isn't a god. A hyper-dimensional being could be a part of the structure of the multiverse. It could even direct the formation of certain species on Earth through subtle means that we could not detect because it appears to us as random chance.

 

[FattyCatty]

Then you have evidence of god?

You can't have evidence of God's existence; it's outside the realm of science. I do consider the universe itself to be reason to believe in God, however.

ETA:Actually you didn't supply any links in the post you quoted.

I'm sorry, the links I meant were in this post. They start about halfway down the post.

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

You can't have evidence of God's existence; it's outside the realm of science. I do consider the universe itself to be reason to believe in God, however.

That is a contradiction. You consider the universe as evidence of God's existence, hence your belief. That is your evidence. You may also have personal evidence that no one else will consider evidence of anything but what transpires in your own brain; many folks quote such personal evidence.

 

[Dani]

You mean if it were indistinguishable from randomness?

If that's its only feature, then we don't need to.

And here's where Occam's razor says "hi". Conclusion: no God.

Which means it's provisional, like many other things we claim to know but are less controversial at this stage of human development. It's also the only epistemologically consistent position. I've never met anyone who doesn't use Occam's razor/Parsimony most of the time, even if intuitively. If we make exceptions in our methodology to acquire knowledge, we could even be right by random chance, but there's also an undeniable truth: our method is inconsistent.

Also, at this stage we should get rid of the assumption that "to know" means "to know the absolute truth".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

And here's where Occam's razor says "hi". Conclusion: no God.

Which means it's provisional, like many other things we claim to know but are less controversial at this stage of human development. It's also the only epistemologically consistent position. I've never met anyone who doesn't use Occam's razor/Parsimony most of the time, even if intuitively. If we make exceptions in our methodology to acquire knowledge, we could even be right by random chance, but there's also an undeniable truth: our method is inconsistent.

Also, at this stage we should get rid of the assumption that "to know" means "to know the absolute truth".

Yes. I am trying to highlight what I see as the central issue -- one side is speaking about probabilities (extraordinarily high probabilities, but probabilities nonetheless) and the other is couching its responses in terms of absolutes.

There is no way to prove absolutely that God exists. There is no way to prove absolutely that God does not exist (where God = all possible god concepts). But we can know, with virtually the same certainty that we know the earth is roundish, that human-invented gods don't exist. We can speculate about others, but I don't see how anyone can end up with a god that matters.

Doctor X, on the Skeptic board, used to say (probably still does, but I don't go over there anymore) something along the lines of .......god is either non-existent, evil, or inconsequential. I think that pretty much sums it up.

 

[Dani]

Isn't it more like this? There are no green pixies in this room. I've looked everywhere at the appropriate level (macroscopic) and there is no evidence of any green pixies. And green pixies don't exist because they are an invention of humans.

That works for certain conceptions of god(s), but does it work for all?

I'd say no. But it wouldn't work for all possible conceptions of green pixies either.

If I were compelled by the idea that green pixies exist, I might do the word/concept trick: throw out the concept but keep the word. After all, if the idea that green pixies exist carries a heavy emotional weight, but at the same time I realize it's cognitively untenable, I can keep saying that green pixies exist or might exist if I change the concept I'm referring to.

 

[Dani]

Doctor X, on the Skeptic board, used to say (probably still does, but I don't go over there anymore) something along the lines of .......god is either non-existent, evil, or inconsequential. I think that pretty much sums it up.

Yeah, I consider myself either an atheist or a noncognitivist. For example, regarding Punshhh's God, I'm a noncognitivist. I'm also a noncognitivist when someone is defining God in German, because I'm not able understand German.

ETA: depending on the conversation, I might also admit that a certain "God" exists. For example, if someone identifies God as the universe or nature, or the laws of nature, then I would have to say that this God, as it is defined, exists, and then I'd say "duh".

 

[Ichneumonwasp]

I'd say no. But it wouldn't work for all possible conceptions of green pixies either.

If I were compelled by the idea that green pixies exist, I might do the word/concept trick: throw out the concept but keep the word. After all, if the idea that green pixies exist carries a heavy emotional weight, but at the same time I realize it's cognitively untenable, I can keep saying that green pixies exist or might exist if I change the concept I'm referring to.

Good point.

 

[Piggy]

I'm not sure what you're trying to do here. It just seems a mess. As an argument, it would be, with p=live elephant in this room:

Premise 1: There is evidence of p
Premise 2: p is impossible
Conclusion: p

No, it's consistent.

The first statement is that I see a live elephant in the room.

The second statement is that an elephant can't be hidden in that room. (Which is why I can see it -- if it were hidden, I wouldn't be able to see it.)

In this case, the second statement isn't needed to reach the conclusion: There's a live elephant in the room.

But that was just an illustration to show why both statements are necessary in the first case:

I don't see an elephant here.
It's not possible for an elephant to be hidden here.
Therefore, there must not be any elephants here.

We can contrast that with this situation:

I don't see an elephant here.
It's possible for an elephant to be hidden here.
Therefore, I don't know if there's an elephant here or not.

Or this:

I don't detect any harmful radiation in this room.
I have no way to detect radiation.
There might be harmful radiation in this room.

The point is, the lack of evidence only leads you to a conclusion if you've looked where the evidence must be if a thing is true, and the evidence is missing.

In the case of God, a new worldview has replaced the old mythological one, and in doing so has made the old one impossible. So it's not just the fact that we lack evidence for God, it's also the fact that the evidence we do have about the world contradicts what we'd expect if people had been right about God.

That's why I compare the situation to the phlogiston situation.

Note that I'm not comparing God to phlogiston, which is what makes it different from an argument which says what's true for a ratio like pi might be true for God as well. It's not that God is anything like phlogiston, or shares any qualities with it... it's that both are examples of cases in which one way of seeing the world has been debunked by a new way of seeing the world which has been put to the test and passed it.

 

[Piggy]

So you equate God to the elephant, while I equate God to all the planets (too vast to examine) and to the Salmonella (don't have the tools to see). I don't claim that God did any of those things you mention. He may have, I don't know. I don't know if we would have detected these things or not; some people claim to have seen or experienced some of them (I have my doubts). I do believe God created the universe that led to the world, the weather, natural laws, etc. I don't see how that could be "detected."

Well, first I'd have to ask you to pretend that I'm an alien who never heard of the concept of "god", and then tell me what it is you think "may have" done those things (or not) and which we shouldn't expect to have any evidence for because it might be too big or too small for us to perceive.

What is that?

Also, I don't see how you could know whether or not there were souls or an afterlife. You seem to turn a lot of can't knows into I'm sures.

We know there are no souls because we have now examined the brain sufficiently to be sure that our conscious experience is brain activity, and when brain activity stops we cease to exist.

Furthermore, we know that the brain is built to think about other people in terms of a single indwelling personality... in other words, a soul.

So it's not surprising that people continue to believe in souls, even though when you think about the issue closely, it doesn't add up.

 

[Dani]

Two guys were walking down a road when suddenly John stops Tony and tells him to halt.

Tony: Why…what is wrong?
John: Look down…you were about to step in turd
Tony: (looks down) Na… I don’t think it is turd
John: What do you mean…look at it….it is definitely turd
Tony: (Stoops down and scoops a bit of it on his finger and sniffs it) well it smells like turd….but does not feel like it
John: What does it matter what it feels like….it looks like turd and smells like turd….best to assume it is turd
Tony: (licks a little on the tip of his tongue) It also tastes like turd….thanks for stopping me…good thing I didn’t step in it.​

I had an inductive, provisional, but quite confident laughter.