Can theists be rational?

[Belz...]

I'm quite willing to accept that things are the way they are. It's the claim that there's no reason for it that I find hard to swallow.

I'm not insisting that there's a cause for the universe. I find it unlikely that the universe is precisely the way it is without any underlying principle.

Well, again... we don't know. It could be the only possible configuation. It could be random in the truest sense. There's no need to, or usefulness in speculating about it, except as a fun intellectual exercise.

It is not a case of finding out where the particle is. The particle doesn't have a specific location until the wave function collapses. That's been shown by the difraction slit experiment.

I'll concede this. I don't even remember why we're talking about it.

You are making multiple assumptions about a possible simulation based on experience with computer systems

I find it hard to believe that I'd make assumptions based on anything but experience.

[*]The simulation must be taking place on a computer

It would kinda have to. Whether we're talking about electronic computer or a brain or whatnot, whatever runs the simulation will be called a computer.

[*]The program that is running must have bugs

It must. Unless we're talking about the underlying laws of physics -- and even that -- nothing is perfect, especially not a construct.

[*]We, the people experiencing the simulation, would be able to spot the inconsistencies and realise that the only explanation is that we are part of a simulation.

Now you're the one making the assumption. I didn't say the only explanation would be this, but it would certainly call attention to itself. I find it hard to believe that such a bug would only be detectable under non-controlled conditions.

For one thing, even if there is a bug which means that the laws of physics as designed don't operate as planned, how would we know? We'd experience the laws of physics as executed.

Only if the bug is always there. One has to assume that those bugs would be corrected as they were spotted by the designers or monitors.

For all we know, the inability to reconcile gravity with the other fundamental forces is due to some programming error. But we'd never know.

A problem I see with the whole simulation argument is that it wouldn't alter the laws of physics. In fact, a simulation doesn't have laws of physics. It's just data without form. In fact, it's like what I was saying to Beth: the simulation exists, but the thing it's meant to represent doesn't.

 

[westprog]

If I were around when the thread got started, I would have said the same thing.

I knew it had been going for a long time, but I didn't realise that some contributors had actually been born since it started.

 

[Beth]

You mean the fact that I've explained it to you already doesn't cut it ?

No, I'm afraid your 'explanation' didn't cut it for me. Thanks for trying though.

Language exists, in the sense that it's a convention, but what it represents doesn't exist. The MYTH of the easter bunny exists, but not what it represents. Religions exist, but not God. Get it ?

The question was why do you consider god to be different from language. If what language represents doesn't exist either, how is it different from god?

Yes, if such testimony were in existance, it would be evidence in the same way that such testimony is evidence for god. But again, this runs up against the FACT that no such testimony actually exists.

Maybe not for the easter bunny, but certainly for OTHER things we KNOW are false. That's why we call them delusions. But you don't KNOW they're delusions when you only have the testimony, because by YOU logic they are positive evidence.

Yes. When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that?

Little green men I dismiss the same way as I do the easter bunny, but likewise, I've not actually heard of a sane responsible credible adult making claims about their existance.

No True Scottsman fallacy. Just because you think they're loony doesn't mean they're excluded magically from your rule that experience is evidence. You're trying to have it both ways.

I'm not sure exactly where you get the no true scottsman fallacy out of this. Are you claiming there are credible reliable adult witnesses willing to testify to the existance of little green men from outer space? If so, feel free to produce an example and I'll reconsider my position. And yes, if someone has a mental illness that affects their ability to distinguish between the perceived reality we all share and their own internal subjective reality, that means they are excluded from the rule regarding testimony of personal experience being evidence. Do you feel that the reliability of the witnesses should NOT be taken into account when evaluating their testimony?

 

[fls]

That's not what you said. You said

What exactly do you mean by this? I've given an example of a rational belief that is useless for nearly all people. Do you mean that a rational belief can be useful? That is also true of an irrational belief. The pragmatic defintion of truth is full of minefields.

I meant 'useful' as I have been using the term in relation to explanations provided by theories and hypotheses (form predictions, exclude possibilities, one can act on theoretical rather than empirical results, etc.). I think it is also reasonable to look at it as a measure of utility (as you suggest) which is a way to involve personal values. However, to be rational, it still needs to be logically consistent and empirically grounded within those parameters. One can decide that science has utility (in which case the accuracy of the information that goes into theory and hypothesis is relevant) or that science does not have utility (in which case, accuracy is irrelevant). But then, one shouldn't be using the products of science (i.e. communicating on the internet) if one wishes to pretend that their beliefs are logically consistent.

Linda

 

[yy2bggggs]

What has happened with physics since at least Galileo is that what is considered "rational" has changed as we learn more. ...

...as we learn more, via a quest for rational explanations using rational methods. Sure, our concept has changed, but your examples are merely showing the death throes of a priori reasoning.

So are we going to bet that the way things seem to be now is the final answer, and we basically know how things work?

No. We're going to presume that there might be a problem with a priori reasoning, and that seeking rational explanations through rational methods is our only hope.

 

[fls]

I know, which is why you atheists are so few in number Everyone knows God did it

It is clear that many people find it a useful fiction. It is also clear that many people have no problem with holding irrational beliefs, even though there is a perception that rationality is valuable.

I agree that people who are truly committed to rationality are in the minority. I find the dissonance interesting.

Linda

 

[westprog]

Well, again... we don't know. It could be the only possible configuation. It could be random in the truest sense. There's no need to, or usefulness in speculating about it, except as a fun intellectual exercise.

If that's so, it applies to most of what's discussed on this forum.

I find it hard to believe that I'd make assumptions based on anything but experience.

Experience is helpful, but it's not definitive. Bug-free programs are possible, and the theory to prove them to back to the early years of computing.

It would kinda have to. Whether we're talking about electronic computer or a brain or whatnot, whatever runs the simulation will be called a computer.

If we assume that nothing beyond the computer can ever be invented, even in principle.

It must. Unless we're talking about the underlying laws of physics -- and even that -- nothing is perfect, especially not a construct.

If we live in a simulation, we don't know anything about the real laws of physics. We only know what has been put into the simulation. It may bear no relation to the actual laws of physics. There might be no such laws.

Now you're the one making the assumption. I didn't say the only explanation would be this, but it would certainly call attention to itself. I find it hard to believe that such a bug would only be detectable under non-controlled conditions.

The assumption I'm making is that it is quite impossible to assert for sure that a particular bug will be detectable. Indeed, the vast majority of bugs are never detected.

Only if the bug is always there. One has to assume that those bugs would be corrected as they were spotted by the designers or monitors.

Which might be our role in the "universe".

A problem I see with the whole simulation argument is that it wouldn't alter the laws of physics. In fact, a simulation doesn't have laws of physics. It's just data without form. In fact, it's like what I was saying to Beth: the simulation exists, but the thing it's meant to represent doesn't.

The point of a sufficiently convincing simulation is that we would not know whether the laws of physics had any reality or not.

We can, of course, continue to live our lives as if the simulation were real. Indeed, it is real to the extent that actions have real consequences.

 

[Belz...]

No, I'm afraid your 'explanation' didn't cut it for me. Thanks for trying though.

Amazing.

The question was why do you consider god to be different from language.

Well, for one... language exists.

If what language represents doesn't exist either, how is it different from god?

If you'd bother to actually read my posts you'd notice I've explained it to you at least twice, by now.

Language is the container.
God is the content.

See ? They're NOT the same. Language is a convention, a mental construct, if you will. God is not. Religion is a construct. Not God. Get it ? God doesn't exist, but religion does. Language is like religion, not God. See ?

Yes. When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that?

Beth, I'm starting to get the idea that maybe you're not being particularily on the level, here. I'm having difficulty believing that you've got such a hard time getting this. For now, however, I'm going to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You don't KNOW that something is a delusion until you KNOW it^*. However, we KNOW that delusions exist. Not so with god. In fact God is so unlikely, given all the nonsensical attributes believers keep tagging him, that we can, like with the easter bunny -- whom, we know, is made-up, but some other people might not and still come to the conclusion I'm getting at --, opt for a more reasonable explanation for experiences relating to him: delusion.

*: Of course, the fact that I said it was a delusion made you KNOW that it was, and somehow you jumped on this and got your "gotcha" moment. This, of course, simply identified you as someone who argues from ignorance: God is more likely to exist than the easter bunny because we know for a fact that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Needless to say, this doesn't make an ounce of sense.

I'm not sure exactly where you get the no true scottsman fallacy out of this.

"No real, sane, responsible, credible adult would claim to see little green men" sounds like a no true scottsman to me. You're basically saying that there is no actual evidence for the existence of those, and when I point out that there are reported experiences of them, which you accept as evidence for god, you shift to there being no actual evidence by what you consider to be reliable people for the existence of little green men. Ergo you simply categorize experience as you see fit in order to exclude what you don't already believe in from what you already do believe in.

Does that sound rational to you ?

Are you claiming there are credible reliable adult witnesses willing to testify to the existance of little green men from outer space?

No. I'm the one who says that god experiences by credible adults doesn't constitude reliable evidence, remember ?

 

[Belz...]

If that's so, it applies to most of what's discussed on this forum.

Given that a lot of it has to do with woo, I agree.

Experience is helpful, but it's not definitive.

Sounds like solipsism to me. If we don't go with experience then, what ? Random nonsense ?

Bug-free programs are possible, and the theory to prove them to back to the early years of computing.

Bug-free programs are the simplest ones. The more complex it gets, the more bugs creep up. This would be especially true in a self-correcting simulation, ala DNA mutations.

If we assume that nothing beyond the computer can ever be invented, even in principle.

"Beyond" ? What, exactly, do you think "computer" means ? To me, it is a mechanism, however constructed, that processes information. Hell, DNA could be seen as a computer. But for the sake of my argument, I'm thinking about a complex calculator, whether it is electronic or not. Again, let's cut the speculation to a minimum and pause for a second: What, besides a computer, would YOU imagine could "run" a simulation ?

If we live in a simulation, we don't know anything about the real laws of physics.

You think they could invent laws of physics that go against those of their own universe ? I doubt it. At most, they could invent a story in which, ala Superman, physics are different. But then they'd have to simulate the smallest particles and quantum fluctuations, too. It's getting a little cumbersome, here.

We only know what has been put into the simulation. It may bear no relation to the actual laws of physics. There might be no such laws.

Solipsism again. No laws, no thing.

The assumption I'm making is that it is quite impossible to assert for sure that a particular bug will be detectable. Indeed, the vast majority of bugs are never detected.

Which might be our role in the "universe".

Perhaps. Of course, that would assume that we actually spot them, wouldn't it ?

The point of a sufficiently convincing simulation is that we would not know whether the laws of physics had any reality or not.

Do you even know what a simulation is ?

 

[Beth]

No, I'm afraid your 'explanation' didn't cut it for me. Thanks for trying though.

Amazing.

Not really. I take you haven’t ever been a teacher. It’s an unremarkable and common occurrence that some will not grasp the best attempts at explanation despite that it may seem perfectly clear to the person providing the explanation.

The question was why do you consider god to be different from language.

Well, for one... language exists.

In the previous post, you just said it didn’t.

Language exists, in the sense that it's a convention, but what it represents doesn't exist.

To which I responded:

If what language represents doesn't exist either, how is it different from god?

And you respond with:

If you'd bother to actually read my posts you'd notice I've explained it to you at least twice, by now.

I've read them. They don't answer the question I asked. You instead simply switch between yes language exists and no, language does not exist depending on what is convenient to your argument.

Language is the container.
God is the content.

See ? They're NOT the same. Language is a convention, a mental construct, if you will. God is not. Religion is a construct. Not God. Get it ? God doesn't exist, but religion does. Language is like religion, not God. See ?

Okay, let me see if I am understanding you correctly. You are saying that religion and language both exist (as containers), but the things they refer to do not (the contents). It seems to me with this analogy you are considering specific languages and specific gods then be the contents of their respective containers. This would imply that you feel that language exists as a concept but that English and Spanish, like Zeus or Allah, do not? Is this correct? If this is not correct, can you please explain why you think that English and Spanish can be said to exist, but that God cannot. Incidently, I am referring to the generic deist 'creator god' without any additional attributes and NOT to the abrahamic god or Zeus or any other specific gods.

Oh, and by the way, do you realize that there are people who believe in god without believing in any particular religion? 'God' doesn't really fit in the container 'religion' but spills out of it.

Yes. When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that?

Beth, I'm starting to get the idea that maybe you're not being particularily on the level, here. I'm having difficulty believing that you've got such a hard time getting this. For now, however, I'm going to continue to give you the benefit of the doubt.

You don't KNOW that something is a delusion until you KNOW it^*. However, we KNOW that delusions exist. Not so with god. In fact God is so unlikely, given all the nonsensical attributes believers keep tagging him, that we can, like with the easter bunny -- whom, we know, is made-up, but some other people might not and still come to the conclusion I'm getting at --, opt for a more reasonable explanation for experiences relating to him: delusion.

*: Of course, the fact that I said it was a delusion made you KNOW that it was, and somehow you jumped on this and got your "gotcha" moment. This, of course, simply identified you as someone who argues from ignorance: God is more likely to exist than the easter bunny because we know for a fact that the easter bunny doesn't exist. Needless to say, this doesn't make an ounce of sense.

I’m sorry if am making you feel frustrated, but this does not answer my question. I’ll repeat it: When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that statement?

You’ve gone on at length about how we know people have delusions, a point I have no argument with. However, how do we know that something is a delusion when it is an experience that we cannot reproduce at will but has been reported by many different people from many different cultures across all of recorded human history?

I’ll agree that one possible hypothesis to explain that observation it is that everyone who reports such an experience has been mistaken or delusional. I simply allow that another possible hypothesis to explain it is that they were not and were experiencing something that deserves to be classified as ‘real’. I consider both plausible and choose to adopt the ‘I don’t know’ position rather than either of the two hypotheses proposed.

I'm not sure exactly where you get the no true scottsman fallacy out of this.

"No real, sane, responsible, credible adult would claim to see little green men" sounds like a no true scottsman to me.

Excuse me, but I didn’t say no one would but that I’m unaware of any that do.

You're basically saying that there is no actual evidence for the existence of those, and when I point out that there are reported experiences of them,

If you’ve pointed out evidence for the existence of eye-witness testimony for little green men, credible or otherwise, I’ve missed it. Could you repost the link please?

which you accept as evidence for god, you shift to there being no actual evidence by what you consider to be reliable people for the existence of little green men. Ergo you simply categorize experience as you see fit in order to exclude what you don't already believe in from what you already do believe in.

No, I'm not saying that they are not sane credible witnesses. I'm saying I have no knowledge of any actual eyewitness testimony for such creatures. If you want to post some, I could take a look at it, and then make a judgment regarding the credibility of the source, etc. At that point, we could discuss the 'lunacy' of the eyewitness and if they are otherwise sensible rational adults. If I reject their testimony for the sole reason that I don't believe in little green men and therefore, they are not credible witnesses, that would be a 'no true scottsman' fallacy. However, that seems to me to be a pretty good description of what you are doing with testimony regarding personal experiences of god.

Does that sound rational to you ?

Does it sound rational to you to believe in something for which you have not only no material evidence, but no anecdotal testimonial evidence either? That is the situation I am in regarding little green men.

Are you claiming there are credible reliable adult witnesses willing to testify to the existance of little green men from outer space?

No. I'm the one who says that god experiences by credible adults doesn't constitude reliable evidence, remember ?

So why get on my case about not considering plausible those things which don’t even have that low standard of evidence available to support them? Am I not allowed to differentiate between those things that are supported by testimonial evidence and those that are not?

 

[Azure]

I knew it had been going for a long time, but I didn't realise that some contributors had actually been born since it started.

Thats okay.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

I agree that people who are truly committed to rationality are in the minority. I find the dissonance interesting.

Linda

Is Canada also the name of a region on planet Vulcan?

 

[SusanB-M1]

I'm not sure that it's rational to keep oranges in the fridge, but that's another matter.

Ah, a point I can answer with conviction - the best place to keep oranges is in the fridge; also apples and plums.

 

[Belz...]

I take you haven’t ever been a teacher.

No, in my country it's not mandatory to complete a 6-year teacher service in order to become a full citizen.

In the previous post, you just said it didn’t.

So, to you, "Language exists, in the sense that it's a convention, but what it represents doesn't exist." means language doesn't exist ? I don't think it's my skills as a teacher that are at fault, here.

I've read them. They don't answer the question I asked. You instead simply switch between yes language exists and no, language does not exist depending on what is convenient to your argument.

Which is an odd thing to say, since you've actually only quoted me saying it DOES exist.

You are saying that religion and language both exist (as containers), but the things they refer to do not (the contents).

So far, so good. But, by experience, I suspect the following will prove different.

It seems to me with this analogy you are considering specific languages and specific gods then be the contents of their respective containers.

I thought so. The language itself doesn't represent anything real. It HAS no content, per se. It isn't a physical object, nor does it represent one. But it does exist, because we actually use it, obviously. Religions exist, and we do use it, too.

This would imply that you feel that language exists as a concept but that English and Spanish, like Zeus or Allah, do not? Is this correct? If this is not correct, can you please explain why you think that English and Spanish can be said to exist, but that God cannot.

Again, I think it's the student that's at fault. What part of "language exists" do you fail to grasp ? Why would you think I exclude specific languages ? Religion is not the sum of all gods.

Incidently, I am referring to the generic deist 'creator god' without any additional attributes and NOT to the abrahamic god or Zeus or any other specific gods.

Ah, so we're not really talking about a specific religion, but drawing a middle-ground conclusion based on their collective existence, hoping that something will stick.

Oh, and by the way, do you realize that there are people who believe in god without believing in any particular religion? 'God' doesn't really fit in the container 'religion' but spills out of it.

Replace "religion" with "faith", then. Whatever allows you to understand. The container of religion sits inside a bigger container, then. Sheesh. Semantics, now.

When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that statement?

Well, setting aside that we never know that something doesn't exist, and going instead with a more pragmatic view, I did say I "know" that God doesn't exist, making credible testimony by reliable adults NOT positive evidence for it. In case you haven't spotted it, by now, the difference is that you THINK you know that the easter bunny is false while you don't KNOW that god is. I'd like to know why, since both pretty much violate the laws of physics, and any argument as to how god could exist anyway apply to the easter bunny.

However, how do we know that something is a delusion when it is an experience that we cannot reproduce at will but has been reported by many different people from many different cultures across all of recorded human history?

Er... doesn't the fact that many different people from many different cultures across all of recorded human history have had those experiences pretty much mean that we CAN reproduce it ?

Besides, that's an argument from popularity.

I’ll agree that one possible hypothesis to explain that observation it is that everyone who reports such an experience has been mistaken or delusional.

And we DO know that normal adults can be delusional about a great many things. Gods ? Nope.

I simply allow that another possible hypothesis to explain it is that they were not and were experiencing something that deserves to be classified as ‘real’.

Hopefully ignoring the fact that those experiences are incompatible with one another.

If you’ve pointed out evidence for the existence of eye-witness testimony for little green men, credible or otherwise, I’ve missed it. Could you repost the link please?

Wait, wait. Are you saying that you have NEVER heard of people claiming to have seen live aliens ? I actually have to hunt down links ? I can't believe you'd be ignorant of that fact, so I won't bother. Besides, you'll probably then categorize those people as "unreliable".

If you want to post some, I could take a look at it, and then make a judgment regarding the credibility of the source, etc. At that point, we could discuss the 'lunacy' of the eyewitness and if they are otherwise sensible rational adults.

Which also counts for gods.

If I reject their testimony for the sole reason that I don't believe in little green men and therefore, they are not credible witnesses, that would be a 'no true scottsman' fallacy. However, that seems to me to be a pretty good description of what you are doing with testimony regarding personal experiences of god.

And again you prove not to be reading my posts. Where, exactly, did I say that the people claiming to see or experience god are anything else than delusional or wrong ? I never said they were not true believers or true Christians or true witnesses or whatnot.

 

[westprog]

Given that a lot of it has to do with woo, I agree.



Sounds like solipsism to me. If we don't go with experience then, what ? Random nonsense ?

We go with theory, of which there is a substantial amount.

If you want to estimate the problems of installing a payroll package for a medium sized company, then experience is a very good guide. If you want to estimate how the science of computing might develop into the far future, then experience is inadequate.

Bug-free programs are the simplest ones. The more complex it gets, the more bugs creep up. This would be especially true in a self-correcting simulation, ala DNA mutations.
"Beyond" ? What, exactly, do you think "computer" means ? To me, it is a mechanism, however constructed, that processes information. Hell, DNA could be seen as a computer. But for the sake of my argument, I'm thinking about a complex calculator, whether it is electronic or not. Again, let's cut the speculation to a minimum and pause for a second: What, besides a computer, would YOU imagine could "run" a simulation ?

You think they could invent laws of physics that go against those of their own universe ? I doubt it. At most, they could invent a story in which, ala Superman, physics are different. But then they'd have to simulate the smallest particles and quantum fluctuations, too. It's getting a little cumbersome, here.

Maybe the purpose of the simulation is to discover what different laws of physics would be like. In any case, using the limitations imposed by our laws of physics to claim that they couldn't be imagined by someone living under totally different laws doesn't seem valid. There might be some property of the beings in the other universe that allows different rules to apply.

In any case, imagining different laws of physics is not such a difficult thing. The whole fine-tuning concept rests on imagining different laws of physics and working out their consequences. Different simulations have been run already.

Solipsism again. No laws, no thing.

This is just assertion. A world that worked according to the whim of the inhabitants rather than physical law would seem very strange to us, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work. Universally applicable physical law is the only model we have for a universe, but that doesn't mean that it's the only way that would work.

Perhaps. Of course, that would assume that we actually spot them, wouldn't it ?

That's what science is. Someone observing the simulation could let us do the scientific analysis and then read how their universe works in practice. It would only be necessary to have one small group of intelligent beings to do this.

Do you even know what a simulation is ?

I don't think you've grasped quite what it would be like to live in a simulated world. I thought The Matrix had made the concept fairly mainstream.

 

[westprog]

Ah, a point I can answer with conviction - the best place to keep oranges is in the fridge; also apples and plums.

Where to put the milk then?

 

[Beth]

I thought so. The language itself doesn't represent anything real. It HAS no content, per se. It isn't a physical object, nor does it represent one. But it does exist, because we actually use it, obviously. Religions exist, and we do use it, too.

Okay. I agree that languages, religions, etc. all exist despite that fact they don’t represent any physical objects. Can you explain why this idea of a label (language, religion) that doesn’t represent anything physical but still exists cannot be applied to god? That’s all I’ve been trying to get across.

What part of "language exists" do you fail to grasp ? Why would you think I exclude specific languages ?

Because you said "the things they refer to do not"

Well, setting aside that we never know that something doesn't exist, and going instead with a more pragmatic view, I did say I "know" that God doesn't exist, making credible testimony by reliable adults NOT positive evidence for it. In case you haven't spotted it, by now, the difference is that you THINK you know that the easter bunny is false while you don't KNOW that god is.

Yes, you did. And yes, that’s credible testimony by reliable adults. I’m an agnostic, not a believer. I think there is evidence supporting both sides, but not convincing or overwhelming evidence for either.

I'd like to know why, since both pretty much violate the laws of physics, and any argument as to how god could exist anyway apply to the easter bunny.

Because the arguments for some gods, in particular the deist god and the pantheist god, don’t violate the laws of physics.

Now, I can't help but notice you didn't answer my question. When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that statement?

Er... doesn't the fact that many different people from many different cultures across all of recorded human history have had those experiences pretty much mean that we CAN reproduce it ?

No. Currently we can’t produce that experience at will although there are some interesting experiments that are making progress in that area. We may, at some point in the future, be able to.

Hopefully ignoring the fact that those experiences are incompatible with one another.

I don’t think those experiences are incompatible with one another.

Wait, wait. Are you saying that you have NEVER heard of people claiming to have seen live aliens ? I actually have to hunt down links ? I can't believe you'd be ignorant of that fact, so I won't bother. Besides, you'll probably then categorize those people as "unreliable".

You didn’t say live aliens, you specified ‘little green men’. Yes, I’ve heard tales of people claiming experience with aliens, though no one I know personally. I reserve judgment about that general class of experience, classifying it was such unverified phenomena as bigfoot. It’s the specific claim of ‘little green men’ that I dismiss in the same manner as the Easter bunny since I know of no credible reliable testimony for either. As for whether I would term them 'unrealiable', I would appreciate it if you would give me credit for actually examining the evidence rather than assuming I would make the 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

If you want to post some, I could take a look at it, and then make a judgment regarding the credibility of the source, etc. At that point, we could discuss the 'lunacy' of the eyewitness and if they are otherwise sensible rational adults.

Which also counts for gods.

Yes. However, I notice that you still didn’t post any such evidence.

And again you prove not to be reading my posts. Where, exactly, did I say that the people claiming to see or experience god are anything else than delusional or wrong ? I never said they were not true believers or true Christians or true witnesses or whatnot.

I read your post. I just made the same assumption about you that you did about me when you accused me of making the ‘no true scottsman’ fallacy about people who claimed experience with ‘little green men'.

 

[Belz...]

We go with theory, of which there is a substantial amount.

You think theories are not constructed based on experience ?

If you want to estimate the problems of installing a payroll package for a medium sized company, then experience is a very good guide. If you want to estimate how the science of computing might develop into the far future, then experience is inadequate.

Why so ? Wouldn't said estimate be an extrapolation of pase experience ?

Maybe the purpose of the simulation is to discover what different laws of physics would be like.

Maybe, but as I said, a "simulation" would still have to render all those particles for that to work. And still, THEIR laws of physics would limit what they could do with the simulation.

This is just assertion. A world that worked according to the whim of the inhabitants rather than physical law would seem very strange to us, but that doesn't mean it couldn't work.

Well, that's because you seem to forget that without physical laws there wouldn't BE inhabitants.

That's what science is.

Okay, you missed it. I meant that it contradicted your claim that we couldn't spot the bugs. Your new contention that we could be some sort of bug monitor species kinda demolishes that.

I don't think you've grasped quite what it would be like to live in a simulated world. I thought The Matrix had made the concept fairly mainstream.

Actually, the matrix made it fictional, but people think that's how it'd work. Here's a tip: don't trust movies.

 

[Belz...]

Okay. I agree that languages, religions, etc. all exist despite that fact they don’t represent any physical objects. Can you explain why this idea of a label (language, religion) that doesn’t represent anything physical but still exists cannot be applied to god? That’s all I’ve been trying to get across.

Because GOD DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING. It IS the thing being represented by the myth.

Because you said "the things they refer to do not"

Indeed. "Horse" means nothing except to those who agree that it does. I wasn't talking about specific languages but about words.

Yes, you did. And yes, that’s credible testimony by reliable adults. I’m an agnostic, not a believer. I think there is evidence supporting both sides, but not convincing or overwhelming evidence for either.

That's like saying there is evidence supporting the flat-earth theory, but that it's not convincing or overwhelming. Instead, we could say that, like god, the evidence in favour of the flat-earth theory is so weak that it can, for all intents and purposes, not be called evidence.

Because the arguments for some gods, in particular the deist god and the pantheist god, don’t violate the laws of physics.

Of course they do.

When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that statement?

I did answer: in an absolute sense, we NEVER know that something is false. Pragmatically, however, we do, but just because we're not sure doesn't make the evidence MORE reliable, because what we think we know today could be overturned tomorrow. Evidence is evidence. Easter bunny and all.

No. Currently we can’t produce that experience at will although there are some interesting experiments that are making progress in that area. We may, at some point in the future, be able to.

Not AT WILL, but considering how many people have religious experiences I'd say it's pretty current.

I don’t think those experiences are incompatible with one another.

You don't think that experience of Jesus and experience of Vishnu constitute incompatible experiences ?

You didn’t say live aliens, you specified ‘little green men’. Yes, I’ve heard tales of people claiming experience with aliens, though no one I know personally.

That's not the point. Many people have claimed direct contact with aliens or at least observation. That's experience, and we hear about it regularily. In your book that constitutes the same kind of experience as it does for god.

It’s the specific claim of ‘little green men’ that I dismiss in the same manner as the Easter bunny since I know of no credible reliable testimony for either.

So unless they're not green you're ok with my statement ?

As for whether I would term them 'unrealiable', I would appreciate it if you would give me credit for actually examining the evidence rather than assuming I would make the 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

Beth, from my point of view you used several terms (all meaning "reliable") as adjectives that modify the word "witness" (basically) to make their experiences unreliable by definition. So, you're right. Actually it's more poisoning the well than a no true scottsman.

Yes. However, I notice that you still didn’t post any such evidence.

I find it impossible to believe you haven't heard of alien "contacts", which you actually admit to above, so since you already know about it I don't need to show you what you already know, yes ?

I just made the same assumption about you that you did about me when you accused me of making the ‘no true scottsman’ fallacy about people who claimed experience with ‘little green men'.

No, there you used a tu quoque, instead. You accused me of doing the same thing I accused you of doing... for some reason. However, while I explained why I thought you were using a No True Scottsman fallacy, you didn't.

 

[Beth]

Okay. I agree that languages, religions, etc. all exist despite that fact they don’t represent any physical objects. Can you explain why this idea of a label (language, religion) that doesn’t represent anything physical but still exists cannot be applied to god? That’s all I’ve been trying to get across.

Because GOD DOESN'T REPRESENT ANYTHING. It IS the thing being represented by the myth.

Because you said "the things they refer to do not"

Indeed. "Horse" means nothing except to those who agree that it does. I wasn't talking about specific languages but about words. .

So you are saying the word “Horse” doesn’t really exist? Only the actual animal is real? I’m sorry to keep asking about what you are meaning here, but when you get into symbols, and words are a specific class of symbol, it’s easy to get confused about whether you believe the symbol exists in and of itself or whether only the thing it represents exists. It’s a crucial distinction when discussing things like god. I happen to feel that that symbols such as words and numbers exist and can be classified as ‘real’. Not everyone agrees. I’m trying to find out if that is where you and I disagree. I'm still not entirely sure.

Yes, you did. And yes, that’s credible testimony by reliable adults. I’m an agnostic, not a believer. I think there is evidence supporting both sides, but not convincing or overwhelming evidence for either.

That's like saying there is evidence supporting the flat-earth theory, but that it's not convincing or overwhelming. Instead, we could say that, like god, the evidence in favour of the flat-earth theory is so weak that it can, for all intents and purposes, not be called evidence.

I agree with your first sentence here but not the second. The problem with the flat-earth theory is not just that the evidence for it is so weak, but that the evidence disproving it is very strong. Similar evidence against the existence of gods such as the deist or pantheist god does not exist.

Because the arguments for some gods, in particular the deist god and the pantheist god, don’t violate the laws of physics.

Of course they do.

Would you care to back up that claim? Which laws of physics do such gods violate and how?

When we don't know that something is false, credible testimony by reliable adults is considered to be positive evidence for that something. What is the problem with that statement?

I did answer: in an absolute sense, we NEVER know that something is false.

So you don’t know for certain that 2+2 = 4? Or that the shape of the earth is more like a ball than a disc? I think we can, in fact, know some things are false, so I don’t see that as a problem with that statement. Do you have any other problems with that statement?

Pragmatically, however, we do, but just because we're not sure doesn't make the evidence MORE reliable, because what we think we know today could be overturned tomorrow. Evidence is evidence. Easter bunny and all.

I don’t think those experiences are incompatible with one another.

You don't think that experience of Jesus and experience of Vishnu constitute incompatible experiences ?

No, I don’t. There are enough similarities across cultures that I am uncertain what explanation provides the best fit to the data we currently have. At any rate, I do not reject the existence of a god is one possible hypothesis that explains it. You might check cj's posts. I think he's studied such experiences considerably more than I have.

You didn’t say live aliens, you specified ‘little green men’. Yes, I’ve heard tales of people claiming experience with aliens, though no one I know personally.

That's not the point. Many people have claimed direct contact with aliens or at least observation. That's experience, and we hear about it regularily. In your book that constitutes the same kind of experience as it does for god.

Yes, if the person is sane it does.

As for whether I would term them 'unrealiable', I would appreciate it if you would give me credit for actually examining the evidence rather than assuming I would make the 'no true scottsman' fallacy.

Beth, from my point of view you used several terms (all meaning "reliable") as adjectives that modify the word "witness" (basically) to make their experiences unreliable by definition. So, you're right. Actually it's more poisoning the well than a no true scottsman.

No, I’m not poisoning the well either. I’m not saying I’d automatically classify someone who’s had that experience as crazy. It’s because I’ve had similar discussion on this forum and if I don’t specify sane, reliable, credible, etc, I’ll be accused of taking schizophrenic ravings as evidence. If I don’t specify adult, I’ll be accused of taking 2-year-old imaginings seriously. There may well be sane credible adults who report actual interactions with aliens. I just don’t know any and I’ve not investigated any of those kinds of reports well enough to determine their credibility.

However, I really don’t appreciate these sorts of accusations. If they don’t stop, I’m going to end our conversation.

No, there you used a tu quoque, instead. You accused me of doing the same thing I accused you of doing... for some reason. However, while I explained why I thought you were using a No True Scottsman fallacy, you didn't.

My apologies. When you classify personal experiences of god as delusional because you don’t believe any god exists, I think that’s the same kind of error you are accusing me of (and that I am not making) when I specify credible adult testimony for little green men. Does that explain it?