IPU's vs. Hong Kong

[Fade]

HK is an ordinary city, and thus needs no special proof: Okay, but there have been a lot of ficticious ordinary cities that would pass this test too. For some reason I find myself thinking of River City, the town in "The Music Man". Nothing extraordinary or supernatual about there; it's not like it's Atlantis or El Dorado or anything. Yet it doesn't exist.

False analogy. Fictional places aren't supposed to be real, there is no mistaking that.

Valid vs. invalid evidence: A reasonable person would collect all the evidence first before making the subjective decision about which pieces of evidence to believe and which to discount.

Very, very, very, very wrong.

Each piece of evidence can be weighed independantly, as it were. If one were to follow the idea of "collect all then decide which" what would happen is what is called "data mining." It skirts dangerously close to Meta-Analysis, which is all but worthless. Each piece of evidence should be of unequivocal veracity, or be researched further until it is.

Certainly reproducibility is a key criterion to base this decision on. But in a lot of real-life instances where one must judge evidence (a murder trial, say), reproducibility just isn't an option. Neither is it an option when one is talking about universe creation.

We aren't talking about deciding law or circumstance. I said earlier that Americans are done a great disservice when they learn about evidence through criminal law. If you had any idea how many cases were overturned because witnesses were found to be lying, or just plain wrong, you'd feel the same way I do.

Also, we aren't talking about universe creation, we're talking about "god" if you will. If it's real, where the hell is it? And, if you can't point it out, why would you think it's there in the first place? It's always troubled me that a person can scream "GOD EXISTS!" but can't tell me exactly what god is, or where god is, or what god is doing. If you don't know about that, why do you know about god at ALL?

Different descriptions of God vs. one description of HK:There are a lot of different descriptions of HK, too.

Correct in an anal way, absolutely false in a more correct way.

Descriptions of Hong Kong always include the same places, the same weather (per year, obviously) the same everything.

You can buy numerous different travel guides that tell you where the good restaurants are, where the good hotels are, where you can take kids to, etc.

Another mindless analogy. Subjective "good v bad" comparisons mean nothing. If you want to know the best places in Seattle to go, you're going to get thousands of different answers. If you want to know where Coleman dock is, you're going to get one answer. That's the difference between objective and subjective knowledge. I know where Coleman dock is because the term describes a single place, with a specific look, that serves a specific function. Same for Pine Street, or the Space Needle, or Westlake Center. Now, opinions on their cleanliness, the quality of the shops surrounding them, etc, are going to vary because they aren't objective experiences.

Again, you belay a huge misunderstanding of what evidence IS, and that is your problem with understanding the IPU argument.

One restaurant guide may rate a restaurant differently than another restaurant guide. That doesn't cast doubt on whether the restaurant actually exists, though. Just because two people's perceptions of something differ is not evidence that the thing doesn't exist.

I don't know. Maybe Fade is right; maybe I do have a problem differentiating valid and invalid evidence.

No maybes about it.

Or maybe there's a third way out.

Deism is looking better and better all the time.

You ARE a troll.

 

[Beleth]

You ARE a troll.

And not only do you have no idea what Deism is, your arguments are circular, you don't realize it, and if you are once again resorting to calling me a troll, you have apparently run out of them.

Nice chatting with you.

 

[Akots]

After we take you to Hong Kong, and allow you to experience it's culture, economics, and geography, THEN you are permitted to continue to refuse it's existance, at your discression. Even so, I find the IPU argument rather mindless and pointless.

Also, the evidence for the existance of God is assumed to be All Of Creation. When All Of Creation is your evidence, there's something not right...

EDIT: I prefer to think of God the way I think of The Way Things Are. They're totally interchangeable. And there's no ned t oassume it's intelligent. Try it out at home!

1) Praise The Way Things Are!
2) Why? Because The Way Things Are made it that way.
3) Put your unconditional faith in The Way Things Are, and be saved!

 

[thaiboxerken]

Ahh.. yet another stupid arguement by a theist. Beleth cannot provide evidence of a god, so instead attacks reality.

Then again, maybe Beleth is simply trolling OR

trying to score free tickets to China.

 

[Fade]

Attacking reality is so easy. It can't fight back.

 

[Yahzi]

And not only do you have no idea what Deism is, your arguments are circular, you don't realize it, and if you are once again resorting to calling me a troll, you have apparently run out of them.

Nice chatting with you.

Fade knows what Deism is: it is the elevation of ignorance to the status of wisdom.

"We believe in something, which makes you wrong, but we can't explain what it is we believe in, or how believing in it is any different than not believing in it, or how you could possibly ever test the truth of our belief, but we know this much for certain: we are right and you are wrong."

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

 

[synaesthesia]

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

I think the role of personal experience is secondary to the larger issue of scientific investigation. As a matter of fact, most of us are not going to go out and get classical empirical confirmation of the EPR experiements, but we can rely on their truth far more certainly than what our 'direct' experiences tell us, for instance, about the shades of colours in our environment.

There is a sense, however, in which your empirical point can be construed as being sufficiently general. That is, the naturalistic demand that all of the theories permit the investigation of meaingful relationships between the subject of the theory and ourselves.

This naturalistic demand does not require going to Hong Kong, although our own personal experience will by definition be involved in how we establish a relationship to Hong Kong. (Via: evaluation of information sources like sattelites, maps, products produced in Hong Kong etc)

Note that the same does not apply to the IPU. No determinate or determinable relationship exists between it and us, save that the IPU is a fiction invented to illustrate epistemological issues. The same applies to pretty much all conceptions of God save the possible advanced civilization God or the god-is-this-chair gods.

 

[Beleth]

Fade knows what Deism is: it is the elevation of ignorance to the status of wisdom.

And so is atheism.

"We believe in something, which makes you wrong, but we can't explain what it is we believe in, or how believing in it is any different than not believing in it, or how you could possibly ever test the truth of our belief, but we know this much for certain: we are right and you are wrong."

Which is exactly the stance atheists take too.

I am perfectly willing to admit that Deism has no scientific basis to it. Neither does Theism. But I am also perfectly willing to admit that atheism has no scientific basis to it. Are you willing to admit this too?

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

Sure, HK can in principle be verified by personal experience. So can IPUs.

Given an sufficient amount of resources, one can verify the existence of animals that are invisible, pink, unicorn-shaped, and exist within the universe. There is no amount of resources that can verify the existence of a standoffish creator being, because our resources are limited to the inside of the creation, and the creator being is necessarily outside of the creation. It's like looking for the potter within the clay of the pot.

Either something created the universe, or nothing did. Since we can't possibly scientifically know what happened before the universe was created, every belief about what happened before then is by definition unscientific. Fortunately, the human mind has other tools besides science to work on problems like this.

Nothing defends itself better than reality. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a poor grasp of reality.

 

[roger]

But I am also perfectly willing to admit that atheism has no scientific basis to it.

Atheism is falsifiable, thus scientific. Perhaps you mean something else by "scientific basis", though.

 

[Beleth]

Atheism is falsifiable, thus scientific. Perhaps you mean something else by "scientific basis", though.

If either atheism or Deism is true, then atheism is not falsifiable.

Only if Theism is true is atheism falsifiable. But I am not arguing that Theism is (or even could possibly) be true.

 

[Yahzi]

Beleth

I am perfectly willing to admit that Deism has no scientific basis to it. Neither does Theism. But I am also perfectly willing to admit that atheism has no scientific basis to it. Are you willing to admit this too?

At the risk of being pendantic, there is no scientific basis for atheism, but there is a rational basis. Throughout this post you have appeared to use science as a synonym for reason, so I'm going to assume you intended that.

There is a rational basis for atheism, because atheism is the lack of a belief about gods, and the only rational position one can take when one does not have any evidence is "I don't know." Deism cannot in any way be construed as "I don't know." Therefore, Deism is not rational.

Given an sufficient amount of resources, one can verify the existence of animals that are invisible, pink, unicorn-shaped, and exist within the universe.

You forgot intangible. The entire point of IPUs is that they are defined to be unverifiable. So add intangible and transcendant to your list of attributes.

There is no amount of resources that can verify the existence of a standoffish creator being, because our resources are limited to the inside of the creation, and the creator being is necessarily outside of the creation.

In other words, your Diest god is unfalsifiable. We knew that. Why are you telling us that?

Either something created the universe, or nothing did. Since we can't possibly scientifically know what happened before the universe was created, every belief about what happened before then is by definition unscientific.

Which is why one must have no belief about what happened before the universe was created. As a skeptic, I do not have a belief that the universe was not created; I simply lack a belief that it was. My belief about what happened before the universe began is: I don't know.

Fortunately, the human mind has other tools besides science to work on problems like this.

Like what, imagination and wishful thinking? Science is the best tool we have for investigating the empirical world. The validity of science is demonstrated in its effectivness: how do you propose to demonstrate the validity of your other tools?

Nothing defends itself better than reality. Anyone who thinks otherwise has a poor grasp of reality.

Reality does not defend itself; rather, it asserts itself at the most unoppourtune times. I would be happy to allow you to discover that for yourself, except for the annoying tendency of reality to punish everyone in the room at the time.

If either atheism or Deism is true, then atheism is not falsifiable.

Only if Theism is true is atheism falsifiable. But I am not arguing that Theism is (or even could possibly) be true.

You seem to have confused "false" with "falsifiable." The point is that atheism can, in principle, be shown to be false (by producing a God). Your Deism, however, cannot in principle be shown to be false, since part of the defintion of your deism is it cannot be proven false (as God can always be just hiding). Deism can be shown to be true, by producing a God; but it cannot, under any circumstance, be shown to be false.

Atheism cannot, in principle, be shown to be true; but that doesn't matter. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable and fit the evidence; they do not have to be deductively rigorous.

Do you understand the difference?

 

[Yahzi]

There is a sense, however, in which your empirical point can be construed as being sufficiently general. That is, the naturalistic demand that all of the theories permit the investigation of meaingful relationships between the subject of the theory and ourselves.

Well, I include looking through the microscope as "personal experience." I think that most people would be more confused by "meaningful relationship," because they would define their one-way conversations to god as a meaningful relationship. Explaining to them that relationships that only contain one entity do not count as relationships seems harder than smacking them on the back of the head and saying, "look through the microscope yourself!"

 

[Dancing David]

You failed to address my issue that Hong Kong could be in principle verified by personal experience, and that God cannot.

Yahzi, soul brother and intellectual doppleganger, I have to beg to differ.
If we consider that spiritual experience is a subset of human experinece then we can say that the perception of god is a human experience and that the experience is verifiable through the scientific method.
If you try praying, with sincerity and practise there is a result which is obtained. Some might call it delusion, others call it 'god' and others might call it 'my cool spiritual experience'.

This does not mean to say that there is an objective Giant Burrito docking at the Salsa Station and waiting to feed the masses. The spiritual experience that can be tested and objectified as a human experience.

Most respectfuly and humbly disagreeing.

 

[Beleth]

At the risk of being pendantic, there is no scientific basis for atheism, but there is a rational basis. Throughout this post you have appeared to use science as a synonym for reason, so I'm going to assume you intended that.

Absolutely not. I am using science and reason in their everyday meanings. Science does not purport to explain everything. I don't think it even tries. When there's no scientific basis to make a decision, one must fall back on reason.

There is a rational basis for atheism, because atheism is the lack of a belief about gods, and the only rational position one can take when one does not have any evidence is "I don't know." Deism cannot in any way be construed as "I don't know." Therefore, Deism is not rational.

You are confusing atheism with agnosticism.

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
Agnosticism is the lack of a belief either way.

It is depressing to think that I am having to define words at this point in this discussion.

You forgot intangible. The entire point of IPUs is that they are defined to be unverifiable. So add intangible and transcendant to your list of attributes.

No, I didn't forget. That's why I added the "sufficient amount of resources" clause to my statement.

Of course, if you're going to add transcendent, by which I assume you mean "being beyond the limits of all possible experience and knowledge", to the list of attributes IPU's have, then it's unreasonable to assign the attributes "invisible", "pink", and "unicorn" to them. Either you are talking about transcendent beings, or you are talking about beings with specific visual qualities.

In other words, your Diest god is unfalsifiable. We knew that. Why are you telling us that?

Once again, absolutely not. I am not saying that a Deist god is unfalsifiable; I am saying that a Deist god is unverifiable. A Deist stance can be falsified in exactly the same way that an atheist, or an agnostic, stance can be falsified: by producing God.

Reality does not defend itself; rather, it asserts itself at the most unoppourtune times. I would be happy to allow you to discover that for yourself, except for the annoying tendency of reality to punish everyone in the room at the time.

I have no idea what you are trying to say here.

You seem to have confused "false" with "falsifiable." The point is that atheism can, in principle, be shown to be false (by producing a God). Your Deism, however, cannot in principle be shown to be false, since part of the defintion of your deism is it cannot be proven false (as God can always be just hiding). Deism can be shown to be true, by producing a God; but it cannot, under any circumstance, be shown to be false.

Nope. See above. The notion of an unverifiable God is falsified, not verified, by producing God.

Atheism cannot, in principle, be shown to be true; but that doesn't matter. Scientific theories have to be falsifiable and fit the evidence; they do not have to be deductively rigorous.

Do you understand the difference?

Sure do. Always have. Do you understand the difference between Deism and Theism?

There's a difference between being scientific and having a scientific basis. The difference is the amount of evidence. I'd say you need at least one piece of evidence supporting a theory for that theory to have a scientific basis, whereas, pedantically, all you need to be scientific is a falsifiable theory that doesn't contradict the evidence, even if the evidence is the empty set.

Atheism is falsifiable and does not have any evidence to support it; therefore it is scientific, but has no scientific basis.
Likewise, Deism is falsifiable and does not have any evidence to support it; therefore it is scientific, but has no scientific basis.
Theism is not falsifiable; therefore, it is neither scientific nor has a scientific basis.
(Agnosticism is not a theory; it is the absence of a theory, and therefore not scientific either.)

Am I making myself clear yet?

 

[arcticpenguin]

Atheism is the belief that there are no gods.
?

You've made it clear that you are willing to twist words to have your way. I believe the usual definition of atheism is "lack of belief in gods". Very subtle, but very different.

 

[Beleth]

You've made it clear that you are willing to twist words to have your way. I believe the usual definition of atheism is "lack of belief in gods". Very subtle, but very different.

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

I'm sorry, who is twisting?

 

[Fade]

If we consider that spiritual experience is a subset of human experinece then we can say that the perception of god is a human experience and that the experience is verifiable through the scientific method.

If spiritual experience were real, we'd all believe basically the same things. 10,000 people don't go to hong kong and give vastly different reports. One person won't report yellow skies, 120 degree weather, and people that walk on their hands, while another reports sub-arctic conditions, and dogs that drive cars. They all give the same general conditions, and then relate their subjective experiences. These experiences all synch with one another.

The same can not be said in any way, shape, or form, of religious experiences. Each person will give an experience they have been programmed to experience. A person in the middle of the african savannah doesn't suddenly stand up and praise God and Jesus. If things like these were true, one would expect random, unprovoked conversion. There are no random, unprovoked conversions.

If a given thing is objectively true, shouldn't more than a single culture arrive at that conclusion? In science, two or more scientists (or groups of them) will often arrive at the same conclusion more or less at the same time, even though they weren't actually working together. Different cultures throughout time have, independantly, discovered certain mathematical and astronomical truths. These things are objectively true, so you don't need to hear somebody else speak about them to conclude them.

Nothing similar has happened when it comes to supernatural beliefs. Two cultures that have never encountered one another don't come together and express surprise that they believe in the same things. One would expect that if any given belief were true, than this would have happened.

It hasn't. So, they aren't.

 

[arcticpenguin]

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=atheism

I'm sorry, who is twisting?

1 archaic : UNGODLINESS, WICKEDNESS
2 a : a disbelief in the existence of deity b : the doctrine that there is no deity

You are equating "disbelief" with "belief". I stand by my point.

What next? will you tell us that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?

 

[Beleth]

You are equating "disbelief" with "belief". I stand by my point.

No, I am equating "disbelief in existence" with "belief in non-existence", whereas you are equating "doctrine" with "lack of doctrine". I stand by mine. What you are describing is more accurately referred to as "agnosticism", which I pointed out earlier.

What next? will you tell us that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?

Heh.

 

[Fade]

What next? will you tell us that "flammable" and "inflammable" mean the same thing?

No, I am equating "disbelief in existence" with "belief in non-existence", whereas you are equating "doctrine" with "lack of doctrine". I stand by mine.

It's becoming increasingly clear that you don't understand the philosophy of atheism at all.

What you are describing is more accurately referred to as "agnosticism", which I pointed out earlier.

Agnosticism is a part of atheism. All agnostics are atheists, and I know people are going to disagree with that statement, but it's a philisophical truth.

Edit-

Had to switch two transposed words that would make my statement have a very different meaning.