Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.
Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/
Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Belief without evidence argument
Comments
-
Damn, I can't stay away from this ridiculous but compelling thread :pac:I'm not sure how solid or shaky the branch I'm on is; personally, I'd quite like to be found wrong on this one - but have yet to see a counter argument I find convincing.
Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you have been found wrong, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. The problem is your denial that evidence is evidence. You simply keep repeating your assertion ad infinitum despite
a) not being able to demonstrate that what you propose is a real world phenomenon i.e. that atheists do in fact attack pure deists on the grounds of a lack of evidence. Certainly no one here seems to have any desire to do so, and
b) only being able to come up with one example of something atheists believe in for which you contend there is no evidence. And against this example we have argued convincingly that there is powerful evidence, which everyone except yourself accepts as viable, and
c) having been shown that once you abandon the viability of sensory evidence you must basically accept literally all beliefs as equally valid, at which point the whole discussion becomes meaningless and any notion of a consensus reality must be abandoned. You can't present a justification for believing in your notion of god that wouldn't apply equally to literally anything else you can imagine, under those circumstances.
I would suggest that the reason you are not convinced is because, contrary to your assertion, you don't actually want to be convinced.
I await another repetition of the assertion in due course.
0 -
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
WaheyDamn, I can't stay away from this ridiculous but compelling thread :pac:Don't take this the wrong way, but I think you have been found wrong, to everyone's satisfaction but your own. The problem is your denial that evidence is evidence. You simply keep repeating your assertion ad infinitum despite
I don't think I deny that evidence is evidence.a) not being able to demonstrate that what you propose is a real world phenomenon i.e. that atheists do in fact attack pure deists on the grounds of a lack of evidence. Certainly no one here seems to have any desire to do so, and
Look, Richard Dawkins is an atheist.
I quoted from his book, on the chapter where he defines his 'God Hypothesis'
(page 60) where, as far as I can see, he includes pure deism in his scope.
He frequently tackles the hypothesis thereafter on the grounds there is no evidence for it.
Therefore I think I have demonstrated that at least one prominent atheist does attack pure deists on the grounds of lack of evidence; if not beyond a shadow of a doubt, then at least so much that I'd like you to point or where I'm wrong, or grant me I've made a decent stab at supporting it.
Hmm?
I only need one.b) only being able to come up with one example of something atheists believe in for which you contend there is no evidence.
But I have introduced three:
1) inductive reason (which I later dropped, as it's too complex to argue about here, rather than because I believe I was shown wrong, although I do acknowledge people raised some serious questions for me to think about)
2) that other people we deal with are conscious sentient entities, with an inner world and awareness like I have. (I'm probably more familiar with this one, I really don't know any evidence for it)
3) That the external world we perceive is real (ie, we are not brains in vats).
Not all atheists might believe these things; but I think they would cause problems for most atheists, who believe their beliefs are based on evidence.
Spent the last hour or so trying to find out more on this, as your sort of calling my rationality into question here...And against this example we have argued convincingly that there is powerful evidence, which everyone except yourself accepts as viable, and
I really don't think you've provided any good evidence against brains in a vat; I think I've done a reasonable job of refuting what you claim has been evidence.
In support of this assertion, I'd like to point out that not everyone here buy my has accepted the evidence as viable (some posters have agreed with me), and I'd also like to point out, that after looking it up a bit more, it turns out this is a very open question in philosophy, which better minds than me have argued.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simulated_reality
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brain_in_a_vat
http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html
http://www.cavehill.uwi.edu/bnccde/ph29a/putnam.html
The last provides an argument which purports to be evidence against the brains in a vat hypothesis, however, I don't find it immediately convincing, but I've only just read it. Regardless, its still challenged by some philosophers, and it's considerably different than any of the arguments I've seen here.
This would tend to suggest that I am perhaps not so wrong for finding the arguments you have provided here, and insist are convincing, as in fact convincing.
I believe my refutations stand on their own here (open to correction) and this is not an appeal to authority - rather, it's me saying: Hey, I'm not out on my own here (as you accuse me of being) - better philosophers than I have also considered this problem and found what you say is evidence unconvincing (I bring them in for numerical support, rather than authority).
I agree with your last sentence, and in fact, I've dealt with this a lot in earlier posts on the thread.c) having been shown that once you abandon the viability of sensory evidence you must basically accept literally all beliefs as equally valid, at which point the whole discussion becomes meaningless and any notion of a consensus reality must be abandoned. You can't present a justification for believing in your notion of god that wouldn't apply equally to literally anything else you can imagine, under those circumstances.
You next accuse me of repeating my assertion too much, well, I have to here, because you misrepresent my position. I'm not presenting a justification for belief in any particular notion of a god.
I'm... just... saying... that... you... can't... attack... such... a... belief... on... the... basis... that... there... is... a... lack... of... evidence... for... it...
Which is not the same as presenting a justification for that belief.
Well, I feel I need to keep repeating the assertion, because if people keep on saying I'm trying to assert something I'm not.I would suggest that the reason you are not convinced is because, contrary to your assertion, you don't actually want to be convinced.
I await another repetition of the assertion in due course.
I do want to be convinced.
I'd be a lot happier if I could see a clear and convincing argument that concluded "...and that's why we can reject the deist god due to a lack of evidence".
You'll have to take my word on that, or not, as the case may be... ...but I don't want to just accept such a conclusion without evidence. (And please god don't tell me that confuses the issue).0 -
-
-
Yes, I could be. But all the evidence that I have suggests that I'm not. And there is no evidence to suggest I am.You could be a brain in a vat, and experience all of the above.
And in fact a lot of evidence suggests I'm not. For example, if I was a brain in a vat, and my "experiences" where simulated, then how could this imaginary world knock me out?
Well you say, it I could be a brain in a vat with a big hammer that hits me every time a simulated hit takes place. Which again I could be, but again what is the evidence I am?
It is evidence. In fact it is the only evidence we have. It could be faked, in the same way I could get your finger prints all over a gun and leave it beside your dead boss while faking a phone call from him saying that he was scared you were trying to kill him.It doesn't validate your senses; your 'evidence' is not evidence.
But if it is fake there isn't a whole lot we can do about it. That doesn't stop it being evidence pointing to a conclusion.
Yes but that doesn't stop it being evidence.You can't take your sensory perceptions as evidence that you are living in an objective reality out there (a non matrix-like reality), because if you were in such a reality, they'd be the same as they are now.
Using the example from the last post, if the oxygen is actually nitrogen altered to look like oxygen, that doesn't stop there being evidence that it is oxygen. The evidence is fake, but that doesn't mean there isn't any.
No you don't. I can say for definite that my perceptions are evidence for a physical world. That isn't the same as saying for definite that I am actually in a physical world, but there certainly is evidence that I am.I'm saying if you want to say for definite that your perceptions are evidence of the existence of the world that they percieve, without assuming anything, you need to rule out other hypothesis that also would explain the perceptions (eg: matrix style computers).If you are talking just about likelihood, or utility, I'd agree, but this is a discussion about what there is and isn't evidence for.
Yes, but as someone else has pointed out, I'm not sure you are using the same definition of "evidence" as everyone else. You appear to be using evidence as someone would use the term "proof".
I cannot rule out that the evidence is wrong, or faked, but that doesn't mean there is no evidence, only that there is no absolute certainty.Reason to question correctness of senses: Could be in the matrix, in which case you wouldn't be perceiving physical world.
But I would still be perceiving evidence that I was in a physical world. Again, absence of certainty that I am in a physical world is not the same as no evidence I am in a physical world.
I assure you I'm notNow your coming around.
Again you are invoking a negative.However, if I do choose to believe that I am not in a computer system, I will not claim that I have evidence to support my belief.
That is my point.
What evidence do you have that you are in a computer system. None
Your argument seems to be based on the idea that unless we can rule out all other possibilities then something isn't evidence.
Which makes nothing evidence. You come home and find your wife sleeping in your bed with another man. Is that evidence your wife is having an affair. According to you no it isn't. You have absolutely no evidence your wife is having an affair unless you can rule out all other possible explanations, such as your wife was asleep in bed while this man sky dived through the roof, ripping his clothes off while aliens repaired the sky light.
Which is a silly way of looking at evidence.
You have an assertion (Your wife is having an affair). And you have evidence to support that assertion. (Your wife is lying naked in bed with another man who is also naked and they look like they just had sex with each other)
Does that mean your assertion is 100% absolutely certainly true? No, there is always possibility that something else happened.
Does that mean you don't have any evidence? No, of course not. You have your wife lying in bed with another man looking like they just slept with each other.
You appear to be confusing proof with evidence. Really there is no such thing as "proof". We can never know anything for 100% certainty. We can never be 100% sure about anything. Science recognizes this, and there have been a lot of discussion about this idea on this forum and on the Creationist thread on the Christianity forum.
That doesn't mean you never have evidence of anything though.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
-
If you wish to deny that evidence is evidence you have to show that it's evidence for something else. Think of it this way:
Sensory input exists, right? Are we agreed on this?
Therefore it is evidence for something, right?
Are we agreed on this? (If you say it's evidence for nothing at all, I really will question your rationality.)
So, on the balance of probabilities, what is it most likely to be evidence for?
Please select one:
a) that we are brains in vats
b) that we are part of a computer matrix
c) that the world we perceive around us exists
d) all of the above
And explain your reasoning.
Sensory input exists, I agree.
It is evidence for any and all hypothesis that explain it.
But I can say nothing about the probability that it is evidence for a,b, or c.
I mean, I've no information about which might be most likely, so how could I make a judgment about the probability? Where would I get this information from? My experience in this world can hardly be applied to it?
Whatever setup there is outside the universe, is, by definition, not something I can reason about the probability of based on information I obtain within this universe.
Imagine you asked me whether A or B was more likely? It quickly becomes clear I have no information to make that judgment upon.
And surely this applies to C as well?
If there was some reason you had to think C was more likely, then you would be right to believe it in absence of any evidence for a hypothesis that is not C.
My point is that you do not have any reason to think that C is more likely.
You may be right - I didn't think so, but I may have been wrong - I'll come back to this at some point in the future, after reading through those bits of the book again.I'm now satisfied that you are misrepresenting Dawkins.Originally Posted by rockbeer
b) only being able to come up with one example of something atheists believe in for which you contend there is no evidence.Originally Posted by fergalr
I only need one.
Whether it stands up, is, of course, subject to the ongoing discussion.You need one that stands up. You don't have one so far.
But you attacked on the basis that I had only provided one, rather than that I had provided none that yet stood up, that's why I said 'I only need one'.
I really don't want to get into this one, which is why I drop it, but you totally be the question there.I note that you've dropped this. But let me just say that I don't accept that inductive reasoning is something people 'believe in' the way they do in deities. It's a tool. Sometime it's the right tool for the job and sometimes not. Like a hammer. Do you need to 'believe in' a hammer to knock in a nail? It works for that task, however you feel about it, but it's no use for cutting logs. Inductive reasoning is a useful, generally recognized set of guidelines for thinking about things. It's pretty much useless for playing the guitar with. That doesn't make it an article of faith.
The only reason I know the hammer works for the task, is because I can go out and test it by formulating hypothesis about it being good to test nails, and conducting experiments hitting nails, and seeing if the results hold up to what I expected. If someone just showed me a new glass fibre hammer, I wouldn't just know it was good at hitting nails, I'd have to try it out on a couple, and see whether it shatters or (because they say carbon fibre is really strong) successfully hit the nails. If it worked on the first 10 nails, I'd be very inclined to believe it'd work on the rest.
But, it should be obvious to see that I'm using inductive reason here to establish whether the hammer is good at hitting nails. I'm using past experience with hammers, or similar things, and inducing from that that the hammer will be good in future. I'm not deriving it from first principles.
That's how I decide the utility of tools in general - past experience, and induction.
You here are using past experience and induction to reason for induction.
That's begging the question - assuming the thing you are trying to prove.
Inductive reasoning is bloody useful for playing the guitar with. Try play the guitar without it! Why would you believe that plucking the strings would give a particular note, if not from inducing future consequences from past experiences? You gotta use it. The utility argument is bombproof.
But that doesn't mean you have evidence for it. And stop trying to use inductive reasoning to provide evidence for itself.
Ok, I'll give you that one; I agree that there's evidence other beings have inner worlds like I do. They seem to be biologically built the same as me, and they definitely exhibit behavior of equal sophistication, including talking about their inner worlds etc, and even though I only have access to one inner world to reason about, there is evidence.This is a pragmatic belief rather than a speculative one. The evidence is sensory. You might not think the evidence particularly strong, but to say there's none is just nonsense. The fact you are reading this now may not be conclusive proof that I exist but only a mad person or philosopher would say it didn't even count as evidence.
I will no longer cite this as an example of something atheists believe without evidence.
I differ from you here. Maybe I'm wrong to do so, but I don't think the collective sense of the universe - which could just as easily be originating from a super computer - is evidence that we are not brains in vats.Same as above. Of course we could be brains in vats. We could be the vats that contain the brains, or any other speculative arrangement. But that doesn't stop our collective sense of the universe around us from being evidence that these things are not so.
No.Note that we are back to the difference between evidence and proof. You seem to want atheists to be able to prove that we are not brains in vats.
I just want either:
A) Evidence that we are not brains in vats. Not proof, evidence.
or
Admission, that on the basis of evidence, we can no more say we are part of a real world than part of a simulated (brains in vats) one.Or more realistically to prove that we are what we seem to be. Time to wake up, Fergal. No one can do that. We don't need to. We accept the evidence on the balance of probabilities, and all we ask is that theists do the same. We don't ask them to prove their gods exist, just to provide some evidence for them.I really don't think you've provided any good evidence against brains in a vat
There is equal evidence that we are brains in vats, to that we are in some real world as perceived.I don't have to. There's no evidence that we are brains in vats.
Brains in vats is a hypothesis that explains these sensory inputs.
It explains them as surely as that we walk around in a real world does (though the real world one is how we more commonly think about it).
As a hypothesis, 'brains in vats' fits all the evidence just as well as 'the world is real' fits the evidence.
So, we have two hypothesis here:
1) The world is out there, a big rock in space
2) I am in a simulation of the world.
All the sensory input is completely consistent with both.
Yet, you believe 1), and not 2)
Why?
If you said: 'because it's more useful.' that'd be fine with me.
But you say, 'because you have more evidence' for it? I don't accept this. The evidence is completely consistent with both, so how is it more for the world being real?
If you provide any evidence, or evidence based argument against 2 then it's completely reasonable to believe just 1, or that 1 is more likely, on the basis of evidence. That's why I asked if you had any evidence against 2. Because you believe in 1.
If you have no evidence against 2, then 1&2 both are equally plausible, based on the evidence.
And yes, if you refuted 2, then I could just introduce 3... hence it's not reasonable to believe just 1, based solely on evidence.
Yes.If I somehow turned up some compelling evidence that we weren't brains in vats you would just move the goal posts again, and ask me to prove that we weren't cells in a cosmic table leg or some other equally bizarre speculative nonsense that no one can disprove.
I do not wish to assert that we are 'brains in vats'.There's literally no end to the number of things you could require me to disprove before we were left with the 'truth'. That's why you can't prove a negative. And that's what I mean by an infinite metaphysical loop. You have it all the wrong way round. If you wish to assert that we are brains in vats, it's up to you to provide the evidence for that claim.
I need to be completely clear on this.
All I am saying, is that 'brains in vats' explains the available evidence just as surely as 'the world is real'.
If, and only if, you believe 'the world is real' above 'brains in vats' YOU must introduce evidence to support that hypothesis.
And in order for your evidence to actually support that hypothesis above 'brains in vats' you have to produce evidence that is consistent with 'the world is real' that is inconsistent with 'brains in vats'
That is why the burden of proof rests with you.
You are the one saying 'the world is real' above 'brains in vats'
So you must introduce evidence for this. You have not yet done so. Your sensory perceptions do not cut it, as they are just as much evidence for 'brains in vats' as for 'the world is real'.
As you cannot provide such evidence you must accept that you have no evidence basis for believing 'the world is real' above 'brains in vats'.
Then, you either say:
I believe 'the world is real' as opposed to 'brains in vats', for some reason that isn't evidence.
OR
As I have no evidence of 'the world is real' above 'brains in vats' based on the evidence, and as I do not believe one hypothesis over the other, except based on the evidence, I do not believe 'the world is real' over 'brains in vats'.0 -
He's going to quote dictionary.com again. One of the definitions of evidence there is "proof", however, another is "an indication or sign".
Lol, ok, that's pretty funny
As I've already explained though, I was using the terms loosely in the first few posts, that was a mistake, trying not to do that now...0 -
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
I don't have the time at the moment unfortunately to reply to your responses to what I last said fergalr but I do plan to get around to it later.
However, this section of your reply to rockbeer struck me as rather odd:No.
I just want either:
A) Evidence that we are not brains in vats. Not proof, evidence.
or Admission, that on the basis of evidence, we can no more say we are part of a real world than part of a simulated (brains in vats) one.
Are you absolutely positive that's what you want?
We hear this a lot from theists about ‘gods’ – absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, the only logical position surely is that absence of evidence is evidence of absence.
For example, we are born without the idea of any ‘god’. However, we are taught by our parents, teachers... someone, that ‘god’ exists. Our default position is nothing, the idea of ‘god’ must be introduced into our minds. We can agree I’m sure that there is no evidence for this ‘god’ within this reality that we perceive. So if we call this belief into question, the onus is not on us to provide evidence of absence, the onus is on those who promote the idea to provide evidence for the idea.
Therefore I think it is completely illogical for you to request that we provide evidence that we are *not* brains in vats. You have introduced that idea. We are born without the idea of ‘god’. Perhaps that default position is incorrect. We are born accepting that this reality is as we perceive. Perhaps that default position is incorrect. However any deviations from this default position must provide evidence for their position.
To elaborate on the ‘absence of evidence *is* evidence of absence’ point, providing evidence that something does not exist is completely impossible! For example, to prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster (a deity that lives – or is believed to live - within this reality) one must be able to search the entire realm of this reality for said deity. It goes further. To be sure that the FSM didn’t hide under the bed after you had just looked there and sneaked behind you, you must be able to perceive the entire reality all at the *exact same moment in time* in order to be confident that you have seen absolutely every possible place the deity could exist (in this reality).
THEN, should we still be convinced? Following on from your line of reasoning about evidence and senses, if I could not perceive the FSM across the entire plane of reality, would you believe me that it doesn’t exist? I doubt it, because its non existence is only true for me most likely, I could be lying, deluded etc. As we’re dealing with a deity, you could then go on to say that the FSM can transcend this reality and pass outside of it to avoid detection, or perhaps my senses can’t actually perceive it at all.
So, do tell, how exactly does one provide evidence that something does not exist, or that we are indeed not brains in jars.
******
I'm separating this following part of my post because I don't want it to get mixed in with what I'd consider my actual point above:
Can you answer a few questions about these brains in jars?
Are they human brains, or snorklaxx brains that have been tricked to believe they are human?
If they are human brains, do they match up with what we know about brains within in this reality? For example, human brains cannot sexually reproduce, so then how do we see new individuals come to be in this reality? Is it all a trick? Are they just copies? Bad copies? Old consciousnesses reused and recycled?
Question with no definitive answers. Ad infinitum.
My point is, you can't answer my questions sufficiently. You can make guesses, unless I'm mistaken and you have evidence.
This is not true about this reality/plane of existence. If I ask you a question about it, you can answer it with an example or a demonstration using evidence from within this reality. Doesn't that say a little something about this reality? That logically speaking, we can disregard all questions about whether reality is 'real' or 'not' as they cannot be answered? Do you really seek to equate something you can imagine with something you can actually percieve?
If you can imagine something, does that automatically give it credence?0 -
-
Wow!
Did a ball just pass between where you had the last ones or something?
(just kidding, not trying to be an arrogant mofo)
At the metaphysical level you wish to argue on I agree, from that perspective there is no way of knowing whether brains in vats is more or less probable than the universe being real. Call that a goal if you like.
So what's the score now, 5-1 to me?
Only thing is, what if we add all powerful gods to the list of things like brains and computer simulations? Are you agnostic about them too?
I think at this level you'll find that just about any atheist you can produce is. Dawkins, for example, counts himself as a category 6 atheist: "Very low probability (of god's existence), but short of zero. I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable."
I concur with this entirely. I have no problem with saying "I don't know" to the idea of a non-interventionist deity who exists entirely outside our universe (pending further evidence becoming available). I strongly suspect it's not so. I think it's probably less likely than the computer sim - at least we know computers can exist, unlike pan-dimensional super-beings with powers and all that. But the only honest response to anything about which there is absolutely no data is I don't know.0 -
-
-
Could well be at this stage! As long as I'm learning stuff, I'm happy, and I'm definitely learning stuff here.At the metaphysical level you wish to argue on I agree, from that perspective there is no way of knowing whether brains in vats is more or less probable than the universe being real. Call that a goal if you like.
So what's the score now, 5-1 to me?
He is saying though that he believes the probability is very low. I'd disagree with him there - if he's referring to a non-interventionist god (or to the probability of any god existing, which includes the non-interventionist ones), then I'd say that probability is unknowable.I think at this level you'll find that just about any atheist you can produce is. Dawkins, for example, counts himself as a category 6 atheist: "Very low probability (of god's existence), but short of zero. I cannot know for certain but I think god is very improbable."
If he's referring to god's in this universe, that do miracles and have prophets and stuff, I understand him much better.
I think this is a very reasonable position.I concur with this entirely. I have no problem with saying "I don't know" to the idea of a non-interventionist deity who exists entirely outside our universe (pending further evidence becoming available). I strongly suspect it's not so. I think it's probably less likely than the computer sim - at least we know computers can exist, unlike pan-dimensional super-beings with powers and all that. But the only honest response to anything about which there is absolutely no data is I don't know.
I can see no logical contradiction there.0 -
Advertisement
-
Advertisement