Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

What would it take to make you believe in a supernatural entity?

1…45679

Comments

  • #242
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Northclare wrote: »
    There is evidence all over the web if you are open to reading about it but the evidence you seem to be looking for is the evidence which is evidence to you.

    I'm looking for the evidence which you claim exists. You make the claim, so you have to support it.
    Northclare wrote: »
    But to the millions who do believe and write online about it is still not enough for your way of thinking to comprehend but yet the millions who can comprehend it believe it and also believe in science.

    Is this an Argumentum ad Populum, or an Argumentum ad Internet(um), or both?
    If all these millions can understand it, and also accept science, then there should be scientific explanations for what they believe. I'm waiting.
    Northclare wrote: »
    Mark you say you have an open mind but its totally closed off to the existence of God unless it can be proven scientifically but maybe it goes beyond science and not all of us are evolved enough spiritually yet.

    My mind is so open that if you don't have some sort of logic or evidence to support what you put in there, that it just falls straight back out. I'd settle for god to at least be logically consistent, however I've yet to hear of a logically consistent argument for god, scientific or otherwise.
    Northclare wrote: »
    I was a non believer but my beliefs are not dogmatic I take what ever I can understand and am happy with that if I don't understand something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    I find it to be for more pragmatic to say that if no-one shows understanding of something, then its pretty likely that it doesn't exist (at least as people explain it). I've yet to hear something that indicates that anyone knows what they are talking about when they talk about god. Everything every religion says about god is just so contradictory, either with reality, logic or something else the religion says.
    Northclare wrote: »
    G O D Good Orderly Direction

    I think you mean "Good Old Delusion".
    Northclare wrote: »
    Read the story and you might figure it out.

    I read it, it doesn't seem to relate to anything in the story. Can you explain what you meant by it?
    Northclare wrote: »
    Either can you Mark

    So you admit that you can't figure out what you yourself wrote?


  • #243
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Northclare wrote: »
    You made that one up Mark I never put anything of the sort up that's fairly low man

    Fine, whatever. It doesn't change my point if you put in what's there now:
    You understand that you don't understand it so therefore you don't have to understand it? But this still means you get to call what you don't understand a load of spin.[Ok I reacted when I said spin I should have responded rather than reacted]


  • #244
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Northclare wrote: »
    There is evidence all over the web if you are open to reading about it but the evidence you seem to be looking for is the evidence which is evidence to you.

    I'm looking for the evidence which you claim exists. You make the claim, so you have to support it.
    Northclare wrote: »
    But to the millions who do believe and write online about it is still not enough for your way of thinking to comprehend but yet the millions who can comprehend it believe it and also believe in science.

    Is this an Argumentum ad Populum, or an Argumentum ad Internet(um), or both?
    If all these millions can understand it, and also accept science, then there should be scientific explanations for what they believe. I'm waiting.
    Northclare wrote: »
    Mark you say you have an open mind but its totally closed off to the existence of God unless it can be proven scientifically but maybe it goes beyond science and not all of us are evolved enough spiritually yet.

    My mind is so open that if you don't have some sort of logic or evidence to support what you put in there, that it just falls straight back out. I'd settle for god to at least be logically consistent, however I've yet to hear of a logically consistent argument for god, scientific or otherwise.
    Northclare wrote: »
    I was a non believer but my beliefs are not dogmatic I take what ever I can understand and am happy with that if I don't understand something it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

    I find it to be for more pragmatic to say that if no-one shows understanding of something, then its pretty likely that it doesn't exist (at least as people explain it). I've yet to hear something that indicates that anyone knows what they are talking about when they talk about god. Everything every religion says about god is just so contradictory, either with reality, logic or something else the religion says.
    Northclare wrote: »
    G O D Good Orderly Direction

    I think you mean "Good Old Delusion".
    Northclare wrote: »
    Read the story and you might figure it out.

    I read it, it doesn't seem to relate to anything in the story. Can you explain what you meant by it?
    Northclare wrote: »
    Either can you Mark

    So you admit that you can't figure out what you yourself wrote?[I find it hard enough to figure out what you wrote and the Emperor's new clothes is a story or a myth which most people I know have read or heard in school ]


  • #245
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    When you make this statement, are you still working from a definition of “reality” which stipulates that everything real is empirically observable?

    Yes.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    State the assumption and explain how your demonstration shows its invalidity, so.

    I already did, in my first post to you in this thread.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    “Observe” doesn’t mean “look at”, but it does mean “observe empirically”. Inference has an important role to play in the scientific method but, to be valid, scientific inferences must proceed ultimately from empirical data. Which means that no scientific inferences - including the inference of non-existence - are possible about things which are not empirically observable.

    Which is why I worded my point as "if something cannot be in any way inferred to exist (because there is no measurable effect on anything in existence that can be attributed to it alone) then it might as well not exist, because it has no effect on existence." If something does exist, but has no measurable effect on anything in existence, exactly what can we say about it? How can we even say if it exists?
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It simply nonsense to say that the god postulated in the god-claim we are discussion “might as well not exist because it has no effect on existence”. The god-claim postulates that it is the cause of existence. Clearly, you cannot make this statement until you have refuted the god-claim. Given that we are agreed that it cannot be scientifically refuted, how are you refuting it?

    Except we haven't agreed that it cannot be refuted scientifically. It has been, on several levels. It is severally flawed logic (see my first post). It is contradictory (you do it right here again, if god causes existence, then we can measure god by inference based on measurements of existence, which would make god empirically measurable).
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Meaning, I think, that you are abandoning your previous claim that untestable claims are inherently illogical.

    No. I never said your 1,2,3 was untestable. It clearly is, its just that without defined A,X and Q's its subject to be reassessed when they are defined and so is not very useful yet.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You can reassess it all you like; it will still be logical. If it arrives at a wrong conclusion, that will be because it proceeds from a false premise. But a false premise is not illogical; it’s just wrong. It’s perfectly possible to reason logically from a false premise.

    If 1,2,3 starts with a false premise, then 3 would be an illogical conclusion, thus making 1,2,3 illogical. You can only declare 1 as false if you are trying to relate it to reality, which means that must then relate 1,2,3 to reality as a whole.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    What exactly do you mean by “part 1”?

    "there is a God who is the fundamental ground for the existence of all things that exist, other than God"
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Good man. Thought I’d lost you there for a minute. Mathematics does not proceed from empirical observations, which is why it isn't science.

    Non-empirical experimentation? It’s an interesting concept! Can you elaborate?

    Science only needs empirical observations if you are talking about an empirical system. Abstract systems dont give empirical observations, but can still follow the scientific method. Maths follows the scientific method, abstract observations are made, hypotheses (conjectures) are formed and experiments are performed to confirm or contradict (it is attempted to prove or disprove the conjecture)
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No offence, but your claim that theology doesn’t examine the logical conclusions of the statements it makes suggests that you haven’t read a great deal of theology. (Which is not an attack; there is no reason why you should.)

    There is a world of difference between examining the logical conclusions of your statements and examining what conclusions can be wrung out if you abandon logic. Theology is great at the latter, not so good at the former.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But I also think we need to be true to science and to recognize that science is precluded from offering any conclusions, positive or negative, about unobservable things, not even a conclusion as to whether they exist or not. If we want to take an axiom adopted for the purpose of constructing the scientific method and treat is as a true statement about objective reality, then we need a reason - necesessarily, not a scientific reason - for doing so. The only issue is, do we acknowledge and articulate that non-scientific reason, or do we duck the question?

    I have explained it several times to you, you just responded to it:
    "It makes sense to say "Everything real is empirically observable" because if something wasn't empirically observable (ie had no effect on anything in existence, that could be used to uniquely infer its existence) then it might as well not exist for all the effect it has on existence and our human defined system for examining it. It simply doesn't matter if something exists but can in no way at all interact with anything else (assuming its possible for something to exist without interacting with anything at all). The other beauty of science is that every test and experiment tests the assumption anyway."
    The axiom that science rest on makes sense. It is logically consistent. If something had an effect on us, then we could measure that effect and infer its existence. If something has no measurable effect on us, at all, then it might as well not exist, as it has no effect on us and therefore, we have no way to determine if it exists.


  • #246
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Northclare wrote: »
    Ok I reacted when I said spin I should have responded rather than reacted

    That's not really my point. On what basis can you disagree with something you don't understand? How do you know your disagreement isn't based on you not understanding something despite it being true, rather than you not understanding it because it is false?


  • Advertisement
  • #247
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Northclare wrote: »
    I find it hard enough to figure out what you wrote

    Why? I respond the same way nearly everyone on boards does, quote tags around each part of your post I'm responding to.
    Northclare wrote: »
    and the Emperor's new clothes is a story or a myth which most people I know have read or heard in school

    I know what the emperors new clothes story is about, I just don't know how it relates to the point you originally made.


  • #248
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare wrote: »
    What do you know about Religious people and how they think.
    A fair amount. What do you know?


  • #249
    sephir0th
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 390 ✭✭sephir0th


    Northclare wrote: »
    Try anthropomorphizing more...[ Yet another wise crack who doesn't use those kind of long words in their everyday life but can show his knowledge of big long words off on a forum and get a clap on the back for it ]

    I use that word a lot in real life actually. When it comes to a personal God, it's interesting to find that this entity always seems to mirror the human species. Perhaps you can explain why your God has a sense of humour - and where you have learned this?


  • #250
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Well, no, because we have the counter-example of religious people who do distinguish between myth and reality.
    Please let me clarify:

    Religious people are religious because they believe that events occurred which did not happen. The textual or other accounts of these events, which typically form the basis for their beliefs, constitute what is referred to as "myths" while (a) the actual events which formed the bases for these accounts or (b) the fact that the events did not occur as the believers assert, constitutes what is referred to as "reality". This lack of ability to distinguish between "myth" and "reality" in the specific area in which I assert that this lack of ability is signally manifest, does not imply that the same individuals are equally, less or more able or unable to distinguish between "myth" and "reality" in any one or more other areas with which these people have, are, or will, or are likely or unlikely, to engage or not, as personal circumstances, tastes, wishes and desires may or may not dictate from time to time.


  • #251
    Undergod
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    joseph brand wrote: »
    Undergod wrote: »
    Replace "God" for this argument with "immortal superintelligence that created sentient lifeforms and rewards worship".

    The 'all-knowing', 'all-powerful', 'creator of everything', needs to be worshipped? To feel loved. Ah come on.

    I don't think you understood my post.
    I never said that. I was saying "for the purposes of this argument, replace God with ..." I wasn't trying to justify the existence of any God, I was creating a hypothetical entity that corresponded to some of the qualities assigned to God or gods (which includes rewarding worship), with reference to the earlier "God is an alien" post.

    I also didn't say all-knowing, all-powerful, or creator of everything.


  • Advertisement
  • #252
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    robindch wrote: »
    Northclare wrote: »
    What do you know about Religious people and how they think.
    A fair amount. What do you know?[/That's fair enough Robin that will do.]


  • #253
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare wrote: »
    [...]
    ^^^ northclare, there are instructions on how to use the boards quote feature here:

    https://www.vbulletin.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

    Third and final note on this -- can you please spend the two minutes it'll take for you to figure out how to quote people's posts properly?

    If you can't figure it out then either Dades or I will start correcting your posts for you (for the first one or two), and then reserve the right to delete any misformatted posts subsequent to that to preserve the forum's standards or if we can't figure out what you were trying to say.

    thanks.


  • #254
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    robindch wrote: »
    Northclare wrote: »
    [...]
    ^^^ northclare, there are instructions on how to use the boards quote feature here:

    https://www.vbulletin.com/forum/misc.php?do=bbcode#quote

    Third and final note on this -- can you please figure out how to quote people's posts? If you can't figure it out then either Dades or I will start correcting your posts for you, or perhaps deleting to preserve the forum's standards, if we can't figure out what you were trying to say.

    I hit that link and I still can't figure out the way I use the quote.

    Is there a smart phone app for it


  • #255
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Northclare wrote: »
    I hit that link and I still can't figure out the way I use the quote.
    When you want to reply to somebody's post, you click on the 'quote' button: quote.gif on the right hand side of the post. This opens up the reply editor and puts the quoted post within a quote-block consisting of a [QUOTE=SomeUser;12345678] at the start of the quoted text, and a [/QUOTE] at the end, as follows:

    [QUOTE=northclare;12345678]Hello![/QUOTE]

    will display as:
    northclare wrote: »
    Hello!

    I don't believe there's a smartphone app for boards, though there is a mobile site. But that uses the same quoting mechanism, so you'll need to learn how to use it one way or the other. There is a test forum here where you can try it out in your own time.


  • #256
    Zombrex
    Closed Accounts Posts: 25,848 ✭✭✭✭Zombrex


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Science is wonderful in terms of the confidence that it can give us with regard to the claims that it scrutinizes. If it’s not unique in that regard, it’s certainly one of a relatively small number of techniques of enquiry whose conclusions are attended with such a high degree of confidence.

    But there’s no getting around the fact that there is a limited class of claims that it can scrutinize. And, if we are faced with claims that science cannot scrutinize - e.g. ethical claims - then we have the option of ignoring them completely, or turning to other methodologies to scrutinize them. Those other methodologies may not give us the confidence that science can give us in relation to scientific claims, but they may give us considerably more confidence than science can give us in relation to non-scientific claims.

    So, you can spend your time lamenting that not everything gives us the certainty of science, but that’s not going to help you make ethical decisions, is it?

    No, but then ethical decisions are neither true nor false. All that matters in ethics is what you personally feel about something.

    On the other hand if you claimed that ethics were actually objective, then that is a whole other kettle of fish.

    So again you are confusing domains here. The question Is it wrong to rape someone is really just the question Do you think it is wrong to rape someone. What you think determines the out put.

    On the other hand, the question Is the moon bigger than the Earth is not just the question Do you think the moon is bigger than the Earth. Those are different questions, and the former is not dependent on your personal feelings.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Nor is it going to help you decide if non-empirically-observable realities can exist. You can ignore the question of whether they can exist if you want to, on the grounds that it doesn’t interest you. But if it does interest you (and your posting record on Boards.ie suggests that it does) then, sooner or later, you’ll have to move on from lamenting the uselessness of the scientific method, and start grappling with other, imperfect, but potentially modestly useful, modes of enquiry.

    But they aren't modestly useful.

    Again if they were they would be part of science. For example currently scientific measurements of gravitational waves is at best modestly useful. We still apply science to gravitational waves, despite it being very hard to learn anything about them.

    If there was any technique that allowed us to gain modestly useful information about non-empirically-observable realities we would use it.

    The problem is there isn't. So we don't. That is not an issue of being uninterested, it is an issue about the failure of the methods.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I may not have the luxury of choosing. If I’m faced with an ethical question, I have to chose how and whether to act, and that requires me to adopt a position, however tentative and uncertain, on the ethical issue. In that case, the answer that could be wrong is better than the paralysis of no answer of any kind.

    No answer given will be wrong. What ever the answer will be will be what you believe at that moment. You might change your mind later but then that simply means you changed your mind.

    This is why some people think abortion is ok and some thing it is terrible wrong and neither has any idea how to demonstrate to the others they are wrong. They simply try and convince them to change their minds, because that is all there is, opinion.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I think we’re into a semantic argument here, and the best thing you can do with semantic arguments is note them, and then drop them. The question of what we can properly call “science” is really just a question of definition.

    It is not a question of semantics, it is a question of understanding why science is the way it is, what the philosophy behind it is.

    It is inaccurate to suggest that humans can accurately answer particular questions as to the correct nature of reality using methods such as theology but that these methods are ignored by science for some arbitrary reason that science only is interested in empirical study.

    You have it the wrong way around. Science is restricted to any methodology that can provide results to a particular standard that science requires. It happens that so far the only methodologies humans have come up with that do this are empirical ones.

    It is like concluding that there must be a rule in the USA stopping women from becoming President cause no woman ever has. Of course there isn't (not anymore), it is simply that no woman has ever won the election.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I have to tackle these problems without the certainty that science provides. At some point I’m going to have to get over noting that, and tackle the problems anyway.

    Saying "we don't know" is tackling the problem. It is tackling the problem in the most accurate way available.

    But then I'm not sure you actually mean tackling. By the sounds of it you mean provide an answer. If science cannot provide an answer, and is telling you that you can't actually know the answer, you are going to go to another methodology that will provide an answer.

    This reminds me of the joke about the rich man who gets sick. He asks his doctor will he make a full recovery and the doctor says "I'm sorry sir with this disease it is impossible to know". So the man fires the doctor and hires another doctor and asks him the same question. "Yes sir you will make a full recovery" the doctor says and the rich man says "Good stuff, I'll keep you" :P


  • #257
    Pwpane
    Closed Accounts Posts: 457 ✭✭Pwpane


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I take your point. You raise fair questions here.

    But the question posed in the thread is not “what would it take to make you religious?” or “. . . to make you a Christian?” or some such variation on that; it’s “what would it take to make you believe in the supernatural?”. For the purposes of that discussion I framed my god-claim in a very limited way. Yes, it invokes a common religious concept of god as creator; I chose that because it’s a familiar concept. But it invokes almost nothing else, and deliberately so. The more detailed the supernatural claim we examine, the more sprawling the discussion will be. Even on the extremely narrow claim we have, we’re up to 225 posts. If we embark on a debate about the difference between “sentience” and “consciousness” as possible attributes of a putative god, the lord knows where it will go.

    Besides, if you want to get into the question of religion, I cannot undertake to complete your conversion in less than six weeks. And I seriously intend not to be still engaged in this thread in six weeks’ time.

    So, sorry, but I’m going to duck this one. If you want a discussion about what God is like and why he is considered to be like that, probably best to head over to the Christianity forum.

    What I was trying to get at here was the essence of your God-claim. A different approach to why v how. As I said, 'something is the ground for existence' is a very different proposition to 'God is the ground for existence'.

    God is a loaded word, full of different meanings to different people. I was trying to explore that as part of the statement but accept it's a little off topic.

    Only a little though, as it's the difference between God and 'something' that is the difference between religion and science. 'Something' is undefined, no answer pre-selected. Religious people assume the answer is some kind of 'someone', but if the 'something' turns out to be a 'someone', science would celebrate the discovery.

    It brings us back to realising that putting the claim like that means that the answer is already chosen before putting the question. This is why the characteristics attributed to God and how they are chosen matter. I think both processes occur in tandem, otherwise people wouldn't choose to frame the question with 'God' as its subject. In tandem thus: 'if there is a God, He must be like this...' followed by ' I think this God is the ground for existence'.

    I still think a proof involving people's perceived interactions with a God might be more accessible. Nobody seems to be going down that road though.

    You're forgiven for not undertaking my conversion :), and for ducking a discussion on the nature of God. But please, don't banish me to the lunacy (as in wired to the moon) of the Christianity forum...


  • #258
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Yes.
    So your argument essentially is, assuming that everything real is observable, then if we can’t observe something it’s not real.

    It’s a circular argument, Mark.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    I already did, in my first post to you in this thread.
    Thanks for the link. I’ve reread the post. Maybe I’m slow-witted, but in that post you don’t seem to me to identify any assumption you think I have made. You attack my propositions, but you don’t mention my assumptions at all.

    I don’t want to be difficult, but can you state directly what you think my assumption is, and then state directly how you demonstrate it to be wrong?
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Which is why I worded my point as "if something cannot be in any way inferred to exist (because there is no measurable effect on anything in existence that can be attributed to it alone) then it might as well not exist, because it has no effect on existence." If something does exist, but has no measurable effect on anything in existence, exactly what can we say about it? How can we even say if it exists?
    Your use of the word “alone” there is key.

    Suppose we have a very simple universe in which we have phenomenon X, which can only be the result of cause A, cause B or cause C, but we do not know which. We cannot say that phenomenon X can be attributed to cause A alone, since it could equally be caused by B or C. But nor can we say that cause A might as well not exist since, if phenomenon A did not exist (and cause B and cause C do not exist, which is possible) then phenomenon X would not exist either, which would certainly make an observable difference.

    Right. In our universe we have the phenomenon of existence, which is either (a) a phenomenon with no cause, or (b) a phenomenon caused by god or (c) a phenomenon caused by something else that we have not yet postulated. If in fact it is caused by god, then clearly we cannot say that god might as well not be, since if god were not, existence would not be either, and that would certainly make a difference.

    To say that the reality of god makes no difference to anything observable, we must first of all show that the reality of god does not cause the phenomenon of existence. I still await your demonstration of this point.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Except we haven't agreed that it cannot be refuted scientifically. It has been, on several levels. It is severally flawed logic (see my first post). It is contradictory (you do it right here again, if god causes existence, then we can measure god by inference based on measurements of existence, which would make god empirically measurable).
    The existence of everything that can be observed is a simple binary. The phenomenon either is, or it is not (and in fact it is). I don’t see how we can “measure” that, beyond observing that in fact it is.

    We can reason that this phenomenon - the existence of everything that can be observed - is either uncaused, or it is caused. If it is caused, it is necessarily caused by something that cannot be observed.

    You have told me (and I accept) that it is a fundamental assumption of the scientific method that everything real is observable. Consequently the scientific method cannot entertain the proposition that the phenomenon is caused. And if it cannot entertain that proposition, it cannot investigate it. And if it cannot investigate it, it cannot refute it.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If 1,2,3 starts with a false premise, then 3 would be an illogical conclusion, thus making 1,2,3 illogical.
    No, it would be a false conclusion, logically arrived at from a false premise. Even with undefined subjects, we can see that the reasoning is logical, regardless of whether the premises are true or false. If the premises turn out to be false the reasoning doesn’t magically become illogical, but the conclusion is unreliable.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    Science only needs empirical observations if you are talking about an empirical system. Abstract systems dont give empirical observations, but can still follow the scientific method. Maths follows the scientific method, abstract observations are made, hypotheses (conjectures) are formed and experiments are performed to confirm or contradict (it is attempted to prove or disprove the conjecture)
    I have to disagree. Science always needs empirical observations; that’s what makes it science. Abstract systems may be rational, logical, etc, but they don’t follow the scientific method because they don’t proceed from empirical observations.

    You yourself told me that a fundamental assumption of the scientific method is that everything real is empirically observable. This assumption would not be necessary if science could proceed without empirical observations. Once you start proceeding without empirical observations but still maintaining that your conclusions are in some way related to reality and are going to tell you something about reality that empirical observations cannot, you are implicitly rejecting the fundamental assumption that you have identified, and what you are doing is no longer science.

    That’s why Euclidean geometry is not science, for example.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    There is a world of difference between examining the logical conclusions of your statements and examining what conclusions can be wrung out if you abandon logic. Theology is great at the latter, not so good at the former.
    You confirm the impression I had already formed. Your empirical observations of theology are limited and unsystematic, aren’t they?:-)
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    The axiom that science rest on makes sense.
    Unless you are wanting to do, e.g., Euclidean geometry, in which case you must abandon them.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    It is logically consistent.
    As is Euclidean geometry.
    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    If something had an effect on us, then we could measure that effect and infer its existence. If something has no measurable effect on us, at all, then it might as well not exist, as it has no effect on us and therefore, we have no way to determine if it exists.
    But lots of people do infer the existence of god from the phenomenon of existence. You don’t, but that doesn’t mean that the inference can’t be made.

    I think you are failing to make a distinction between an inference, and a reliably conclusive inference. If god could be the cause of existence, you cannot say that the un/reality of god makes no difference to us; it may make a very profound difference.

    “it might as well not exist, as . . . we have no way to determine if it exists” is simply a restatement of the “fundamental assumption” that everything real is empirically observable.

    All scientific arguments that a supernatural god does not exist are circular, since they employ a technique of investigation which, on your own admission, precludes a priori the existence of things which cannot be empirically observed. And this is precluded a priori because it is something the truth of which cannot be demonstrated. So also such arguments really boil down to “because we cannot prove that unobservable things to do not exist, we assume it, and because we assume it, therefore unobservable things do not exist”.


  • #259
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    robindch wrote: »
    Please let me clarify:

    Religious people are religious because they believe that events occurred which did not happen . . .
    Not necessarily, no. Are Buddhists, for example, Buddhist because they believe in events which did not happen? Are Confucians Confucian because they believe in events which did not happen? Unitarians?

    The fact that your foundational premise is not generally true does rather undermine the rest of the argument which proceeds from it.

    But there is another, and wider, point which I think explains why we may be at cross-purposes; we don’t agree on what “myth” means.

    A myth is a story told in order to convey, or support, some view, belief, ritual or similar phenomenon. The importance of a myth lies in the belief, view, etc that it conveys, not in whether it is factually true or not. It could in fact be factually true, but this is generally unimportant. All societies, cultures and communities have myths - even skeptical ones:-).

    Take the story of George Washington, the cherry tree and the axe - you know the one. It’s pretty certainly not factually true. The story is told not because anyone things the young George Washington actually cut down a cherry tree - even if they do think that, why would they care?- but because it it taken to illustrate certain character traits of George Washington, who of course represents (in this story) the American nation.

    Or take the Battle of Agincourt. It’s historically true that a vastly outnumbered and ill-supplied English force defeated a greatly superior French army, claiming between 7,000 and 10,000 casualties for a loss of 112 of their own. But who cares about that now? Who even remembers what the battle was about? Yet, partly due to Shakespeare, Agincourt has become a myth, told and retold to illustrate the indomitable character of the English, about solidarity, about comradeship, about honour.

    Actuality is a different genre of writing, which aims to convey the external truth about an event that occurred. It won’t deal with why the event occurred, or why it matters that the event occurred. So, in a newspaper, you’ll get a combination of actuality - the news reporting - and opinion pieces, commentary, etc.

    Right. To fail to distinguish between myth and actuality can mean two things. First, it can mean that you assume the events in a mythic story actually occurred. Young earth creationists are treating biblical myth as actuality in this sense. But it can also mean that you assume that the point of the story is that the events actually occurred. A surprising number of atheists/agnostics/skeptics treat (biblical) myth as actuality in this sense, arguing that biblical stories can be dismissed because the events narrated did not occur. They're taking their cue from the biblical literalists, of course, but, still, they are togging out for a surprising team.


  • #260
    as125634do
    Closed Accounts Posts: 78 ✭✭as125634do


    I havent read much in this thred but ive seen haunted houses on tv and am inclined to believe in them. Everyday example of magic? Falling asleep one minute ur fully conscience next ur sound asllep bafles the mind


  • #261
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Zombrex wrote: »
    No, but then ethical decisions are neither true nor false. All that matters in ethics is what you personally feel about something.
    Well, possibly. Or possibly not. Are you not rather assuming your conclusion here? But let that pass.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    So again you are confusing domains here. The question Is it wrong to rape someone is really just the question Do you think it is wrong to rape someone. What you think determines the out put.

    On the other hand, the question Is the moon bigger than the Earth is not just the question Do you think the moon is bigger than the Earth. Those are different questions, and the former is not dependent on your personal feelings.
    No, I’m not confusing domains. I accept that the two questions are questions of a fundamentally different kind. But that just highlights my point that the scientific method is not a lot of use for interrogating non-sicentific propositions.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    But they aren't modestly useful.
    They’re certainly more useful than science, as is shown by our observation that people do in fact use other methods, in preference to the scientific method, for tackling this distinctly non-scientific question.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Again if they were they would be part of science. For example currently scientific measurements of gravitational waves is at best modestly useful. We still apply science to gravitational waves, despite it being very hard to learn anything about them.
    But “useful” =/= “scientific”. Methods which do not proceed from empirical observations, however useful they are, are not scientific.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    If there was any technique that allowed us to gain modestly useful information about non-empirically-observable realities we would use it.
    We do use such methods. I have already pointed to huge fields of enquiry, ranging from Euclidian geometry to historical criticism, which employ non-scientific methods to address non-scientific questions.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    It is not a question of semantics, it is a question of understanding why science is the way it is, what the philosophy behind it is.

    It is inaccurate to suggest that humans can accurately answer particular questions as to the correct nature of reality using methods such as theology but that these methods are ignored by science for some arbitrary reason that science only is interested in empirical study.
    True, but I have never suggested otherwise. I don’t think there’s anything arbitrary about science’s rooting of itself in empirical observation; it’s the study of the empirically observable.

    And I don’t suggest that theology or politics or economics or ethics or history or psychology etc produce answers in their fields which are comparable in terms of certainty and confidence with the answers that science can produce to scientific question. I just make the rather more modest claim that in their fields, they are more useful techniques of investigation than science would be.

    In fact, the fundamental claim I am making in this regard is really the analogue of the one you are making. I would say that it is inaccurate to suggest that humans can accurately answer particular questions about non-empirical realities (including the question of whether they exist) using methods such as science.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    You have it the wrong way around. Science is restricted to any methodology that can provide results to a particular standard that science requires. It happens that so far the only methodologies humans have come up with that do this are empirical ones.
    . . . and those methods can only provide answers of the required standard to a particular class of questions.
    Zombrex wrote: »
    Saying "we don't know" is tackling the problem. It is tackling the problem in the most accurate way available.
    But, based on what you said just a moment ago, isn’t the most accurate answer “we don’t know with the level of certainty with which we could know the answer to a scientific question”?
    Zombrex wrote: »
    But then I'm not sure you actually mean tackling. By the sounds of it you mean provide an answer. If science cannot provide an answer, and is telling you that you can't actually know the answer, you are going to go to another methodology that will provide an answer.
    By “tackling the problem” I mean deciding on the action, or stand, that I will take on the issue in front of me.

    I may not have an answer with the certainty that science can provide - I won’t, if it’s a non-scientific issue - but that doesn’t mean that there is no technique of investigation which cannot give me better information, or a fuller understanding, than I have now. I’ll still end up with limited information and limited understanding, of course, but taking decisions with limted information is an inescapable aspect of the human condition.

    In fact there are many such techniques, which really are useful, as evidenced by the fact that people really do employ them. Scientists, indeed, employ them when faced with non-scientific questions.


  • Advertisement
  • #262
    Peregrinus
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 27,430 ✭✭✭✭Peregrinus


    Pwpane wrote: »
    What I was trying to get at here was the essence of your God-claim. A different approach to why v how. As I said, 'something is the ground for existence' is a very different proposition to 'God is the ground for existence'.

    God is a loaded word, full of different meanings to different people. I was trying to explore that as part of the statement but accept it's a little off topic . . .
    Look, you make a very good point.

    In the interests of full disclosure, I’ll say that I knew I could have framed my claim as “a supernatural reality is the fundamental ground for the existence of all things other than itself”. But I thought that was altogether too metaphysical and, if it attracted any response at all, it would be a dispute about how to define “entity” and “supernatural” and “ground”, which was unlikely to be very enlightening. Whereas if I snuck the word “god” into my claim, it would attract more attention, and probably better discussion, from the denizens of this board, who by being here self-identify as being interested in questions about “god”.

    So I did and, to be honest, I’m not sorry. I don’t know about others, but I have found the discussion which followed enlightening (in parts!).

    I think I’m done, though. Mark and I understand one another by now probably about as well as we are going to, and our posts at this stage are really just repeating themselves. You’re raising questions that I really don’t want to discuss - in this thread, anyway. And, in general, the conversation is starting to spiral off into more-or-less random topics like what “myth” means - interesting, possibly, but a whole other conversation.

    It’s Friday afternoon in Australia, which is where I am. Plus, it’s summer. All in all, that makes it a good time to lay metaphysics aside, and head off to start the weekend with a couple of beers.


  • #263
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,583 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    It’s Friday afternoon in Australia, which is where I am. Plus, it’s summer. All in all, that makes it a good time to lay metaphysics aside, and head off to start the weekend with a couple of beers.
    Lucky you, enjoy. :)


  • #264
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    I already believe in much of it, naturally I don't believe there is God watching over us and damming us to hell if we don't kiss a priest's foot ~

    However, if like the story of Christ throwing the merchants out of 'God House' and we had a sequel where one man heavily armed like Rambo, started roaming the street and obliterating all churches and humbling Israel and exposing the USA ~ well I'd be impressed.


  • #265
    vibe666
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,016 ✭✭✭✭vibe666


    gbee wrote: »
    I already believe in much of it, naturally I don't believe there is God watching over us and damming us to hell if we don't kiss a priest's foot ~

    However, if like the story of Christ throwing the merchants out of 'God House' and we had a sequel where one man heavily armed like Rambo, started roaming the street and obliterating all churches and humbling Israel and exposing the USA ~ well I'd be impressed.
    one thing that always bugged me is that whether or not you believe christ was the son of god or even regardless of if you believe he was a real person or not, i can't get my head around how the church has managed to twist his 'teachings' so far that they are pretty much the exact opposite of what they originally were.

    you only have to look at the sermon on the mount for a load of examples about what's good and bad in the world and the dangers of accumulation of wealth, praying in churches and such. then look at the vatican and all their churches (and priests) draped in gold and jewels. how did they ever manage it in 'his' name?

    *note* i may have gotten some of my knowledge of this from the life of brian. :pac:


  • #266
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    vibe666 wrote: »
    gbee wrote: »
    I already believe in much of it, naturally I don't believe there is God watching over us and damming us to hell if we don't kiss a priest's foot ~

    However, if like the story of Christ throwing the merchants out of 'God House' and we had a sequel where one man heavily armed like Rambo, started roaming the street and obliterating all churches and humbling Israel and exposing the USA ~ well I'd be impressed.
    one thing that always bugged me is that whether or not you believe christ was the son of god or even regardless of if you believe he was a real person or not, i can't get my head around how the church has managed to twist his 'teachings' so far that they are pretty much the exact opposite of what they originally were.

    you only have to look at the sermon on the mount for a load of examples about what's good and bad in the world and the dangers of accumulation of wealth, praying in churches and such. then look at the vatican and all their churches (and priests) draped in gold and jewels. how did they ever manage it in 'his' name?

    *note* i may have gotten some of my knowledge of this from the life of brian. :pac:

    EDITED BY MOD TO FIX BROKEN QUOTATION

    Your on the ball there vibe The corruption in the church is as corrupt as the white collar crime and the sermon on the mount
    Is insightful reading about the good and bad its quite simple really.

    Google " Reptilian Brain "


  • #267
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,458 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    vibe666 wrote: »
    how did they ever manage it in 'his' name?
    Surely people who claim in public, loudly and often, that the sermon on the mount guides their moral decisions wouldn't lie, would they?


  • #268
    gbee
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,388 ✭✭✭gbee


    vibe666 wrote: »
    *note* i may have gotten some of my knowledge of this from the life of brian. :pac:

    My own take. Christ lived as a real person and he was a teacher and gathered a great following. Some of the mob believed him to be the Son Of God as already predicted in the existing texts and holy books of the day.

    He was never crucified and lived out his life with his family but perhaps in exile. A movement of Christians who believed in the freedom of mankind and peace and sharing of the wealth grew slowly, threatening the establishments of the time.

    Three hundreds years pass and Rome is dying, it's empire spilt into at least three pieces, three Ceasers claiming the title and holding armies to defend them. Invading hoards are rising up everywhere and Rome finds that the Christians have massive support so Rome comes up with a fanatical idea, they create the Holy Roman Catholic Church and say it is based on Peter and claim Peter has Christ's authority.

    And billions of people believe them and the Roman Empire continued on to this day. I don't believe the Catholic Church ever followed Christ's teachings. Much of Christ's stories are just made up and changed throughout history to suit contemporary times.


  • #269
    Northclare
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭Northclare


    I think Christ was more of a rebel who pissed off certain people who had authority, he brought fear to the local establishment of his time.

    If a person tells a story today and it starts snowballing over a few days with bits added here and there how big does the snowball get over 2012 years maybe along the way it hits a big rock breaks into smaller pieces and it goes different directions collecting **** along the way.


  • #270
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,834 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    Peregrinus wrote: »
    So your argument essentially is, assuming that everything real is observable, then if we can’t observe something it’s not real.

    It’s a circular argument, Mark.

    Its not circular, because thats not what I'm saying. If something exists, but is in no way observable, but still has an effect on us, but that effect is in no way observable, then how exactly can you say that an effect is happening, that something is causing it and that the effect actually matters? You can't without contradicting yourself (because, in order to claim that something is there, that it is causing an effect and that the effect is meaningful, you need to be able to measure the effect).
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Thanks for the link. I’ve reread the post. Maybe I’m slow-witted, but in that post you don’t seem to me to identify any assumption you think I have made. You attack my propositions, but you don’t mention my assumptions at all.

    I don’t want to be difficult, but can you state directly what you think my assumption is, and then state directly how you demonstrate it to be wrong?

    I already did, in my first post to you. Your assumption was your first I quoted ("Suppose I postulate that there is a God who is the fundamental ground for the existence of all things that exist, other than God.") I explained in my first post (and I'm not the only one), why the assumption is flawed. You made it even more flawed later on when you started describing "fundamental ground" as something non-empirical, which created another contradiction (here).
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Your use of the word “alone” there is key.

    My use of the word "alone" was simply to prevent someone coming on saying that "X" was inference of god existing. This X would either be something which can be attributed to natural causes, or something we have so little understanding about that we can equally attribute nearly anything we want to its cause, and so any one thing would be completely arbitrary. That you use "existence" doesn't change this, because of your earlier contradiction. If existence inferred god, then we could "measure" god by this inference. But you said we can't measure god. Which means that we have no reason to say god even exists in the first place. And without any reason to say that god exists, we have no reason to assume that god exists.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    To say that the reality of god makes no difference to anything observable, we must first of all show that the reality of god does not cause the phenomenon of existence. I still await your demonstration of this point.

    Well you yourself said that god (as some sort of fundamental ground) is non-empirical. If something is non-empirical (non observable) then it has no effect on anything else observable. Several times now you have presented this contradiction as if it is meaningful. If god, regardless of what god actually is, had an effect on something observable, then god becomes observable. Which contradicts you earlier claim that god only exists in the same way a concept exists. You need to figure out this contradiction.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    The existence of everything that can be observed is a simple binary. The phenomenon either is, or it is not (and in fact it is). I don’t see how we can “measure” that, beyond observing that in fact it is.

    We measure existence in terms of physics and physics does weird things when you get close to the big bang, so I'm not sure its as binary as you think.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    We can reason that this phenomenon - the existence of everything that can be observed - is either uncaused, or it is caused. If it is caused, it is necessarily caused by something that cannot be observed.

    Why? Why exactly couldn't the thing that caused existence be something that exists itself? Why couldn't it be something that exists in this universe, and which somehow caused the creation of the universe by removing itself from time space, or by lasting past the big crunch (should that be what happens?
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    No, it would be a false conclusion, logically arrived at from a false premise. Even with undefined subjects, we can see that the reasoning is logical, regardless of whether the premises are true or false. If the premises turn out to be false the reasoning doesn’t magically become illogical, but the conclusion is unreliable.

    You cut off my explanation: "You can only declare 1 as false if you are trying to relate it to reality, which means that must then relate 1,2,3 to reality as a whole. "
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    I have to disagree. Science always needs empirical observations; that’s what makes it science. Abstract systems may be rational, logical, etc, but they don’t follow the scientific method because they don’t proceed from empirical observations.

    I disagree. The fundamental assumption is required when performing science on an empirical system. Abstract systems do not require it. Abstract systems can only give abstract observations, but you can still perform science (follow the method).
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    You confirm the impression I had already formed. Your empirical observations of theology are limited and unsystematic, aren’t they?:-)

    No. While I am not nearly as well read as other posters here, I have read and debated a fair bit of theological logic and reasoning. If theists did apply the same rigour, logic and reason to theological questions as scientists or mathematicians do, then they wouldn't be theists.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    But lots of people do infer the existence of god from the phenomenon of existence. You don’t, but that doesn’t mean that the inference can’t be made.

    As I said at the start of this post, what they infer about is either something happily explained through natural causes but which they deny because want god to exist (eg abiogenesis being the cause of life on earth, lack of oxygen being the cause of NDEs) or it something that we have so little idea about that any inference is entirely arbitrary.
    Given our inability to examine what it was like pre big bang/outside the universe/existence not subject to space&time, you could claim god is why everything exists, I could claim that I am the cause (but I chose to forget how and why) and we would both be equally supported.
    This is why I put "alone" when talking about inference. An inference from a situation where there are multiple possibilities is only valid if all or most of the evidence supports it alone. Arbitrary inferences don't become more valid when there is no evidence, they become equally invalid, for the very simple reason that if there is no evidence, where exactly are you getting the inference from?


  • Advertisement
  • #271
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,363 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Generally referring to this area of text, apologies for the snip but my reply is long enough without quoting a huge body too. The link to the original is there for anyone who needs it.
    Peregrinus wrote: »
    Not to put words in Michael’s mouth.....

    That’s about as far as my thinking goes at present....

    What interests me is the basis on which we do, in fact, make this choice....

    I suspect, but I don’t know, that we often delude ourselves as to the true reasons for our choice

    I can not really speak for how others make their choice in this regard but I certainly know how I do it and perhaps it will help extend your post from the point where you say "That’s about as far as my thinking goes at present.".

    It sounds to be like you essentially have a continuum of belief in your mind almost like a number series line. A new proposition enters in at point 0 and evidence for the proposition moves it towards the positive and evidence against towards the negative.

    With concepts like a god, for the reasons you laid out above regarding the distinction between the natural and the supernatural, we have no evidence for or against the proposition so the concept remains at point 0. Any belief in the concept, or disbelief in it is therefore nothing but a choice. If so then the reasons you have chosen belief over disbelief is as yet opaque to me but I imagine you have your reasons.

    Rather than just arbitrarily choose what to believe or not out of the vast array of unsubstantiated claims in the world therefore I choose instead of view the continuum as a credibility continuum with all new ideas coming in at the bottom and moving up as evidence supports them. If the evidence is against them or entirely absent then I simply leave them at the bottom of the continuum. Essentially rejected and dismissed, but always ready to to move up the scale if given reason to do so.... which to me is the very definition of "open mindedness". The willingness to move things on the continuum when given reason to do so, rather than maintaining their position because you like where they are.

    Since there is no negative direction on my continuum of belief this essentially means that ideas that are actually proved false, or have at least evidence suggesting they are false are considered to be on a par/level with unsubstantiated claims. I effectively treat claims with literally no substantiation at all the same way I do claims that are shown to be false. Not to say they ARE 100% synonymous/equivalent, I just treat them the same.

    I jokingly refer this to treating the universe and anything beyond it as being "innocent until proven guilty". If a claim is made then I assume everything is innocent of it until proven guilty of it. But that is just a tongue in cheek representation of my position to highlight what I mean.

    So given there is not just little, but no evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer at all to suggest there is a god or a supernatural realm of any sort I simply treat the idea as unsubstantiated and I dismiss it. Remaining ever ready to move it up the scale should anyone present the evidence, argument, data or reasons that lend the idea even a modicum of credence. An event that, if we were to listen to some people, should happen any day now.... given the likes of Philologos on these fora claim quite consistently and frequently that the evidence for their god(s) abound... leaving me in the interim to ponder the question as to why, given the sheer quantity of evidence available to them... they refuse to present a shred of it with equal frequency and consistency as their claims that it is there. I have my suspicions as to why this might be.

    Treating my belief continuum in this fashion means the context then shifts slightly and belief or not in god is no longer a "choice". I simply have no choice to make or capability to make one. There is no reason on offer... whatsoever.... to move the god concept up the scale from the zero point. It is not an option for me to take. Those people like yourself who have chosen to believe in it anyway, for reasons unknown to us... and possibly even to yourself, simply have no position on my scale.

    I do not therefore choose between belief and non-belief but instead distinguish between ideas that are substantiated and those that are not.

    Where they are not I dismiss them entirely... If someone tells me not to leave the house because a green with pink pokka dotts VW microbus will materialise over my head, fall and kill me... I have no cause to find out if the proposition is false. I simply recognize it as entirely unsubstantiated and... here is the crux of my life choices in this world... proceed as if it is false in every way.

    And I tend to resist unsubstantiated claims and their use and application in our halls of power, education and science as a basis for any kind of policy, law, education curriculum or ethical decisions. Much the same way you yourself might if a guy started espousing all kinds of policy choices based on a page full of statistics for which he will provide no background or basis as to how the statistics came about or were reached, but he continued to brandish the page anyway and demand we use it as a basis for our talks.

    One effect of this continuum is that ideas are not treated as credible solely because someone was capable of coming up with it. This is where I have trouble with words like "atheist" and "agnostic" because those words are acting like we have to define ourselves for or against entirely unsubstantiated positions... an idea that would lead to an infinitely long lexicon of labels for oneself from aracist to aastrologer to afairyist to asantaclausist to much more.

    In most realms of discourse if someone spews out a totally baseless claim we dismiss it and likely marginalize the speaker. We recognize that "I see no reason to think you are right" is as valid a position as "I believe you to be right" and "I believe you to be wrong". Just because someone was capable of coming up with an idea, we do not have to assign credibility, resources or time to that idea. Yet with god we do not act this way and so many threads here are derailed into long, pointless and never reconciled discussions over whether atheists "do not believe in god" or "believe in no god". It makes me feel like creating words to define people who do not accept the "god" concept are an attempt to lend credibility to the "god" idea, a credibility not lent to other entirely unsubstantiated ideas, by defining people against it. The creation of a false equivalence between those accepting or rejecting the idea.

    When it comes to just making up the idea there might be a god entity bets are off and we start defining ourselves against the position with labels like atheist, agnostic, adeist and many more I have heard. Yet given there is an equal amount of evidence for AND against all these propositions (That is: none) why are we treating one of them any differently to the rest?

    So is there a god? It is possible for sure. Is there even a single iota of even a modicum of evidence, argument, data or reasons on offer to think there is a god or lend the idea even the remotest credibility? No, not to my knowledge, none at all. Certainly pointing out that "god" is supernatural and therefore "there is and can be no evidence on which to base the rejection/acceptance" in no way adds even a modicum of credibility to the idea there actually is one, yet alas this is the approach many theists take on these fora. They will openly tell you as a matter of fact that not only is there a god, but they know many of it's attributes, intentions, wishes and opinions... then when you point out there is no basis for their claims they will just declare that this is because god is beyond measurement so you have no real say in the matter. This leaves one wondering how the lack of any ability to measure X means they have a say in the attributes of X and we do not.

    So maybe you are right that many people are deluding themselves as to why they make the choice they do, given none of them are making it for evidence based reasons as you point out. I wonder myself therefore how many people on my side of the fence are treating the continuum like I do (without knowing it) rather than a positive/negative continuum that one is free to arbitrarily choose a direction for with any claims that have no evidence for or against them.

    On an entirely unrelated note, having read your posts, it is somewhat comforting to note that I am not the only one in the world who... for reasons unclear to me.... often types "thing" instead of "think" and vice versa.... especially given... I at least..... do not use the same hand for both letters. I despair at how many of my posts I re-read and find this error so it is nice to see it in the posts of others too.


Advertisement