I know there's a Dawkins thread somewhere, but it seems to have slipped off the page. Anyway, I think this deserves a thread of its own.
I just started reading The God Delusion, and one of the first things I loved was the seven point scale Dawkins uses for the probability of God's existence. So, I thought I would post it here and give everyone an opportunity to see where on the scale they fall:
quote:Where do you stand on the probability of God's existence?
1.0: Strong theist. 100 percent possibility of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2.0: Very high probability, but short of 100 percent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3.0: Higher than 50 percent, but not very high. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4.0: Exactly 50 percent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5.0: Lower than 50 percent, but not very low. Technically agnostic, but leaning towards atheism. 'I don't know whether God exists, but I'm inclined to be skeptical.'
6.0: Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7.0: Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
I'm just curious about the spectrum of people we have here on Hatrack. We know we have Catholics and Mormons and Agnostics and Atheists and everything in between...but I'd be interested to see how many 1.0 Catholics and how many 2.0 Catholics, etc.
Anyway, I'll start and say that I'm roughly a 5. I was born into a Catholic family, but I think it's safe to say I'm somewhat lapsed.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Catholic, lapsed, somewhere around 2.5, which is to say most often 2.0 with occasional, usually brief, bouts of 6.0
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Call me 1.5 -- some days it's 1, and some it's 2.
Posted by Tstorm (Member # 1871) on :
6...Leaning toward 7.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
6, but the probability of god's existence is so low that I act as if I'm a 7.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
6.0
I don't have the book on me, but I recall that he also makes an interesting distinction between types of agnostics that is not captured in just the 4.0
The distinction is between agnostics who believe that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be proven or disproven *on principle* and agnostics who believe that the existence or non-existence of God has not been *proven yet.* I thought that was an interesting distinction to make because I was probably closer to the former in the past, before really thinking about it and moving to the 6.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Depends on what you mean by 'God'. The Christian version, call me 7. A vaguely theistic sort of Cosmic Niceness, meh, 6.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
A thought occurs. If you really rate the probability of *any* god as 50% as an agnostic, you really have to give any *specific* god a low number.
At six mutually exclusive gods (say Christian God, Xenu, Pangu, Jupiter, Ra, and Baal), your probability that any specific god exists is already only at about 10% since (1-0.1)^6 = 0.53
Wikipedia gives at least 18 mutually exclusive gods which would give each god only about 4% since (1-0.04)^18 = 0.48
This of course assumes that you're a true agnostic who believes not only that it is impossible to prove whether a god exists or does not, but also believes that it is impossible to prove "which" god is the one that exists (which seems pretty reasonable given the first assumption).
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
6.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: This of course assumes that you're a true agnostic who believes not only that it is impossible to prove whether a god exists or does not, but also believes that it is impossible to prove "which" god is the one that exists (which seems pretty reasonable given the first assumption).
Not necessarily. It doesn't seem that hard to picture someone who is pretty much a four, but for whatever reason has decided that various particular gods have an extremely low probability of existing.
As for the question itself, I'd say that I'm somewhere around a 5 right now, although I have at various points in my life been closer to a high 2.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
3-4 raised baptist. Still have tons of christian friends. Very very unsure either way. I like church for the socialization, the warmth, and the music.
I hate it for the hypocrisy, the dogma, and the politics.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Oh, I should point out for those who don't have the book that Dawkins labels himself as a 6, leaning towards 7.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I don't see how those gods are mutually exclusive, Mucus. In fact it could be argued that Jesus and Baal are mutually inclusive-- the Christian and Jewish scriptures pretty much treat Baal as a real entity.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
You know, I don't think that's particularly important. There's no reason to assume that god is more likely to exist than the invisible pink unicorn or the celestial teapot, so the probability can keep getting smaller and smaller. Also, you could make minor changes to the Christian god and create millions of new permutations, like a god who created the universe except made Eve before Adam, etc. etc.
Posted by Vadon (Member # 4561) on :
I'll go with 4, but Y'know, my problem is that I don't really have much belief either way. It sounds horrible, but I really just... don't care. If there's a God, that's wonderful, I'm glad I'm living a moral life and hope S/He'll see that I tried my darndest to be good. If not, well, I still lived my life to its fullest.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
6
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Depends on what you mean by 'God'. The Christian version, call me 7. A vaguely theistic sort of Cosmic Niceness, meh, 6.
I'd say this is pretty accurate for me too.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:6, but the probability of god's existence is so low that I act as if I'm a 7.
yup. Posted by RunningBear (Member # 8477) on :
Yep.
I am a 5 on the whole effective cosmic aether deal too...
7 on deity.
Heaavvyy 7 on Jehovah. And Allah, and etc.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I'm a 3.223 Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
I'm a 6.666 Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well, it took long enough for satan to show up!
I don't know if this will change anyone's number, but it seems to me that in this scale Richard Dawkins is using "god" to mean any supernatural being/creator. (I was going to just say creator, but I'm sure there are religions with a god that didn't create.) He just uses "god" and "he" to simplify things.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I'm a 1. About 12 years ago I changed from a 6.999 to a 1, though. I did the experiment and saw the results. =)
Posted by Krankykat (Member # 2410) on :
quote:it seems to me that in this scale Richard Dawkins is using "god" to mean any supernatural being/creator
Good point, Javert
1.0) A 100% theist here.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Call me 1.5 -- some days it's 1, and some it's 2.
Ditto.
Posted by Qaz (Member # 10298) on :
Whenever I see the thread I think it's about how likely it is that I exist. I think I'm a 1.1 on that one.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
1.0
There were times in my life I would have been a 2.0, perhaps even slipping down to 3.0, but now I don't have any doubts whatsoever.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
1.
-pH
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
I'm a pure 7.0
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: I'm a 1. About 12 years ago I changed from a 6.999 to a 1, though. I did the experiment and saw the results. =)
What sort of experiment brings someone form 6.999 to 1?
Posted by Boothby171 (Member # 807) on :
Yeah...I was wondering that myself.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Call me 1.5 -- some days it's 1, and some it's 2.
Ditto.
Tritto.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"Depends on what you mean by 'God'. The Christian version, call me 7. A vaguely theistic sort of Cosmic Niceness, meh, 6."
Same.
"I did the experiment and saw the results. =)"
Have you ever wrote a post about this experiment here? I'd be very interested to know about what made you change your mind.
Posted by jlt (Member # 10088) on :
Around 3.5 but my views sort of align with Vadon.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
1.5. Although much closer to 7 on KoM's version of "God".
Tatiana, was it by any chance this experiment?
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
5.5 - I think the probability is pretty darn low, but I'm not willing to rule it out. I really hate loosing arguments and if I end up at the pearly gates, that would be a big one to swallow.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
Good point - if I end up wrong, I'll never know it.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I'm a 6.9 on deism, and around a 5.7 on mushy god(s).
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
1.1
I can't bring myself to say 100%, but I'll say that I am 99.99% sure that there is a God and I definitely try to live my life on that belief.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
6, here
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Call me 1.5 -- some days it's 1, and some it's 2.
Ditto.
Tritto.
Quritto?
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
I'm about 90-95% convinced that there's a God, and about 85-90% convinced that Judaism is right about the details.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
I've actually said the statement, or pretty close, that is listed on 6. So that would be my choice.
I admit, however, that in times of great pain or hope, that I am prone to some form of informal prayer. I always feel stupid afterwards, but it happens perhaps once or twice a year.
So perhaps a 5.99, if you figure 6 on most days, and maybe a 4 on the days when I pray.
Posted by Shawshank (Member # 8453) on :
A 1.2 earlier in my life probably 6-7.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Well, i've done that too, Xav, but i usually attribute it to the heightened emotions of the incident. It is a completely involuntary response, for instance, when i'm driving in a car with a very dangerous driver, to silently pray that we all make it through ok. For me, personally, though, it's more about finding some illusion of control over a situation in which i know i have no Actual control. It's those feelings of helplessness that make me inadvertently call on something "more." But that doesn't mean i really believe, in my heart, that it will make a difference. It's just the action of trying to do something, the effort and attempt at making everything better. For me, personally -- i am definitely NOT trying to say that's what everyone else does when they pray, not even hinting at it. Only speaking about me Posted by Shan (Member # 4550) on :
A 1-2 on the idea that there is some sort of unifying creative force that binds us together.
A less than 7 that ANY religion has the details straight.
And a strong belief that "formal/institionalized religion" has played and will continue to play a huge role in the shaping of our world, and therefore we all need to make sure our voices are heard so that we can lop off the unfortuante excesses that have occured in the name of religion and capitalize on the good that comes of it.
If that makes any sense, at all.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
It does. Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
JennaDean, that's pretty much the one I did, though I didn't read that passage until later.
I noticed that many of the people I most admired were religious. I realized I didn't know much about being alive, about how to live. I finally finally started paying attention to the people I admired when they told me where all the love, happiness, patience, kindness, forgiveness, gentleness, and goodness they seemed to have all the time came from. And I tried the experiment of asking with a sincere and repentant heart for guidance. In fact, I prayed with all the energy of my soul, and I got an answer. For every step I took toward God, he took two steps toward me. So what started as hesitant and embarrassed, as feeling foolish because I didn't believe in what I was doing, gradually became more and more sure. Now God's presence in my life is a steady burn, a constant source of light and direction, a help in every need. I asked and was answered, and still am answered over and over again, day after day. Now it's like gravity. It's something I feel constantly. I know it's true because seeing is believing. I'm a doubting Thomas type, but even Thomas believed after he put his hands in the wounds. I had to do the same thing, but now that I did, I believe in God the way I believe in gravity.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:Now God's presence in my life is a steady burn, a constant source of light and direction, a help in every need. I asked and was answered, and still am answered over and over again, day after day. Now it's like gravity. It's something I feel constantly. I know it's true because seeing is believing. I'm a doubting Thomas type, but even Thomas believed after he put his hands in the wounds. I had to do the same thing, but now that I did, I believe in God the way I believe in gravity.
That's beautiful. Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shawshank: A 1.2 earlier in my life probably 6-7.
I'm having trouble parsing this statement. Are you saying that you're currently a 1.2, or currently 6-7.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: . . . the Christian and Jewish scriptures pretty much treat Baal as a real entity.
Well, I can only speak for the Jewish ones, but they treat Baal as an imaginary object of worship, not an actual entity with real existence.
Posted by Euripides (Member # 9315) on :
I think the 6-7 was the 'earlier' position.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: . . . the Christian and Jewish scriptures pretty much treat Baal as a real entity.
Well, I can only speak for the Jewish ones, but they treat Baal as an imaginary object of worship, not an actual entity with real existence.
That was my impression as well. I was more talking about the historical Baal rather than the Biblical Baal anyways. There were definitely groups that exclusively worshipped "a" Baal as the ruler of the Heavens which would be mutually exclusive with the Jewish/Christian concept of God. In any case, if God/Baal was not mutually exclusive enough, you could always pick something more obvious like God and the Aztec creator.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: And I tried the experiment of asking with a sincere and repentant heart for guidance. In fact, I prayed with all the energy of my soul, and I got an answer. For every step I took toward God, he took two steps toward me. ... It's something I feel constantly. I know it's true because seeing is believing.
That's very interesting, because I had essentially the same experience some years ago.
I was a semi-believer growing up. In college, I had a conversion experience. It was powerful, it blew me off my feet. I was filled with the spirit, as they say. I was SURE God was real, and that I had felt His presence.
As time went on, and the euphoria wore off, I started to sincerely question what had happened, and what that experience meant. I began to realize that a feeling of euphoria is not God, it's a feeling of euphoria. So I considered that I needed more than warm fuzzies to know God was there.
True, it FELT like something was happening, but so does being in love. Being in love doesn't mean the other person has magical powers, just that your body is creating physical changes. I realized that I was in love with God.
Well and good, but as a child, I felt warm fuzzies for stuffed animals. They gave me a sense of security, of unconditional love, but they weren't alive, they didn't do anything for me.
I began to more closely consider my experiences of God. When I had prayed, I often felt good, peaceful, and that I was being heard. I never learned anything that I didn't already know though. No supernatural phenomena ever happened.
Eventually, I came to the conclusion that I was making myself believe that God was out there, when my experiences actually provided zero evidence of that.
So I got down to the nitty gritty. I prayed my butt off, for God to show me some kind of evidence that was clearly not a physiological reaction or self-delusion. I was sincere. I really wanted God to be real. I had a lot of emotional investment in this, and I wanted to be right.
I got nothing. No miracles. No divine insight. Not even a series of coincidences so improbable that a fair observer would consider something unexplained might be going on.
So I tried the experiment from the other side. I attempted to disprove God. I made myself actively disbelieve. If anything could be spiritual in nature, I tried to find an alternate explanation that made perfect sense. Not a cop out, but a viable alternative, which could logically be explained with no reference to God. I found one every time.
I soon realized that I no longer had faith, and that I still had everything I had previously attributed to faith. I still had morality. I still got that warm fuzzy feeling, just instead of praying to God for it, I found it thinking about my friends, or about what a great day I'd had.
If I had a problem, I didn't ask God for an answer. I just thought about it good and hard, and usually something would present itself. All the things which I had previously given prayer credit for were happening with the same level of positive outcomes with zero need for God to enter the picture.
Now, many years without believing in God, without praying, without looking for supernatural answers to questions which can be explained using purely physical means, I don't miss the idea of God.
There is no great void in my life that only God/Jesus can fill. I get along just fine without praying. I haven't changed my morality to any significant degree, except that I've reconsidered restrictions that only make sense within a Christian world view.
It's much more complex than that, but in a nutshell, I went from 50%+ belief in God, to nearly 100% belief, and am not happily at nearly 0% belief. I feel like I'm much better off now than at any other stage.
I know it's a personal journey, but I always hope that the 75%+ers will see the light, as it were, and get back into the 25%- range where you can rely on yourself, can have a more objective viewpoint on things, don't let any single organization tell you what to think or feel, and spend your time living the life you have, rather than looking toward one that we cannot know exists, and even assuming it did, one which we can know nothing about.
Regardless, I wish everyone peace and understanding Posted by DevilDreamt (Member # 10242) on :
I rank about a 6. I figure most Gods I know of wouldn't be worth following anyway (except for maybe Artemis or Odin), and if one of the more "popular" Gods happens to be real, well, I plan to 1. Kill them. or 2. Go nobly into Hell and not complain too much about it.
I respect Buddhism very much and feel it provides a very clear and healthy outlook on life. If I ever choose to actively follow a religion, that will be it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know it's a personal journey, but I always hope that the 75%+ers will see the light, as it were, and get back into the 25%- range where you can rely on yourself, can have a more objective viewpoint on things, don't let any single organization tell you what to think or feel, and spend your time living the life you have, rather than looking toward one that we cannot know exists, and even assuming it did, one which we can know nothing about.
*sigh* I appreciate your well-wishing and general good will, but this paragraph is loaded with false assumptions.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
The asssumptions that I see are:
1) theists let an organization influence how they think and feel
2) theists are likely to spend some of their time worrying about the next life.
Number one could certainly be false for people that don't belong to an organized religion or don't go to church. But for church going folk, I absolutely think that organization is going to shape how you think and feel. That's not necessarily a bad thing- that's part of why people belong to groups. The extent of number 2 varies from person to person, but I think the general statement is true. Please explain how you disagree.
MightyCow, I really appreciated your post.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Rivka,
Forgive my imprecision.
Wasn't "Baal" kind of a title-- a class of being, so to speak?
"The Devil" is actually a misnomer to Christians-- Christians generally believe that there are a whole host of such beings. One of them is commonly called "Beelzebub" which, as I understand, is a modification of "Baal-Zebub".
At any rate, I thought Jewish scripture did recognize demonic entities as real. Christian scripture certainly does.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: The asssumptions that I see are:
1) theists let an organization influence how they think and feel
2) theists are likely to spend some of their time worrying about the next life.
The assumptions I see are the flip side of yours.
1) Theists subjugate their own opinions for that of another agency.
2)Theists don't spend enough time worrying about the present.
I would disagree with both of these, too, as general principles.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Ba'al" means master. However, when it is used as an object of worship, it appears (from what I understand) to refer to a single idolatrous sect. Baal-zevuv (Master of the Flies) would be a different idol, and one that I think only shows up in a single context.
Both are completely separate from the notion of demons, which may or may not be superstitious nonsense (depending on which school of traditional Jewish thought, the rationalists or the mystics, you give more weight to).
As for "the Devil," in Judaism the word Satan (sah-tahn) just means prosecutor. He is an angel, like any other. Like all angels, he is purely an instrument of God.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*snort* of course Satan would be an attorney...
but thanks for clearing that up. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: *snort* of course Satan would be an attorney...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Rivka: Just adding some info. From this it appears as though Baal was originally used to refer to a number of local deities. These were all merged together when the Judeo-Christian writers co-opted these deities and re-delegated them from Heaven to Hell.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: The asssumptions that I see are:
1) theists let an organization influence how they think and feel
2) theists are likely to spend some of their time worrying about the next life.
Number one could certainly be false for people that don't belong to an organized religion or don't go to church. But for church going folk, I absolutely think that organization is going to shape how you think and feel. That's not necessarily a bad thing- that's part of why people belong to groups. The extent of number 2 varies from person to person, but I think the general statement is true. Please explain how you disagree.
I completely disagree. With number 2, honestly, I think that faith shouldn't be about focusing on the afterlife. Because if you're only following your faith to get a carrot instead of a stick, well...the mindset bothers me. It's a really weak form of ethical behavior, in my opinion. I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't feel the way I do, and the way that I got to my particular view on the subject was incredibly painful and difficult.
-pH
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
MightyCow, I'd just like to second the experiences you laid out in your post. I went through almost exactly the same process to come to my current understanding of how I want to live my life. I'm very much a proponent of self-reliance over "giving yourself up" to a higher power.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I'm going to try to say this without being offensive. Forgive me if it comes across harsh... its not what I'm trying to do, but manipulating written language isn't my best skill.
To me, an experiment is something that can be replicated by an uninterested observer. When it comes to whether or not god exists and responds to individuals, the experiment tatiana describes is not one for which an uninterested observer exists.
But if it IS an experiment, then it should be something that anyone who engages in the experiment honestly should achieve the same results.
But I think that is manifestly untrue. I know that several members of this forum have tried it, including myself, and not received any results. Or perhaps they get results like Cow's.
To me, that means that one of the following must be the case a) God exists, but only responds to certain people b) God does not exist, but certain people feel a connection that they call god. c) God exists, and responds to different activities from different people. d) there is no objective answer to the question "does god exist."
The problem I have with options a and c is that, from my perspective, a god who behaves in that fashion is evil, and not worth my worship. I don't buy into the proposition that there is no fundamental reality, so I rule d out.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:I completely disagree. With number 2, honestly, I think that faith shouldn't be about focusing on the afterlife. Because if you're only following your faith to get a carrot instead of a stick, well...the mindset bothers me. It's a really weak form of ethical behavior, in my opinion.
I compltely agree that it's a weak form of ethical behavior. In my post I noted that the extent of number two varies. I think for some people it's such a focus that it's a huge problem. For others it's not such a huge focus. But I've never met a theist who didn't believe in an afterlife.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Rivka: Just adding some info. From this it appears as though Baal was originally used to refer to a number of local deities. These were all merged together when the Judeo-Christian writers co-opted these deities and re-delegated them from Heaven to Hell.
Jews don't have Hell. So you probably meant "Christian", rather than "Judeo-Christian" (which is almost always a mistaken term anyway).
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer:But I've never met a theist who didn't believe in an afterlife.
"Afterlife" can be a pretty broad term there...
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lisa:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: Rivka: Just adding some info. From this it appears as though Baal was originally used to refer to a number of local deities. These were all merged together when the Judeo-Christian writers co-opted these deities and re-delegated them from Heaven to Hell.
Jews don't have Hell. So you probably meant "Christian", rather than "Judeo-Christian" (which is almost always a mistaken term anyway).
I really meant "Judeo-Christian" since when I read that article, it linked to the article "Baal (demon)" (can't link to it directly, UBB seems to hate braces in links) which says specifically "Baal is a Judeo-Christian demon. His name also refers to various gods and goddesses who are not demons. This is a potential source of confusion. In this article, the name Baal is used only to refer to the demon Baal, unless stated otherwise."
Looking further, it seems that it might be correct regardless since demons seem to exist despite the lack of a Hell in Judaism.
So I stand corrected.
In any case, as I originally noted, my focus is on the "real" Baal and what beliefs his worshippers had rather than the "Biblical" Baal. ("Jewish Bible Baal"? "Torah Baal"? You know what I mean)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
[helpful] The Baal referred to in the Torah.
Also, when UBB rejects the link, try using TinyURL. [/helpful]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I can't speak for the experiences of anyone else. All I can say is that God is a real, external, non-imaginary, presence in my life, that he helps me every day, that I can do things now that I could never do before, that the difference in my life is enormous, and that all of that is for the better. He has opened up for me unlimited potential that I never realized I had. He has shown me that I have a divine nature that I never suspected. If God is a hallucination for me, then he's at least as definite, reliable, and internally consistent as gravity. Just as I have no reason to doubt the existence of gravity, which I can feel tugging on me this very moment, neither do I have any reason to doubt the existence of God. Obviously I can't speak for anyone else. I'm just describing what I have experienced. Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
I understand where you're coming from Tatiana, because I had the same experience. I later took God out of the picture, and realized that I still had unlimited potential, still had what you might call divine nature, and that all that had been holding it back was myself.
At this point in my life, I see the idea of God as a useful tool for self realization. Maybe people need help to realize that they're more than they appear to be. I don't know if I would be the same person I am today, had I not gone through all the introspection and self discovery associated with my brush with faith.
I don't think believing in God is a bad thing. I think it is often times has a lot of unfortunate baggage associated with it, which I believe that almost everyone would be vastly better off without.
Posted by Lisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: In any case, as I originally noted, my focus is on the "real" Baal and what beliefs his worshippers had rather than the "Biblical" Baal. ("Jewish Bible Baal"? "Torah Baal"? You know what I mean)
To the best of my knowledge, we don't have a demon Baal either.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
2.5 on God, 5.1 on Jesus.
Tom, I don't understand the distinction you're making; I can't tell if you're saying the opposite of KoM or something similar. Can you elaborate?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Amanecer: The asssumptions that I see are:
1) theists let an organization influence how they think and feel
2) theists are likely to spend some of their time worrying about the next life.
The assumptions I see are the flip side of yours.
1) Theists subjugate their own opinions for that of another agency.
2)Theists don't spend enough time worrying about the present.
I would disagree with both of these, too, as general principles.
I read it the same way Jim-Me and Rakeesh did.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Tom, I don't understand the distinction you're making; I can't tell if you're saying the opposite of KoM or something similar. Can you elaborate?
A "mushy God" is some kind of nebulous creative force that may or may not be sentient and may or may not be animating the universe. Such a being certainly could exist, so the jury's out. A "traditional" monotheistic God, though, is scarcely credible.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
quote:
quote: . . . the Christian and Jewish scriptures pretty much treat Baal as a real entity.
Well, I can only speak for the Jewish ones, but they treat Baal as an imaginary object of worship, not an actual entity with real existence.
The Stargate fans on the other hand...
I swing between 2 and 5, depending on a lot of factors. These days, I tend to believe that if any sort of supernatural entity does exist, he/she/they/it is pretty hands-off. For a long time, I have found it it a bit difficult to incorporate my belief in God into my daily life. I pray sometimes, but I generally don't bother with the asking God for stuff kind of prayer because I don't think it does anything. I don't believe that God will help me out of a difficult situation. Sure, I go to church, but when I'm out living my life and not specifically participating in religious activities, I can't see how my life (or the lives of most Christians I know) is all that different from that of a hard-core atheist's.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
Man, I would do almost anything short of dying to find out for sure if a God exists. This thread just keeps making me more curious. I hate unanswerable questions.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Man, I would do almost anything short of dying to find out for sure if a God exists. This thread just keeps making me more curious. I hate unanswerable questions.
I think that is the whole point of Dawkins' book. He says that the biggest problem is that when people say that "God's existence is unanswerable" they think it means that the probability is fifty-fifty. When, scientifically, while we can't answer if God exists the probability is that he/she/it doesn't.
Posted by GaalDornick (Member # 8880) on :
"He says that the biggest problem is that when people say that "God's existence is unanswerable" they think it means that the probability is fifty-fifty."
I didn't say that because it is unanswerable that the probability is 50/50. I don't even think you can measure the probability of the existence of God as a percentage. There are too many different specifics for the answer to be a simple yes or no, IMO.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:The Stargate fans on the other hand...
As in bocci?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: When, scientifically, while we can't answer if God exists the probability is that he/she/it doesn't.
Why is that, exactly?
I ask because I couldn't disagree more.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I may not understand probability, so could somebody help me out?
I find it odd to talk about the probability of something that either IS or IS NOT.
Here's how I understand it:
What is the probability that I ate cold cereal this morning? The some ways, the question doesn't make sense -- there is not probability. I either did or did not.
Changing the question to be for tomorrow, or for a random day in the past, or for a random person on the street would make it completely legitimate.
But then, if it's legit for a random day in the past, would it still be legit for exactly 10 years ago today? If it's legit for that day, isn't it also legit for today?
I don't know.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
I think, mph, that they mean "likelihood" and that Dawkins' assertion is that, as there is no scientific way to prove God's existence, He probably doesn't.
As I said, if that *is* Dawkins' point, I totally disagree.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: When, scientifically, while we can't answer if God exists the probability is that he/she/it doesn't.
Why is that, exactly?
I ask because I couldn't disagree more.
The way it is explained in the book is that the existence of a creator god raises more questions than it answers.
Basically, every thing that exists formed from smaller and less complex things. Nothing just popped into the real world as it is. There is literally scientific evidence for everything having evolved from something simpler. This gives a simple and straightforward view of the universe.
So, it is easier to say that everything evolved than it is to say that some complex and all powerful being popped into existence and either did the same to us, or caused evolution to start. Because the evolution model is simpler, it has a higher probability.
At least, that's how I understand it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:The Stargate fans on the other hand...
As in bocci?
*giggle*
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I love Jack's witticisms. He had better be in the movies.
I don't think we have enough information to confidently assign an objective probability to God existing. The fact that we have replies ranging from 0% - 100% seems to make this pretty clear.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not the first, but yes the second.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Oh, good. (Added bonus: now they really can't kill him off anytime soon!)
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
I had a life changing epiphany this weekend and I'm going to have to change my answer from "6, but live my life as if 7" to a firm 6. Posted by The Flying Dracula Hair (Member # 10155) on :
Seven point zero, couldn't be more sure of anything else.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I'm a 6 for my own personal definition of the most likely sort of "God", and a 6.9 for everyone else's.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: I don't think we have enough information to confidently assign an objective probability to God existing. The fact that we have replies ranging from 0% - 100% seems to make this pretty clear.
I disagree. All that this thread is showing is that everyone has their own opinion on the probability of god's existence.
Whether or not there's enough information to assign an objective probability is a different question all together.
Posted by KarlEd (Member # 571) on :
I agree with Javert. Popular opinion almost never has any bearing on reality. It might sometimes coincidentally be "right" about it, but rarely influences it one way or the other.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Thanks for the explanation, Javert.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I agree with Javert. Popular opinion almost never has any bearing on reality. It might sometimes coincidentally be "right" about it, but rarely influences it one way or the other.
I think you're both flipping cause and effect. The wide range of opinions from bright people who have expended large amounts of energy considering the issue is evidence that no high-confidence probability can be assigned, not a cause of that inability. It's not a case of popular opinion affecting reality, but of popular opinion being affected by reality.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Originally posted by KarlEd: I agree with Javert. Popular opinion almost never has any bearing on reality. It might sometimes coincidentally be "right" about it, but rarely influences it one way or the other.
I think you're both flipping cause and effect. The wide range of opinions from bright people who have expended large amounts of energy considering the issue is evidence that no high-confidence probability can be assigned, not a cause of that inability. It's not a case of popular opinion affecting reality, but of popular opinion being affected by reality.
I'm not sure I understand.
Are you saying that the reason we can't give a probability one way or the other is because there are bright people on both sides of the issue?
(Just to be clear, I'm really confused, not being sarcastic. )
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
To make it more interesting, both sides tend to think the other side is somewhat deluded, ignoring what's right in front of them, or being intentionally contrary. Good times Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Are you saying that the reason we can't give a probability one way or the other is because there are bright people on both sides of the issue?
No. I'm saying that the fact that there are bright people on both sides of the issue is evidence that we can't give a probability one way or the other.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Are you saying that the reason we can't give a probability one way or the other is because there are bright people on both sides of the issue?
No. I'm saying that the fact that there are bright people on both sides of the issue is evidence that we can't give a probability one way or the other.
In that case, I disagree. Being bright does not mean that you can't believe in something silly. And I mean to direct that at both sides.
Opinion, no matter who gives it, is not scientific evidence.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In that case, I disagree. Being bright does not mean that you can't believe in something silly. And I mean to direct that at both sides.
Opinion, no matter who gives it, is not scientific evidence.
I'm not talking "scientific evidence." I am talking about evidence "having any tendency to make the existence of [of a fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence." Nor am I talking about "opinion" being evidence. I am talking about the existence of many different, well-thought-out opinions making it more likely that the issue at hand is of a certain complexity.
Posted by Eduardo St. Elmo (Member # 9566) on :
As has been mentioned before, assigning a probability to the existence of God depends on which view of God you're asking me to believe in. The simplistic interpretations of 'elderly dude on cumulonimbus' strike me as severely improbable. However, in the course of my life I have gained a deep feeling that there is some sort of cosmic harmony, and that most religions are just interpretations of this 'universal truth'. In this wider perspective I'd have to characterize myself as a 1.0...
Originally posted by Dagonee: "I'm saying that the fact that there are bright people on both sides of the issue is evidence that we can't give a probability one way or the other." Nah, you can too. But this would involve asking every human being on the planet to give his/her personal probability rating and then calculating the mean. Kinda extensive research and the results wouldn't mean much, but they wouldn't be meaningless.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
The tendency to have different opinions is based upon the type of evidence gathered and considered to be evidence. IThe existence of well thought out opinions on a subject means that different epistomologies are being used, not that the issue is complex. While it may be a complex issue, it is not necessarily so.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The existence of well thought out opinions on a subject means that different epistomologies are being used
This is sometimes, but not necessarily, so. The disagreement of scientists about the most likely candidate for unifying relativity and quantum theory is evidence that the problem is complex.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sorry, I was talking about this particular issue, not opinions in general. I apologize for not being clear. I see how the mistake was made.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Now the question is, do we draw a distinction between opinion based on fact and opinion based on faith?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:The existence of well thought out opinions on a subject means that different epistomologies are being used
This is sometimes, but not necessarily, so. The disagreement of scientists about the most likely candidate for unifying relativity and quantum theory is evidence that the problem is complex.
That doesn't really follow either. There was plenty of disagreement between ancient scientists as to the diameter of the Earth or in more modern times, whether the steady-state or Big Bang theories were correct. The existence of many bright people on both sides of an issue do not preclude a simple solution nor a simple problem.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:I am talking about evidence "having any tendency to make the existence of [of a fact] more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
But there is no such evidence, because what you interpret as evidence for your faith, you would interpret quite differently if you didn't already have the faith.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That doesn't really follow either. There was plenty of disagreement between ancient scientists as to the diameter of the Earth or in more modern times, whether the steady-state or Big Bang theories were correct. The existence of many bright people on both sides of an issue do not preclude a simple solution nor a simple problem.
That's not what I said - you are confusing "proof" with "evidence."
quote:But there is no such evidence, because what you interpret as evidence for your faith, you would interpret quite differently if you didn't already have the faith.
You have no basis for saying that, KoM. Kindly desist from attempting to speak about what I would or would not do. Further, you have apparently totally missed the point about which I was speaking. I was not speaking of evidence of the existence of God.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But there is no such evidence, because what you interpret as evidence for your faith, you would interpret quite differently if you didn't already have the faith.
This was not my experience.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Dag, I'm still a bit confused about the point your making. Maybe it's the point itself, or maybe the way you're writing it, or more than likely it's my own brain failing me.
If you could try to explain one more time, I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Javert:
Suppose your in a room with the top experts in the world on predicting the path an object will take through space. You ask them "what is the probability that this asteroid will hit earth, and when and where will it hit if it does."
After duly plugging in the variables to their models, the reports vary from "miss us by 100 miles" to various probabilities of times/locations of impact that essentially span the globe.
To the non-expert, these various theories are evidence that predicting the impact zone of the asteroid with a high level of confidence is very difficult.
If all the experts agreed within 20 miles and 10 minutes, it would be much more likely that a high-confidence prediction could be made.
Note that these predictions have absolutely no bearing on where the asteroid hits. They do not determine it in any way, shape, or form. The range of opinions simply provide reason for you to think that the accurate prediction of this asteroid's impact is either likely or not likely.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: You have no basis for saying that, KoM. Kindly desist from attempting to speak about what I would or would not do.
I most certainly do, in that billions of people who do not share your faith report the same kind of experience, and interpret it quite differently. The only reported difference being the interpretation, I am forced to conclude that the pre-existing faith is the cause, not the effect, of that difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I most certainly do, in that billions of people who do not share your faith report the same kind of experience, and interpret it quite differently. The only reported difference being the interpretation, I am forced to conclude that the pre-existing faith is the cause, not the effect, of that difference.
Once again I point out that you've entirely missed the point of the conversation you inserted yourself into. You responded to a quote of mine entirely out of context, a quote that had nothing to do with evidence of whether God exists, and you did it by making absolutist statements about me that you have no evidence for.
Further, you've conveniently ignored the fact that millions of people have converted based on evidence interpreted before they had faith.
You've also ignored the fact that you have no idea what evidence I've received nor whether interpretation of that evidence relies on my faith. It's something I'm certainly not going to share with you, either.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: Javert:
Suppose your in a room with the top experts in the world on predicting the path an object will take through space. You ask them "what is the probability that this asteroid will hit earth, and when and where will it hit if it does."
After duly plugging in the variables to their models, the reports vary from "miss us by 100 miles" to various probabilities of times/locations of impact that essentially span the globe.
To the non-expert, these various theories are evidence that predicting the impact zone of the asteroid with a high level of confidence is very difficult.
If all the experts agreed within 20 miles and 10 minutes, it would be much more likely that a high-confidence prediction could be made.
Note that these predictions have absolutely no bearing on where the asteroid hits. They do not determine it in any way, shape, or form. The range of opinions simply provide reason for you to think that the accurate prediction of this asteroid's impact is either likely or not likely.
OK. I think I understand.
The problem, however, when dealing with the probability of the existence of god is that you aren't just taking to a room of experts on one thing.
Using your example, if I was in a room with experts on asteroid trajectory and experts on the internal combustion engine. This is where the god debate stands. The engine experts are surely very smart, but I wouldn't ask them if I wanted to know about an asteroid hitting the earth.
This sounds very harsh, I know, and I apologize for it, but it's how I feel.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are no "objectively" qualified experts on the topic of the probability of God's existence, for the simple reason that the expertise required differs depending on whether God exists or not.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Further, you've conveniently ignored the fact that millions of people have converted based on evidence interpreted before they had faith.
It's worth pointing out that a large fraction of actual converts to Christianity, as opposed to people born into the faith, converted because they were beaten in war, or their leader saw advantage in a local power struggle, or some such happening. I think you will have considerable difficulty coming up with examples of people who became Christians in the absence of someone to tell them how to interpret the evidence.
quote:You've also ignored the fact that you have no idea what evidence I've received nor whether interpretation of that evidence relies on my faith. It's something I'm certainly not going to share with you, either.
Actually, you have stated these things in previous threads.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Actually, you have stated these things in previous threads.
No, I haven't. I have alluded to them, but have not described them with anything near enough detail for you to even categorize them.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:I may not understand probability, so could somebody help me out?
I find it odd to talk about the probability of something that either IS or IS NOT.
Here's how I understand it:
What is the probability that I ate cold cereal this morning? The some ways, the question doesn't make sense -- there is not probability. I either did or did not.
Changing the question to be for tomorrow, or for a random day in the past, or for a random person on the street would make it completely legitimate.
But then, if it's legit for a random day in the past, would it still be legit for exactly 10 years ago today? If it's legit for that day, isn't it also legit for today?
I don't know.
I don't see where anyone answered this question, so I can take a shot (I apologized if I have missed it).
Roll two dice with your eyes closed. Put a cup over them.
Now, the roll has been decided. It is clearly represented by the dice that are under the cup. However, you don't know what the results are.
Now, what are the chances that the total of the two dice is seven?
It is about 16.76%.
You can determine probability of a condition which has already occured so long as the result is unknown.
With quantum physics lingo, the probability "collapses" to either 100% or 0% when you flip the cup over and see the results.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um. Sort of, but not completely, no. Ok, in the first place, quantum collapse doesn't depend on a human observer; with macroscopic objects like dice, the collapse takes place at some not-yet-understood point during the actual roll, because the dice are being 'observed' by (we think) the gravity of the rest of the universe.
Second, the question of probability is not actually well defined for a single die roll. If you roll 1000 pairs of dice, 16.67% will come up sevens; that is the definition of probability. If you roll one set, it either comes up 7 or not. However, we may reasonably have a degree of belief in the roll of a seven, which may be informed by our knowledge of the probability, which we derive from experiments with thousands of dice. Thus, when we say "The probability that this roll is a seven is one in six", we actually mean "I would accept a bet with six-to-one payoff that this roll is a seven, because that would be break-even over a long series of bets." Nonetheless, to say that any particular event has a probability is sloppy, unmathematical shorthand. Probability is always defined relative to very large sets of experiments. Strictly speaking, then, it is not correct to talk of a 'probability' for the existence of gods - how could you run the sample of experiments? - but rather, we talk of 'degrees of belief'.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Thank you, KoM. That makes a lot of sense.
Posted by Xavier (Member # 405) on :
quote:Um. Sort of, but not completely, no. Ok, in the first place, quantum collapse doesn't depend on a human observer;
I never claimed that this is when the collapse happens in a real quantum sense. I was merely borrowing the lingo . I had considered qualifying my statement, but thought it would be unnecessary.
quote: Nonetheless, to say that any particular event has a probability is sloppy, unmathematical shorthand.
So if I were to ask you:
"What are the odds that the dice add up to seven?"
What would you respond with?
I would answer "16.67%", but I can see how someone with a more formal math/physics point of view would need to curb this answer with qualifications.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I would certainly respond "one in six". There is a time for precise language, and a time when sloppy shortcuts understood by both parties make for better communication. I only resort to this level of precision when somebody wonders, as mph did, what it means to say that a single event has a probability.
quote:I was merely borrowing the lingo [Smile] . I had considered qualifying my statement, but thought it would be unnecessary.
That's why I said "not completely" no. I just thought it would be good to clarify, lest someone with a worse understanding of QM take away a wrong impression of what is known about quantum collapse. In any case, as I explained in the rest of my post, the analogy isn't that good anyway.
Posted by Lavalamp (Member # 4337) on :
I'm puzzled by part of something in
quote:Originally posted by King of Men: Dagonee Said:
quote:Further, you've conveniently ignored the fact that millions of people have converted based on evidence interpreted before they had faith.
It's worth pointing out that a large fraction of actual converts to Christianity, as opposed to people born into the faith, converted because they were beaten in war, or their leader saw advantage in a local power struggle, or some such happening. I think you will have considerable difficulty coming up with examples of people who became Christians in the absence of someone to tell them how to interpret the evidence.
KoM, your response seems to be two different things. In the first sentence, you're trying to look at the entire history of Christianity and point to a history of conversions arising out of some sort of power inequality between Christians and the people from whom converts were being drawn. Okay, fine, there's some history of that in Christianity. It doesn't apply to all people who believe in God, of course, but if you want to talk "converts" Christianity is an okay study group to focus on. I think you're ignoring some history there, but, so-be-it.
Now, in the second part, you seem to be making a rather large transition without an explicit link. You seem to want to imply that "someone to explain the experience" equates to the same sorts of things as would be in operation in a forced conversion. For example, if someone sought the advice of a clergy person before declaring themselves a Christian, that somehow "pollutes" their conversion.
Do you really mean to say that?
Also, in trying to link your first sentence to your second, are you trying to say that because there were power-inequalities involved in some (or even most) conversions for a period of history in Christianity, that this type of pollution would affect all the conversions that depend on those earlier ones? For example, is every Christian in South America an inheritor of the Spaniards' bad behavior toward the native population during colonial times...and thus all of those conversions are, essentially, due to the force of superior arms?
OR...are you saying that the same sorts of things that went on during forced conversions are still the reasons that people convert to Christianity today? And it's really all the same thing?
I'm just not sure how else to connect those two sentences.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:For example, is every Christian in South America an inheritor of the Spaniards' bad behavior toward the native population during colonial times...and thus all of those conversions are, essentially, due to the force of superior arms?
I would say yes, albeit indirectly.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote: Further, you've conveniently ignored the fact that millions of people have converted based on evidence interpreted before they had faith.
This may have nothing to do with the context of this quote, but it got me thinking.
Does the amount of people believing in something directly correlate with whether or not that thing is true?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think anybody's saying that it does--at least, I don't think Dag is saying it does. I think it's a very valid point that the variety of opinions is indicative of the impossibility of assigning a probability to this, and that the inability of atheists to concede this rather obvious point is indicative of their general lack of respect for the people they disagree with. (At least KoM is honest insofar as he never claims to respect other people.)
Nothing I've said is new, of course, I just get so guilty seeing Dag arguing for common sense all by himself all the time.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
It often seems that religious evidence only makes sense when people consider a very small set of the population. If you consider only yourself, then you can say with whatever degree of certainty you like that any of your experiences mean anything. Nobody can contradict you about how you feel.
If you expand that to only people who believe as you do, then you have more evidence that for example, a feeling of euphoria while praying indicates the existence of a Christian God.
This evidence becomes contradictory as soon as you consult with people who don't believe as you do. Ask an atheist what a feeling of wellbeing associated with meditation means, and they might talk to you about the hormonal responses, or about simply clearing their thoughts of unwanted stress. Ask a Muslim and they may tell you that it's proof of Allah's existence.
The same evidence has many internally consistent meanings, which are completely different and often times contradictory when compared to one another.
I can't think of any other good example where many people can interpret a single piece of evidence completely differently, and all believe with 100% certainty that they are right, and everyone else is wrong, and further, believe that it is completely solid evidence to base such a convicted opinion.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I think it's a very valid point that the variety of opinions is indicative of the impossibility of assigning a probability to this,"
Its not necessarily a valid point. Its only valid if you accept the epistomological framework of the theist... which is why atheists are "reluctant" to grant this point of dagonee's any validity. We don't accept that certain forms of evidence have any relationship to the truth of the matter. Since most theistic opinions are based off of those forms of evidence, and since we consider that evidence to have no validity, those theistic opinions should not be taken into account when assigning a probability.
If you want to think thats lack of respect for theists, fine. You can think that. You'd be wrong, though.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: We don't accept that certain forms of evidence have any relationship to the truth of the matter.
Exactly.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Its not necessarily a valid point. Its only valid if you accept the epistomological framework of the theist... which is why atheists are "reluctant" to grant this point of dagonee's any validity. We don't accept that certain forms of evidence have any relationship to the truth of the matter. Since most theistic opinions are based off of those forms of evidence, and since we consider that evidence to have no validity, those theistic opinions should not be taken into account when assigning a probability.
As I said above, you have based your view of the complexity of the question on your view of the outcome of the question. If theism is true - heck, if any form of supernaturalism is true - then your epistemological framework is incapable of arriving at the truth of the matter. It's like trying to measure distance with a clock and no way of measuring velocity. You can't get there from here.
There's a much better case for ignoring the opinion of those who refuse to use any epistemological framework that could actually produce evidence of the desired phenomenon than for ignoring thousands of years of direct but competing testimony.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Direct, competing, and conflicting testimony.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"As I said above, you have based your view of the complexity of the question on your view of the outcome of the question."
Which is a false statement. My view of the complexity of the situation comes from the fact that there's no evidence from a valid espistomology that points towards the existence of god.
"If theism is true - heck, if any form of supernaturalism is true - then your epistemological framework is incapable of arriving at the truth of the matter"
Only if the supernatural doesn't interact with the physical world. If there is a supernatural, and it has an affect on the physical, then my epistmology can handle it. And if there is no affect on the physical world, then its hardly relevant, now is it?
"thousands of years of direct but competing testimony."
Ignoring the "thousands of years" bit, you mean the direct testimony from people who can't even get their stories straight? I'd take this a lot more seriously if there weren't literally thousands of views on what the supernatural is, most of them mutually exclusive.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Mutually exclusive as extrapolated, but could all be different understandings of the same thing.
What I don't understand is why science should be a valid, much less the only valid, approach to understanding the supernatural when it is the one thing least likely to record it?
It's like insisting on being able to prove the existence of Michelangelo from measuring the dimensions of David Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"What I don't understand is why science should be a valid, much less the only valid, approach to understanding the supernatural when it is the one thing least likely to record it?"
You're begging the question by assuming there is a supernatural.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: If there is a supernatural, and it has an affect on the physical, then my epistmology can handle it.
Let me elaborate on why this isn't true. We call the point where the supernatural meets and affects the natural a "miracle" and it is the very nature of miracles to be singular events, whereas your epistemology is based entirely on repeatability, predictability, and demonstrability
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"whereas your epistemology is based entirely on repeatability, predictability, and demonstrability"
Also observation of singular events and the effects of those events.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:If there is a supernatural, and it has an affect on the physical, then my epistmology can handle it.
I'm pretty sure that this is not justified, but I'm completely sure you mean by "my epistmology". Would you mind giving a thumbnail sketch? Do you mean that if it has an affect on the physical, then that physical affect can be detected with scientific methods?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:\Which is a false statement. My view of the complexity of the situation comes from the fact that there's no evidence from a valid espistomology that points towards the existence of god.
Except that there's no evidence within your "valid" epistemology that your epistemology is, in fact, valid or that others are invalid.
quote:Only if the supernatural doesn't interact with the physical world. If there is a supernatural, and it has an affect on the physical, then my epistmology can handle it. And if there is no affect on the physical world, then its hardly relevant, now is it?
Suppose the account of the plagues in the Exodus is true for a second. It certainly had an effect on the physical world. Yet there would be no way to demonstrate that the effect had a supernatural cause other than accepting Moses's testimony that these things were caused by God. Your epistemology would fail miserably in discerning the truth of this situation.
There are several assumptions we make about the physical world that allow the scientific epistemology to work, including the constancy of physical laws across time and space. We wouldn't be trying to confirm the rate at which objects would fall toward earth in a vacuum or something else that is repeatable. We would be trying to prove that accounts of intermittent and rare visits from another "place" entirely, not bound by constant physical rules, have occurred.
Your epistemology doesn't account for that. It can't be applied to this situation.
quote:Ignoring the "thousands of years" bit, you mean the direct testimony from people who can't even get their stories straight? I'd take this a lot more seriously if there weren't literally thousands of views on what the supernatural is, most of them mutually exclusive.
The dispute over whether gorillas were mythical or not was not resolved until someone brought back a specimen - observations were unreliable and varying and, short of going to Africa, there was no way to check for oneself. Yet the conflicting accounts of the man-like beast of Africa were evidence - not proof, but evidence - that something like the gorilla existed.
If it were not possible to bring back a specimen, and gorilla sitings were very rare, it would still be in dispute today.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "What I don't understand is why science should be a valid, much less the only valid, approach to understanding the supernatural when it is the one thing least likely to record it?"
You're begging the question by assuming there is a supernatural.
And you're begging the question by assuming that either there isn't a supernatural or that the supernatural would have effects that could not only be measure by science but whose supernatural origin could be discerned by science.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: You're begging the question by assuming there is a supernatural.
No, I am saying that, assuming there is a supernatural, science would be blind to it. It is scarcely fair to limit validity of opinion to the one viewpoint that is least likely to perceive the thing you are looking for.
A neutral example: there is a lot of science to art, but there is no art in science... and a purely scientific understanding of art would be a deficient one. You can never "know" how a work of art you are composing will affect someone (though you do know it, if you are a good artist) the same way you "know" small objects near the earth's surface accelerate toward it at 9.8 m/s^2.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Supernatural forces, as described by many faiths, simply cannot be measured with you epistmology, because they are not repeatable from person to person.
One of the cornerstones of the scientific method is that anybody can repeat an experiment and get similar results. If nobody else can duplicate the results, then something is wrong.
If there were a box which changed its size, shape, color, composition, etc. depending on the beliefs of the observer(s), then that box would be impossible to study using the scientific method, because experiments concerning it would not be repeatable.
According to many religions, one's ability to access/observe/etc. supernatural forces is dependent on one's faith/belief/frame of mind/etc.. Experiments are not repeatable from one person to the next, because we don't all have the same amount of faith.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
I never thought I'd say this, dagonee, but do you know what begging the question means? It means using the conclusion as a premise.
a) I make no assumptions about whether or not there is a supernatural. I use a valid epistomology, and see what falls out. Supernatural does not, so the conclusion is that there is no supernatural.
b) Assuming that science can handle everything that exists is not begging the question. It does not take the conclusion (i.e that the supernatural does not exist) and use that conclusion as a premise.
Any statement about the supernatural is not a part of my premises, because the premise I am working from is that "if it has an affect on the physical world, then science can handle it."
Jim-me was begging the question, because he is picking an epistomology to use or not use based on what he already believes exist. "The supernatural exists, therefore, we should not use science as the only valid epistomology, since it can not handle the supernatural."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No, I am saying that, assuming there is a supernatural, science would be blind to it."
Thats what begging the question means. The conclusion is that the supernatural exists, and the premise is that the supernatural exists.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:b) Assuming that science can handle everything that exists is not begging the question. It does not take the conclusion (i.e that the supernatural does not exist) and use that conclusion as a premise.
It is begging the question by taking as a premise the idea that if something is real, it is detectable by your epistomology.
The supernatural described by many religions, if it is true, cannot be studied with your epistomology.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: . . . there is no art in science...
While I agree with your overall point, I strongly disagree with this assertion. Not to start another argument about string theory (which may or may not have a physical basis, regardless of its elegance), but I recommend reading or watching The Elegant Universe, among other things.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It is begging the question by taking as a premise the idea that if something is real, it is detectable by your epistomology."
Which is a completely different assertion then "the supernatural does not exist."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I use a valid epistomology, and see what falls out. Supernatural does not, so the conclusion is that there is no supernatural.
This statement is only true - specifically the "validity" of your epistemology - if one of these is true:
1) There is no supernatural OR 2) Any supernatural that does exist is one that can be handled by science.
It's clear you are holding number 2 - it's a more specific rephrasing of "if it has an affect on the physical world, then science can handle it."
But this isn't true for certain types of Supernatural - specifically, a "visitor" type supernatural. It's easy to posit a Supernatural that science can't "handle" by simply defining it as one that refuses to make an appearance in situations where science can be applied.*
quote:Assuming that science can handle everything that exists is not begging the question. It does not take the conclusion (i.e that the supernatural does not exist) and use that conclusion as a premise.
It does take the conclusion "Anything Supernatural can be handled by science" as a premise.
Question: What is the nature of the supernatural? (The answer could include "nonexistent.") Premise: Any supernatural that affects the physical world is of a kind that can be "handled" by science.
The premise is an answer - an incomplete answer, but still an answer - to the overall question at issue.
*And I have no interest in discussing such a supernatural from a theological perspective. It's not the one I believe in and is provided as one counterexample to the premise "Science can handle the supernatural."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "It is begging the question by taking as a premise the idea that if something is real, it is detectable by your epistomology."
Which is a completely different assertion then "the supernatural does not exist."
It is essentially the same as your conclusion, which is "No supernatural, detectable by my epistomology, exists."
You can't claim, based on applying your epistomology, anything about supernatural which is not detectable by your epistomology.
[ March 27, 2007, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: mr_porteiro_head ]
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
*gives up*
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: . . . there is no art in science...
While I agree with your overall point, I strongly disagree with this assertion. Not to start another argument about string theory (which may or may not have a physical basis, regardless of its elegance), but I recommend reading or watching The Elegant Universe, among other things.
Rather than getting into a long discussion about this, let's just leave it at "the statement was a rhetorical comparison... not a fact."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"It does take the conclusion "Anything Supernatural can be handled by science" as a premise.
Question: What is the nature of the supernatural? (The answer could include "nonexistent.") Premise: Any supernatural that affects the physical world is of a kind that can be "handled" by science."
This is going from the metaphysical to the epistomology. And its not what I'm doing. I'm going from epistomology, to metaphysical.
The question you are asking is one that should arrise after developing an epistomology.
In other words, the "premise" in your above statement is actually the conclusion developed from a different line of reasoning (one which does not take as a premise that there is or is not such a thing as the supernatural), and after I have arrived at the conclusion, you are asking me a question.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:I'm going from epistomology, to metaphysical.
But you can only go from your epistomology to the type of metaphysics which can be studied with your epistomology.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
My own personal approach is this: things which have effects have measurable effects. Things which have measurable effects have measurable causes.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The question you are asking is one that should arrise after developing an epistomology.
No, it's not. It's a question about the nature of our world.
quote:In other words, the "premise" in your above statement is actually the conclusion developed from a different line of reasoning (one which does not take as a premise that there is or is not such a thing as the supernatural), and after I have arrived at the conclusion, you are asking me a question.
The premise is a statement of fact about the supernatural.
I'll break it down further:
Your original statement was "I use a valid epistomology, and see what falls out. Supernatural does not, so the conclusion is that there is no supernatural."
I will break it down as follows:
1.) Science is a valid epistemology. 2.) Supernatural does not fall out of science. 3.) Therefore, there is no supernatural.
You recognize that this requires additional unspoken premises that you provided elsewhere: "if it has an affect on the physical world, then science can handle it."
This premise is only true IF science can handle all supernatural entities that affect the physical world.
Therefore, your chain of reasoning must include this statement:
"Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science."
And this is a statement about the supernatural. It states that supernatural entities that affect the physical world are either nonexistent or possess the attribute "can be handled by science." Your conclusions absolutely rests on the supernatural being of this nature.
The question is "What is the nature of the supernatural?" Your conclusion is "nonexistent."
You have reached the conclusion by using this chain of reasoning: 1. The supernatural is either A or B. (Premise) 2. The supernatural is not B. 3. Therefore the supernatural is A.
But the only way that 1 can be true is if the supernatural cannot be C (where C is non-A and non-B). So the unspoken premise "The supernatural is not C" is in your chain of reasoning.
And "The supernatural is not C" is also part of your conclusion, and it hasn't been proved.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
I submit that any supernatural cause which cannot be handled by science cannot be handled, period, by any epistemology, for any useful definition of the word "handled."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I submit that any supernatural cause which cannot be handled by science cannot be handled, period, by any epistemology, for any useful definition of the word "handled."
Submission noted. Rejected, of course, but noted.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"No, it's not. It's a question about the nature of our world."
Yes, it is. And we should not try to answer questions about the nature of our world until we have a reliable way of getting answers.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So are you just not going to address my substantive points, Paul?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
You guys are getting a bit lost. If a religion can be accepted as an epistemology, it can certainly 'handle' the supernatural. God did it.
Science most certainly does proceed from the premise that everything can be explained naturally. It must be an assumption because the set 'everything' is greater than what comprises it at any given time. In other words, there is always something more to explain. We assume that the universe is the same everywhere and that will remain an assumption until we have actually looked everywhere.
Now at some point, that limitation will become more theoretical than practical. I would argue we are already well beyond that point but the theoretical limitation remains. No sense in pretending it is not there.
It does not follow however that science cannot see the supernatural. The object of inquiry is 'everything' after all. Rather, science assumes that all things have natural causes, even things it can't currently explain. Attributing the currently unexplainable to the supernatural leads to a diminishing God. As science does extend itself, the supernatural is reduced.
There is no way to 'prove' that the supernatural doesn't exist until we can explain everything, it can only be an assumption. However, it is a very powerful assumption. So powerful than we have extended our scientific understanding to the very begining of the universe and are now contemplating how to go beyond.
Conversely, there is no way to 'prove' the existence of the supernatural.
However, I can prove the existence of the natural. And I can explain almost everything naturally. And I will explain more tomorrow as the enterprise extends. The domain of natural explanations only increases and the domain of supernatural explanations only decreases.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: The domain of natural explanations only increases and the domain of supernatural explanations only decreases.
This, too, is based on an (edit) assumption which isn't necessarily true... namely that a natural explanation precludes a supernatural one.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
Sorry, dagonee, I'm running a fever of 102. Its the only reason I'm posting today. If I need to take a break so I can take a nap,I'm certainly going to do that.
Again, though, you are making assumptions about what exists, and determining the validity of an epistomology based off of that. You are assuming that there must be supernatural entities. I don't make that assumption. I make the assumption that everything that exists has an affect. As an addendum to that, I will grant that it is conceivable things exist that have no affect. My assumption is that things with no affect can be considered to "not exist" for any useful definition of the word "exist."
Science can handle anything that can be measured. Since any affect can be measured, science can handle anything with an affect. If it has no affect, then science can't handle it. But it also, for all useful definitions of the word exist, doesn't exist.
The problem with your substantive points, dagonee, is they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science. (paraphrase). You've even explicitly said this a couple times.
Since its not what I'm doing, your substantive points, well, aren't.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Natural explanations do not include the supernatural. Perhaps they do not preclude a possible supernatural explanation but they NEVER include the supernatural.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
As an example of multiple explanations for something, I'm recycling an old example:
quote:A rock falls off a cliff? Why? "Because of the distortion of space-time caused by the mass of the earth" is a perfectly valid answer.
But "because I was trying to hit you with a rock" is probably a more relevant answer.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: Science can handle anything that can be measured. Since any affect can be measured, science can handle anything with an affect. If it has no affect, then science can't handle it. But it also, for all useful definitions of the word exist, doesn't exist.
Ideas have an effect... maybe the greatest effect out of everything we perceive. Please describe your scientific method for measuring and quantifying them which is totally objective and rigorous.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Because God wished it is probably not a very useful explanation however.
Not all explanations are equal and relevancy depends on the nature of the inquiry. If I am trying to understand gravity, the intent of your rock throwing doesn't explain anything at all. If I am questioning your intent the physics of gravity isn't particularly relevant.
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
I never try to find out the probability of God's existence. It's pointless to me. If I could understand God, I don't think s/he'd be great enough to be worshiped.
Let's try to find the probability of YOU existing.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
*POOF!*
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: If I am trying to understand gravity, the intent of your rock throwing doesn't explain anything at all. If I am questioning your intent the physics of gravity isn't particularly relevant.
Exactly. The two explanation are not exclusive, but deal with certain areas of inquiry.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Not exactly at all. The explanations are incompatible.
Hey Dag... How does gravity work? Because I hate you! Thud.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Not exactly at all. The explanations are incompatible.
No, the explanations vary according to what you are trying to find out.
Regardless, however, they are both legitimate explanations and you would be foolish to disregard Dag's shouted "I hate you" and brandishing of his rock on the basis that "this explanation has nothing to do with how gravity works."
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
The are both legitimate explanations of different questions. They are not competing explanations for the same question.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Which is why the one doesn't preclude the other. What are we arguing about?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If a religion can be accepted as an epistemology, it can certainly 'handle' the supernatural. God did it.
Well, that's the thing. As people are using the word "handled" here, it seems to imply some level of understanding and/or predictive value. If there's actually some reliably predictive value to a religious epistemology, the scientific epistemology can indeed "handle" it by incorporating the predictive methods of religious epistemology. If there isn't, then nothing has in fact been "handled;" it's just been excused. Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
Apples and oranges.
However a good theory of gravity will preclude the explanation that God willed the stone to fall. Not preclude it in the sense that I could stop you arguing such despite all the evidence to the contrary. But preclude God's will in the sense that my natural explanation is complete without engaging the supernatual.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Right, which would make the natural explanation independent of the supernatural one. This is not the same thing as supplanting it, though.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The problem with your substantive points, dagonee, is they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science. (paraphrase). You've even explicitly said this a couple times.
I flat out have not said this. I haven't implied it. I haven't even thought it.
quote:Since its not what I'm doing, your substantive points, well, aren't.
Paul, I'm guessing there's no point in continuing this, because you pretty much haven't addressed anything I've said on this particular part of the discussion and have proceeded to systematically misrepresent what I have said.
Your original reason for disregarding my original statement has as a premise something to the effect "Any supernatural that affects the physical world can be handled by science."
This premise is not proven within your epistemology and is a statement about the nature of the supernatural. Your rejection of huge swaths of evidence concerning the supernatural is based on a conclusion about the nature of the supernatural, whether you want to admit that this is begging the question or not.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
It is exacly supplanting the supernatural one. I can expain the phenomenon naturally and that explanation is complete without the supernatural. Now I can go on to predict the behaviour of all relations of mass utterly confident that God's will never supercedes my explanation. And it never does.
I would be keen on any EVIDENCE of the supernatural much less huge swaths. Perhaps you could point to some for me other than personal testimony, which as you know, is extremely unreliable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is exacly supplanting the supernatural one. I can expain the phenomenon naturally and that explanation is complete without the supernatural.
It does not supplant the supernatural one. They answer two different questions about the same phenomenon.
quote:Now I can go on to predict the behaviour of all relations of mass utterly confident that God's will never supercedes my explanation. And it never does.
That confidence cannot derive from any natural explanation.
quote:I would be keen on any EVIDENCE of the supernatural much less huge swaths. Perhaps you could point to some for me other than personal testimony, which as you know, is extremely unreliable.
What other evidence could there be for it? If the evidence is such that a purely naturalistic method of explaining things can evaluate it, then it's not a supernatural phenomenon.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Now I can go on to predict the behaviour of all relations of mass utterly confident that God's will never supercedes my explanation.
No you can't. See my note on miracles and why you can't study them scientifically.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I am trying to understand gravity, the intent of your rock throwing doesn't explain anything at all. If I am questioning your intent the physics of gravity isn't particularly relevant.
But if you're trying not to get hit on the head with rocks, you better understand both to some degree.
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
This is not agumentation, it is simply refutation. I hoped to leave the two different questions problem and move on to competing explanations for the same question. This will be more useful to our discussion. Adding yet a third question (how do I not get hit?) only obfuscates the matter further.
It seems you are arguing for a diminishing God, in other words, if we have natural explanations then the supernatural no longer applies. If the evidence for the supernatural is only testimonial, I am afraid it will not fare well.
Imagine that you have a dozen witnesses who support your case, but your opponent has DNA evidence to support his. Who do you figure is gonna prevail?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Who do you figure is gonna prevail?
The guy with the best lawyer.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Paul, I'm guessing there's no point in continuing this, because you pretty much haven't addressed anything I've said on this particular part of the discussion and have proceeded to systematically misrepresent what I have said."
You haven't addressed anything I've said either, because you've started from an incorrect assumption about what I'm doing, and have systematically misrepresented what I have said.
"As I said above, you have based your view of the complexity of the question on your view of the outcome of the question. "
Dagonee, I have no idea how to interpret this statement from page three OTHER then that you think my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion. If you can clarify what you're saying here, maybe we can get somewhere.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:This is not agumentation, it is simply refutation. I hoped to leave the two different questions problem and move on to competing explanations for the same question. This will be more useful to our discussion. Adding yet a third question (how do I not get hit?) only obfuscates the matter further.
No, it will be more useful to your discussion. You can go ahead and have that one by yourself if you want. My point in introducing the rock example is to demonstrate that insistence on only dealing with the one question - especially when that question is artificially limited to a question that can be answered by naturalist processes - means that only an incomplete picture of the world will emerge.
quote:It seems you are arguing for a diminishing God, in other words, if we have natural explanations then the supernatural no longer applies. If the evidence for the supernatural is only testimonial, I am afraid it will not fare well.
No, I'm not. You are. I am specifically saying that most things - and all things that actually matter - have more than one explanation and that each is relevant.
quote:Imagine that you have a dozen witnesses who support your case, but your opponent has DNA evidence to support his. Who do you figure is gonna prevail?
Let's ask OJ.
Beyond that, you are still making two unwarranted assumptions: that the witnesses contradict the DNA evidence, and that that DNA evidence (or an analog) is available for everything that happens.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I hoped to leave the two different questions problem and move on to competing explanations for the same question.
But the whole issue is that I don't believe it's the same question at all. It isn't to me.
It would also help if, after we reach an agreement, you didn't immediately assert something we don;t agree on and try to move on.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Paul, I'm guessing there's no point in continuing this, because you pretty much haven't addressed anything I've said on this particular part of the discussion and have proceeded to systematically misrepresent what I have said."
You haven't addressed anything I've said either, because you've started from an incorrect assumption about what I'm doing, and have systematically misrepresented what I have said.
No, I haven't. I spent a two-screen post explaining my reasoning, and you still haven't even given a sign you read it. So, to make this really simple, tell me which of the following are false:
1.) Your conclusion rests on the ground that "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science."
2.) The statement "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science" makes assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural.
3.) Your conclusion depends on assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural.
quote:Dagonee, I have no idea how to interpret this statement from page three OTHER then that you think my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion. If you can clarify what you're saying here, maybe we can get somewhere.
You don't see the difference between "my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion" and "they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science"?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"1.) Your conclusion rests on the ground that "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science.""
True.
"2.) The statement "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science" makes assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural."
A true statement, since we've limited it to supernatural entities that affect the physical world.
"3.) Your conclusion depends on assertions about the nature and quality of the supernatural."
False, since my conclusion only examines a particular subset of the supernatural, i.e., those that affect the physical world
"You don't see the difference between "my positions on this topic stem from my conclusion" and "they have consistently come from the assumption that I don't wnat to believe in the supernatural, so I use science"?"
Not the way you wrote it, no
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
nevermind
Posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion (Member # 6473) on :
You guys just reminded me of my favorite Nacho Libre quote:
quote: I don't believe in God, I believe in science.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:A true statement, since we've limited it to supernatural entities that affect the physical world.
No, it's not a true statement. I've already posited at least one such supernatural entity for which this is not true. Beyond that, it is the assumption that this statement is true which rests on a conclusion about the supernatural - specifically, that the supernatural is not of such a nature that it both affects the physical world and is not able to be handled by science.
If you don't use that as a premise, you cannot reach your conclusion.
quote:Not the way you wrote it, no
Hint: I bolded the part that's a big difference.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox:
nevermind
Yes, bang your head against the wall because we didn't allow you to define the topic so your view is the only one that can be discussed. Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
I think orlox is beating his head because, from the scientific side of the argument, it's very frustrating to deal with people who go from faith.
It always reminds me of when I would place 'power rangers' as a kid...whenever I 'shot' my friend with a 'lazer', he'd say "But I had my shield up" or "Your lazer doesn't work on me" or "I don't want to play any more".
Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Posted by orlox (Member # 2392) on :
I don't think that the other side can be convinced. But I do hope to maintain a level af productive discourse. I bang my head at the level of argumentation, not the hopelessness of the task.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, I'm not. You are.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote: Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Which almost always is a de facto statement about a state of hubris within ones' self.
Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
But hey, only you can know if that's true.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Who's going from faith? Paul keeps insisting that I am because I am arguing form the position that there is a God. I am not. All I am saying is that if there *is* an invisble cat on that chair, all the video footage in the world isn't going to tell you a damned thing about it.
You may have other and perfectly valid reasons for discounting the testimony that there is an invisible cat there, but to say that there isn't an invisible cat there because it can't be seen doesn't even rise to begging the question, it's arguing from the presupposition that "seeing is believing" and refusing to acknowledge any other methodology.
No one here is saying "your laser doesn't work", we are saying "but we're playing baseball-- there's no lasers in baseball."
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"I've already posited at least one such supernatural entity for which this is not true"
Which makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions about science.
"Beyond that, it is the assumption that this statement is true which rests on a conclusion about the supernatural - specifically, that the supernatural is not of such a nature that it both affects the physical world and is not able to be handled by science.
If you don't use that as a premise, you cannot reach your conclusion."
And this gets back at the one line post I had where you said I wasn't responding to anything substantive you wrote:
I do not make assumptions about what exists BEFORE developing an epistomology. If one has a conclusion, a statement which is not yet developed cannot be used for a premise for that conclusion.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: I don't think that the other side can be convinced. But I do hope to maintain a level af productive discourse. I bang my head at the level of argumentation, not the hopelessness of the task.
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: No, I'm not. You are.
Why don't you quote the rest of it where I explain why I am not arguing for a diminishing God: "I am specifically saying that most things - and all things that actually matter - have more than one explanation and that each is relevant."
quote:Which makes all sorts of incorrect assumptions about science.
No, it prevents science from limiting reality to what it can "handle."
quote:I do not make assumptions about what exists BEFORE developing an epistomology. If one has a conclusion, a statement which is not yet developed cannot be used for a premise for that conclusion.
Just because you've embedded your assumption deep into your preferred epistemology doesn't mean it's not there.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by orlox: Apples and oranges.
However a good theory of gravity will preclude the explanation that God willed the stone to fall. Not preclude it in the sense that I could stop you arguing such despite all the evidence to the contrary. But preclude God's will in the sense that my natural explanation is complete without engaging the supernatual.
Unless the reason there is such thing as gravity is because it was God's will that the stone should fall.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Let's run with the invisible cat analogy.
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Let's run with the invisible cat analogy.
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
The cat is sometimes there and sometimes not. When it is there, it purrs, rubs up against whoever is present, and will accept a treat if offered one.
The cat is smart, and will not appear if recording equipment or more than one person could observe him (and he always knows this with perfect accuracy).
The cat appears so rarely that fewer than .01% of the people have seen it, but most of these see it hundreds of times in their lives. It also look slightly different to each person. However, each person who has seen it has seen the cat appear from thin air - they have been consciously watching the spot where the cat appears and see the materialization.
Please describe the science experiment that will "handle" this cat.
It's not that you can't detect it - it's that you can't affect whether it's there, and nothing is available except eyewitness testimony concerning the cat's existence.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Which almost always is a de facto statement about a state of hubris within ones' self.
Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
Actually, it's more accurately stated, "I don't think you are going to let anyone convince you to change your mind, no matter what they say."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Let's run with the invisible cat analogy.
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
The cat is sometimes there and sometimes not. When it is there, it purrs, rubs up against whoever is present, and will accept a treat if offered one.
The cat is smart, and will not appear if recording equipment or more than one person could observe him (and he always knows this with perfect accuracy).
The cat appears so rarely that fewer than .01% of the people have seen it, but most of these see it hundreds of times in their lives. It also look slightly different to each person. However, each person who has seen it has seen the cat appear from thin air - they have been consciously watching the spot where the cat appears and see the materialization.
Please describe the science experiment that will "handle" this cat.
It's not that you can't detect it - it's that you can't affect whether it's there, and nothing is available except eyewitness testimony concerning the cat's existence.
Then the cat doesn't seem to care if anyone believes in it or not.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Just because you've embedded your assumption deep into your preferred epistemology doesn't mean it's not there."
I really can't be polite about this, dagonee, so yeah, its useless to continue this discussion.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Let's run with the invisible cat analogy.
Even if you can't see the cat, you may well have ways to test for the existence of an invisible cat. If nothing you can do can detect an invisible cat, then the obvious conclusion is that either an invisible cat does not exist, or an invisible cat exists in a way that does not matter.
The cat is sometimes there and sometimes not. When it is there, it purrs, rubs up against whoever is present, and will accept a treat if offered one.
The cat is smart, and will not appear if recording equipment or more than one person could observe him (and he always knows this with perfect accuracy).
The cat appears so rarely that fewer than .01% of the people have seen it, but most of these see it hundreds of times in their lives. It also look slightly different to each person. However, each person who has seen it has seen the cat appear from thin air - they have been consciously watching the spot where the cat appears and see the materialization.
Please describe the science experiment that will "handle" this cat.
It's not that you can't detect it - it's that you can't affect whether it's there, and nothing is available except eyewitness testimony concerning the cat's existence.
Serious answer:
We don't go in assuming the cat is real. We go in thinking "there may or may not be a cat". Since no one but the cat could know how it would respond to being recorded, we try to record it. Video surveillance 24/7.
If the cat fails to appear, then I would suggest we look at the people who claim to have seen it. What do they have in common? Everything from how they were raised to medical profiles to CAT scans to personality testing.
Maybe we find that they all have something in common. Maybe not. But that's how science would "handle" it.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade:
quote: Perhaps we should just concede that we're not going to convince the other side?
Which almost always is a de facto statement about a state of hubris within ones' self.
Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
Actually, it's more accurately stated, "I don't think you are going to let anyone convince you to change your mind, no matter what they say."
quote:Usually its more accurately stated, "I am not willing to let somebody like you convince me to change my mind."
I'm not sure how there is any significant difference in the two statements. In yours you put more emphasis on the idea of nobody being able to change your mind. In mine the emphasis is on the disdain between the two parties making persuasion impossible. They both suggest that a person is too prideful to acknowledge the merit in other people's arguments.
I've found there are many more people willing to let certain kinds of people persuade them to change their minds, and very few people who universally do not allow foreign concepts to influence their beliefs.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Well, I'm on my journey from living my entire life as a Catholic to opening my mind and considering that what I was taught might be wrong.
So, I think I fall into the first group, and not the second.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: We don't go in assuming the cat is real.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WE ARE NOT ASSUMING THE CAT IS REAL.
Edit to add:
We are giving examples of a Cat that isn't detectable.
I did this along time ago with Mercy and no one has bothered to answer that one. Tom has, I think, in the past done so.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert: Well, I'm on my journey from living my entire life as a Catholic to opening my mind and considering that what I was taught might be wrong.
So, I think I fall into the first group, and not the second.
So you would not change your mind no matter what anybody says?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Just because you've embedded your assumption deep into your preferred epistemology doesn't mean it's not there."
I really can't be polite about this, dagonee, so yeah, its useless to continue this discussion.
Fine. The fact that this is something to be impolite about is a good indication you have no intention of discussing this.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
"I've found there are many more people willing to let certain kinds of people persuade them to change their minds, and very few people who universally do not allow foreign concepts to influence their beliefs."
1st group: Willing to change minds.
2nd group: Not willing.
Me: first group
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"Fine. The fact that this is something to be impolite about is a good indication you have no intention of discussing this."
What I would be impolite about is your refusal to pay attention to what I'm writing. \
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "1.) Your conclusion rests on the ground that "Any supernatural entities that affect the physical world can be handled by science.""
True.
From the very beginning, you've assumed that many types of supernatural entities don't exist. This is how you are begging the question.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by Javert: We don't go in assuming the cat is real.
FOR CRYING OUT LOUD WE ARE NOT ASSUMING THE CAT IS REAL.
Edit to add:
We are giving examples of a Cat that isn't detectable.
I did this along time ago with Mercy and no one has bothered to answer that one. Tom has, I think, in the past done so.
I'm not saying you necessarily are, Jim-me. I'm just saying that, to study something scientifically, we have to say "maybe there's a cat and maybe there isn't".
Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"From the very beginning, you've assumed that many types of supernatural entities don't exist. This is how you are begging the question."
Its not an assumption. Its a result of application of epistomology.
One should not assume something exists, and then figure out how to prove that it does. One should figure out what tools to use to determine what exists, and then apply those tools. When one does that, its not an assumption to say "X is not shown to exist by our tools, therefore it either does not exist, or doesn't matter."
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
But the cat described is detectable; it's just that it is only detectable on its own schedule and whim, not ours.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
But the cat described is detectable; it's just that it is only detectable on its own schedule and whim, not ours.
Or the people who are detecting it are seeing things that aren't there.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
Javert: Thanks for the clarification
quote:Because a "cat that isn't detectable" is also a perfectly fine way of saying a cat that doesn't exist.
I wouldn't say that's true. Because it gives man the quality of omniscience. All that exists can be perceived. I'm not willing to make such a sweeping judgment on all that exists.
Especially since there are many things previously invisible to mankind, that now are visible because of improved reasoning and technology. We shouldn't ignore that which we cannot perceive as many things dramatically influence us independent of our regard for them.
edit: So you don't concede that a force that is undetectable except under ITS terms defies the scientific method?
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
A cat that isn't detecable by the methods you are using.
You not only have to say "maybe there's a cat and maybe there isn't" but "based on the description of the cat we are looking for, is this method going to show the cat.
Tom took my meaning a little too literally. My analogy was this: looking for God with scientific method is like looking for invisible cat with video equipment.
As Tom said, there are other ways to tell a cat is there... or disprove it. Likewise there are other ways to make deductions about God. They may not be as accurate as scientific method nor do they lead to unambiguous results... just as placing microphones around the room to attempt to hear the invisible cat might produce noises that may or may not be a cat... or a dog... or background noise... or something from the next room...
but simply saying "I can't put Him in a bottle and make him dance on command, therefore there is no God" is, as Paul orignially said, throwing out a bunch of information from the get-go.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "Fine. The fact that this is something to be impolite about is a good indication you have no intention of discussing this."
What I would be impolite about is your refusal to pay attention to what I'm writing. \
I have - far more than you have paid attention to mine.
You have taken as a postulate that science can handle all things that affect the physical world.
This must have, as a corollary, that supernatural things that affect the physical world can be handled by science. You have excluded from existence all things that can affect the physical world but can't be handled by science.
You've admitted each piece of this. You simply refuse to acknowledge that this assumption is necessary for your conclusion.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Or the people who are detecting it are seeing things that aren't there.
Yup. And this entire thread could be all in your head. Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Maybe we find that they all have something in common. Maybe not. But that's how science would "handle" it.
And my point is that science would fail to verify as true something that is true and that affects the physical world.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"This must have, as a corollary, that supernatural things that affect the physical world can be handled by science."
No, you don't, because now you are talking about specific sorts of things.
If you don't speculate on what types of things exist or don't exist until you have an epistomology in place, then you do not have a corollary, while developing that epistomology, any type of statement about things that exist.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"And my point is that science would fail to verify as true something that is true and that affects the physical world."
So, to prove that science cannot handle things that are true, you take an example of an untrue thing to show how science cannot handle true things?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:So, to prove that science cannot handle things that are true, you take an example of an untrue thing to show how science cannot handle true things?
He is showing how science cannot verify the truth or falsehood of certain types of supernatural entities.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "And my point is that science would fail to verify as true something that is true and that affects the physical world."
So, to prove that science cannot handle things that are true, you take an example of an untrue thing to show how science cannot handle true things?
What the hell are you doing? We are talking about whether something exists. I've postulated something that, if it exists, cannot be detected by science and yet affects the physical world. The purpose of this - which should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith - is to demonstrate that IF THIS CAT EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY SCIENCE. Therefore, science cannot detect the set of all things UNLESS ONE ALREADY ACCEPTS THAT NO THINGS IT CAN'T DETECT EXIST.
That would be the conclusion and the premise.
This is not hard. You know what I'm saying. Cut the crap.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: edit: So you don't concede that a force that is undetectable except under ITS terms defies the scientific method?
Show me that the force does something. Because, if you can't...is it really a force?
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
" The purpose of this - which should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith - is to demonstrate that IF THIS CAT EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY SCIENCE"
The problem is, and it should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith, is that this cat can be detected by physical means. As such, can be handled by science. Since the cat eats a treat, if the treat is not in the room or in the person's body after the treat has been eaten, something was in the room.
We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: IF THIS CAT EXISTS, IT CANNOT BE DETECTED BY SCIENCE. Therefore, science cannot detect the set of all things UNLESS ONE ALREADY ACCEPTS THAT NO THINGS IT CAN'T DETECT EXIST.
Bold mine.
If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
Don't you see how you're doing the same thing you're accusing Paul of doing? (Which doesn't necessarily mean he isn't doing it as well.)
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force.
quote:If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
Don't you see how you're doing the same thing you're accusing Paul of doing?
No, it's not the same. Whether the cat exists or not, Dagonee is correct that science cannot determine that fact.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I think the scientific way to deal with Dag's cat would be to classify it as a mental phenomenon in those who perceive it. (In some sense, of course, all things are 'mental phenomena', it's just that some are fairly commonly agreed on.) Then one could decide whether it was a harmful sort of thing, to be cured, a good one, to be emulated, or a neutral one, to be ignored. Now, to turn the question around, just what is the difference between this cat and one that exists only in the minds of the perceivers?
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force.
quote:If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
Don't you see how you're doing the same thing you're accusing Paul of doing?
No, it's not the same. Whether the cat exists or not, Dagonee is correct that science cannot determine that fact.
In that case, fine. You can't prove a negative.
I would say that it is up to the believers in the cat to prove its existence. If they can't, then said cat doesn't really matter.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If it exists, you're correct. If it doesn't, you're wrong.
No, I'm not, because I haven't said the cat exists. Do you see the word "IF" at the beginning of that?
Paul started discussion this by saying that the opinion of every theist should be discounted from the determination of the complexity of the issue because they're not using a valid epistemology. I responded that his epistemology is invalid for the object whose existence we are discussing.
The whole point is that we are talking about things that exist and determining if an epistemology can detect them. For Paul to say "If my epistemology can't detect them then it doesn't exist" is begging the question. This is precisely the situation for which "begging the question" was coined.
quote:The problem is, and it should be extraordinarily obvious to anyone even attempting to discuss this in good faith, is that this cat can be detected by physical means. As such, can be handled by science. Since the cat eats a treat, if the treat is not in the room or in the person's body after the treat has been eaten, something was in the room.
We'd also likely detect residue on the person's clothes from the cat rubbing the person.
Other scientific means seem to be things that are reasonably certain to be developed that could prove that a person had in fact physically seen the cat, or heard the cat
The cat leaves no detectable traces after it leaves. The witness remembers the cat, the treat is gone, and that's it. The cat will not appear if anyone has inventoried the treats other than the witness. You have nothing but the testimony of the person and a lie detector result that says the witness believes his testimony.
How do YOU scientifically determine if the cat exists in that situation? You can't. The witness can use his senses. But you can't use yours to determine anything except "this person is not lying."
We're left with only testimony.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force."
Detecting forces is EASY.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:In that case, fine. You can't prove a negative.
The point is that for this cat, you can't prove the negative or the positive.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by Paul Goldner: "This, of course, supposes that we know something about the nature of this cat, such that it has a physical form and is not some sort of projected force."
Detecting forces is EASY.
Not when the force never manifests when detecting equipment is around.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, thinking about it, the cat does give us several indirect avenues of approach. For one thing, it is never seen in the presence of video equipment, right? So, here's an experiment. We are trying to distinguish between the hypotheses "The cat is a hallucination" and "the cat is real but extremely, incredibly smart". First, establish how often the perceivers see the cat. Then, take four groups of perceivers, and have them record cat sightings for some time large enough that, given the baseline rate, you expect each group to have quite a few sightings. The groups are thus:
1. Control. Nothing special. 2. This group are being recorded by video, and know it. 3. This group think they are being recorded, but in fact they aren't. 4. This group is being recorded, but believe they aren't.
Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1 and 3, but not 2 or 4. Voila, we have a handle.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1, 3, and 4, but not 2. Voila, we have a handle.
Not if the cat refuses to appear to any of them while the experiment is ongoing.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1, 3, and 4, but not 2. Voila, we have a handle.
Not if the cat refuses to appear to any of them while the experiment is ongoing.
Let's flip it Dag.
You can come up with any number of reasons why we can't prove the cat exists or doesn't. Fine.
Now, prove to me it's real. Because, if this were a real world case, if you couldn't prove that to me I really wouldn't care about it.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: Now, prove to me it's real.
Impossible.
It's just as impossible to prove that it does exists as it is to prove that it doesn't exist.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Now, prove to me it's real. Because, if this were a real world case, if you couldn't prove that to me I really wouldn't care about it.
And that wouldn't change the fact that it exists.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
As dagonee limits the cat in more and more ways so as to be indeterminate through science, it becomes less and less relevent, because it has less and less effect.
The treat is gone. Its also not in the room. Nor in the person who went in the room. Nor anywhere the person can get the treat. So, after enough attempts, we know that something is consuming the treat in some fashion.
The cat is know starting to be within the realm of science, so it can't eat the treat. So it has less affect on the world.
Eventually, this cat will have no affect on the world, as we apply more and more scientific tests and methodologies, and my statement that it either does not exist or has no affect on the world stands.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The treat is gone. Its also not in the room. Nor in the person who went in the room. Nor anywhere the person can get the treat. So, after enough attempts, we know that something is consuming the treat in some fashion.
Except that no one except the witness can confirm the treat was ever there. So "we" don't know anything of the sort - only the witness does.
quote:Eventually, this cat will have no affect on the world, as we apply more and more scientific tests and methodologies, and my statement that it either does not exist or has no affect on the world stands.
If one accepts a certain assumption.
The cat is simply a response to Tom's analogy. There are an infinite number of such entities possible - some with enormous physical effects that can be detected. What we couldn't detect by scientific methods is that a supernatural entity is causing those events.
Suppose there's a cosmic dice game on another plane of existence. If someone rolls snake eyes, then the most likely place on the earth for a hurricane to form at that moment will form one. The correlation is 100%.
Yet we can't detect the dice game. If you want to define that as not "mattering" then fine. But that is a singularly useless definition of "matters."
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee:
quote:Now then: If the cat is a hallucination, it should appear to groups 1 and 4, but not 2 or 3. If it is real, it should appear to groups 1, 3, and 4, but not 2. Voila, we have a handle.
Not if the cat refuses to appear to any of them while the experiment is ongoing.
Which is still another handle on the cat! We have now affected it by physical means: To wit, the setup of the experiment has changed how it behaves. That puts it in the realm of science.
Touching your hurricane example, certainly the hurricane matters, but I don't see how the dice game is at all important. There's nothing we can do to affect it, even if we know about it, so why bother to clutter up your conceptual space with that knowledge, even if it is true?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There's nothing we can do to affect it, even if we know about it, so why bother to clutter up your conceptual space with that knowledge, even if it is true?
So we're not talking true, we're talking useful?
OK, but that's a very different thing to be discussing.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
I do think the non-theists have been talking useful all along. But yes, a difference that makes no difference is no difference. In any case, these examples of true but undetectable things do not really correspond to religious epistemology either; after all, you do not claim your god is undetectable, only that it is undetectable by science. Incidentally, how would your epistemology deal with the cosmic dice game?
And by the way, were you conceding my point about the cat, or merely ignoring it?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm not discussing it any more since we are not discussing the same topic. It has not been conceded, but rendered irrelevant by this sudden change of rules.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
How many pages ago did I say "or doesn't matteR?"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Two pages ago, in this post:
quote:Only if the supernatural doesn't interact with the physical world. If there is a supernatural, and it has an affect on the physical, then my epistmology can handle it. And if there is no affect on the physical world, then its hardly relevant, now is it?
Edit: That is to say, two pages from the post containing your question. Three pages from this post. Or in other words, on page 3, assuming you have 50 posts per page.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:How many pages ago did I say "or doesn't matteR?"
And I limited my discussion to things that "did matter" simply because you were using it as a synonym for "affects the physical world."
Here we have something that undeniably affects the physical world, and it, too, "doesn't matter."
I'm not going to concede the definitions in this discussion to you or KoM.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Oh, good, KoM posted the quote right there for me to demonstrate that it is different from KoM's criteria.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Actually, thinking about it, we can handle your hurricane example as well. In this case our control sample is the second-most likely spot for a hurricane to form. We form an estimate of the probability per unit time for hurricanes to form at the most and second-most likely spots. Then we measure the actual occurrences. Clearly, our model takes into account only the directly observable effects. If the cosmic game hypothesis is true, then hurricanes will form in the most likely spot at a rate greater than we would expect from our model; but our model will correctly predict the rate for the second-most-likely spot (and all other places). We can now confirm or deny your cosmic dice theory, using science.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Not if said dice game has been going on for longer than people have been measuring weather patterns, and therefore affects our understanding of what it means to be a "likely spot."
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
Am I the only one who finds all these hypotheticals very confusing?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Thank you, rivka.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Take sufficiently accurate measurements of where water and air are going, on and off the ocean. Form two sets of Newton's laws: One using the data that includes hurricane formation, one without. (You can take the second set on the Moon, if oyu like.) If an unknown force shows up in one set, you have your cosmic dice game.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
If only meteorology were that simple, even without cosmic dice! Then I would've known to bring my umbrella and coat TODAY, instead of yesterday.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
The question was what can be attacked with scientific methods, not what can practically be done with today's technology.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You do know that the current limitations on meteorology are less an issue of technology than they are of the number of details in such complex systems? We can predict the weather with a great deal of accuracy. The problem is, gathering the info and making the calculations necessary for such accuracy take long enough that the weather we are predicting will be almost upon us.
Complexity. Huh. I wonder if that might be relevant . . .
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Not relevant. Sufficiently advanced technology can do that easily. Just make a bunch of little nanobots that broadcast their location and ID, put them in the water, and see where they go. Please do not bring these boring engineering details into it, they are quite extraneous to the issue of what can or cannot in principle be done with scientific epistemology.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
First of all, it's *my* f'n cat.
Secondly, it's not even a hypothetical, it's an illustration. An analogy, as I have clearly stated in as many words. Apparently though, I'm not worth paying any attention to.
C. you guys are, as Dagonee points out, smarter than this. You are being obtuse, whether it is deliberate or not.
I made a very simple assertion on the third page of this thread: God is not provable or disprovable by scientific method
Paul said any God that matters is.
Dagonee and I have both come up with separate hypothetical examples of things not detectable by science that could make a difference (in my case, I would assert *has* made a difference-- and I mean "mercy", not the cat).
This was to refute Paul's assertion that anything which has an affect on the physical world can be detectable by science... as one counter example is usually considered adequate to disprove a universal-- which Paul is definitely claiming here.
And you guys keep wanting us to simply accept that Paul is right and move on, without addressing the counterexample beyond asserting that it is begging the question.... which we clearly do not consider adequate.
You are like the fundamentalist with his bible... you keep saying "it says right here, 'my epistemology is the only valid one'" and don't do anything to address the reasons why we think your epistemology is flawed-- namely that it leaves out a whole host of likely necessary and certainly essentially human concepts like love, mercy, justice and the like.
Now some here (I'm fairly sure from other conversations that Tom feels this way) would say that this means those things are mere figments of the collective human imagination. I say it means that a purely science-based epistemology is flawed.
Until you show me why this not so, we really can't go any further... do you, Paul, really expect me to just toss aside every Platonic Idea I believe in because *you* say an epistemology based on the scientific method is the only valid one? "Oh, how silly of me! I've been begging the question all along! Freewill, Justice, Love... those are all illusions! it's so obvious now that Paul has explained that I'm begging the question!"
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: Eventually, this cat will have no affect on the world, as we apply more and more scientific tests and methodologies, and my statement that it either does not exist or has no affect on the world stands.
This is precisely the crux. It's the whole God of the Gaps thing.
As we get better and better at detecting things which might be the cat, the cat -- by refusing to manifest in any way that might be detected -- is actually writing itself out of existence.
If, for example, we were to put all the people of Earth under constant video surveillance, the cat would for all meaningful purposes cease to exist. By consciously acting to prevent the detection of its effects, it has hemmed itself into an environment where it can take no actions that might be regarded as causes.
I'll bring this back to God, to simplify: if God cannot be detected by science, God will be forced out of all human endeavor as science expands. In a very real way, this has already happened and continues to happen.
For this reason, I believe the claim that there are supernatural phenomena whose effects can neither be measured nor predicted to be untenable. This is not to say that there are not phenomena whose causes are enormously complex and may well not be understood in our lifetime; of course such things exist. But restricting the realm of God to the unobservable will be more and more obviously a losing strategy as we become better and better at observation; the only room left for observations of "God" will be in one's own mind -- and I believe that we'll solve the mysteries of the brain within the next two hundred years. Once every inch of our thoughts are mapped, where else could "God" possibly hide?
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Dagonee and I have both come up with separate hypothetical examples of things not detectable by science that could make a difference (in my case, I would assert *has* made a difference-- and I mean "mercy", not the cat).
Um, no. I think I showed that the cat is detectable by science; as for mercy, if you can come up with a definition other than "A pattern of behaviour involving the use of less than maximal force on defeated enemies", you are welcome to do so, but such a pattern is certainly readily detectable and understandable. So, your 'counterexamples' aren't actually anything of the sort, and therefore Paul's universal has not been refuted.
Also, I do not see where anyone is just waving these examples aside, as you assert; we've been putting considerable effort into showing that they are open for science to study. Tone down the indignation.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
And, by the way, in listing your three points, you went "Firstly, Secondly, C". Therefore your arguments are clearly irrational and not worth listening to.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
C is rational.
e isn't.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
And, as has already been pointed out (I think by the principals here involved) "Jim-Me" is both irrational and complex (that is to say, has an imaginary component).
The Cat wasn't an example, KoM. This is the third time I have said that in as many words. Do you yet begin to understand my frustration? You are the first person who has addressed "Mercy" since I first brought it up 2 or 3 pages back. So yeah, I'm feeling a bit ignored and waved aside right now.
And I would answer your definition by saying I am talking about "Mercy" the concept, not "mercy" the action... but I'm going to be a lot busier today and don't really have the time to stick around and slug it out, especially in light of how effective I wasn't yesterday.
Posted by Paul Goldner (Member # 1910) on :
"You are like the fundamentalist with his bible... you keep saying "it says right here, 'my epistemology is the only valid one'" and don't do anything to address the reasons why we think your epistemology is flawed-- namely that it leaves out a whole host of likely necessary and certainly essentially human concepts like love, mercy, justice and the like."
I don't think it does. A scientific epistomology is perfectly capable of dealing with mental states, and in fact is already starting to do so. There's quite a bit of fascinating research on love, for example, if you care to look around at it.
An epistomology is developed after figuring out what types of things are worth knowing. I would say anything that affects the world is worth knowing, and anything that doesn't affect the world hardly matters... its not worth knowing, because it doesn't mean anything. There can be know meaning to something without an affect, because affects are what make meaning.
And things that affect the world are measurable, at some level. Quantifiable. "What WAS the affect? The affect is that the cat ate the treat." There is a physically observable phenomenom, or affect of a phenomenom associated with anything that alters the world in any way.
If I want to know about things that alter the world in any way, then, I need an epistomology that can handle those alterations. And so I develop one. The scientific method. It can handle any alteration, any change, any affect, on the world that is observable.
As has been demonstrated on this thread, we can certainly handle dagonee's dice game or the invisible cat. You may not LIKE that we can handle those situations, or may not like the way in which we handle those situations...but at the very least, as tom says, science makes the cat irrelevant. You limit god to a god of the gaps. And every year, we figure out more and more ways, develop more and more technologies, to understand the world around us.
If the supernatural really is something that science can't comprehend, then at some point, the supernatural is going to have zero affect on the world. And at that point, who cares? And if the supernatural does have an affect on the world, at some point we'll be able to understand it scientifically. Maybe not in my lifetime, but timeline isn't what we're arguing about.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:The Cat wasn't an example, KoM. This is the third time I have said that in as many words. Do you yet begin to understand my frustration?
Then I must say that I do not understand what the purpose of the cat was.
Touching your 'mercy the concept': If you speak of the way humans hold mercy in their brains as a possibility, as a way that people can in principle act, then that is neuroscience. If you're talking about some kind of Platonic Ideal, then it doesn't actually affect the physical world at all except in the two ways I've mentioned, which can indeed be studied by science. Who cares whether there exists some 'Perfect Mercy' somewhere off in the clouds of conceptual space? We can certainly study the effects of mercy, and that's all we care about.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
This thread just keeps making me more curious. I hate unanswerable questions. ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)