FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Probability of existence (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Probability of existence
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Eduardo St. Elmo
Member
Member # 9566

 - posted      Profile for Eduardo St. Elmo   Email Eduardo St. Elmo         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 993 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
Now the question is, do we draw a distinction between opinion based on fact and opinion based on faith?
Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Mucus
Member
Member # 9735

 - posted      Profile for Mucus           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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'.

Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
Thank you, KoM. That makes a lot of sense.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Xavier
Member
Member # 405

 - posted      Profile for Xavier   Email Xavier         Edit/Delete Post 
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 [Smile] . 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.

Posts: 5656 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
King of Men
Member
Member # 6684

 - posted      Profile for King of Men   Email King of Men         Edit/Delete Post 
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. [Smile] 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.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lavalamp
Member
Member # 4337

 - posted      Profile for Lavalamp           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 300 | Registered: Dec 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Javert
Member
Member # 3076

 - posted      Profile for Javert   Email Javert         Edit/Delete Post 
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?

Posts: 3852 | Registered: Feb 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Icarus
Member
Member # 3162

 - posted      Profile for Icarus   Email Icarus         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MightyCow
Member
Member # 9253

 - posted      Profile for MightyCow           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3950 | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post 
Direct, competing, and conflicting testimony.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
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

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
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
Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"whereas your epistemology is based entirely on repeatability, predictability, and demonstrability"

Also observation of singular events and the effects of those events.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
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?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jim-Me
Member
Member # 6426

 - posted      Profile for Jim-Me   Email Jim-Me         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 3846 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
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."

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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.

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Paul Goldner
Member
Member # 1910

 - posted      Profile for Paul Goldner   Email Paul Goldner         Edit/Delete Post 
"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."

Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dagonee
Member
Member # 5818

 - posted      Profile for Dagonee           Edit/Delete Post 
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."

Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
mr_porteiro_head
Member
Member # 4644

 - posted      Profile for mr_porteiro_head   Email mr_porteiro_head         Edit/Delete Post 
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 ]

Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2