Critique
Offline Humanity can either exist without murder, rape, and physical abuse, or it cannot.
If it can, then such a state can only be reached through some external stimuli, i.e., one not experienced in all of human history.
Contingent Theistic Belief:
Through power or knowledge, God is the external stimuli that will bring about a state of non-murder, rape, and physical abuse.
Falsiable:
If at any time humanity exists without murder, rape, and physical abuse, then such a belief will be shown to be false.
Evidence for such a belief:
(1) History supports the belief that humanity cannot progress on its own to a state of non-murder, rape, and phsyical abuse.
(2) God, if he exists, may be an "external stimuli"--depending on what definition of "God" one has.
(3) Individuals have shown that they are capable of not murdering, raping, or physical abusing, and therefore it is reasonable to believe that all individuals are capable of the same restraint and may exercise such restraint in the same way and at the same time.
//
Hopefully I used all the terminology correctly.
Now:
Q: Why is this belief unreasonable? Why is it irrationale?
//
Now, I want to try something. More specifically, I want you to try something. Respond only with questions, which may include hypotheticals. It keeps the responses short, specific, and helpful.
If you really can't hold yourself to this request, then feel free to share your thoughts in whatever manner you wish. I'd much rather read your responses than nothing at all.
- Login to post comments
Because it is an affirming the consequent fallacy. Unless I'm reading this incorrectly, you never state that the particular external stimuli "God" is a necessary condition, you state in your premise only that it is sufficient.
Your first premise was that "if A then B" where A is "God is the external stimuli..." (whatever l that means) and B is "it is possible to achieve a state where..."
Your second premise was that "B"
So your conclusion was A.
This is fallacious.
This is (a) internally inconsistent and (b) fallacious again. (1) and (3) are internally contradictory. (2) is irrelevant and certainly couldn't qualify as "evidence" for your proposition. This is just a basic exercise in quantifier logic. Let's rewrite this slightly. To state that an external stimuli is necessary to achieve a state of non murder etc. is a conditional existential quantification (i.e if A then there exists x such that...). You can't instantiate an existential quantification with a constant (such as "God" ) unless you have a good reason (at which point you have departed from the formal structure, and you can just take the quantifier off). (2) is merely a statement that the constant (God) fulfills the predicate that is under the existential quantification. This is not a reason to substitute in the constant. This is not permitted in quantifier logic.
Also (3) is a faulty generalization fallacy.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Not to mention that 3) has been proven impossible through psychology and other medical studies. Some individuals, most even, are capable of acting within the boundaries you've set. But not all. Those that cannot are in such a position for various reasons; from accident to birth defect.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
By it's very nature, a belief with regard to knowledge entails an unspoken premise that the belief may be false--otherwise I would have said it was knowledge. For instance, "I believe my mother loves me," may be false.
Because I only viewed it as a solid conditional statement.
P1: If God exists P2: If external stimuli C1: May be external stimuli/occurence referred to in C1 above.
Because I viewed it as (1) as speaking of humanity. (3) is speaking of individuals. Just because I don't murder doesn't mean "humanity" doesn't murder. And just because "humanity" murders, doesn't mean that the belief that "humanity" may one day not murder is unreasonable.
So. Explain how it is internally contradictory please.
You're accusing me of claiming that Johnny is black. Instead, I'm merely saying that Johnny may be black, and such a claim is reasonable.
If it is possible for the extremes of human anti-social behaviour to be greatly diminished, then there are various possible ways this may come about.
Improved understanding of the underlying causes, via progress in psychology, neuroscience, etc, may show us a way. Maybe a new drug, or therapy of some kind.
Increasing external stressors, maybe from population growth, running out of resources, etc, may finally force us to collectively concentrate on the real problems, although it seems highly likely that social disruption, war, etc, will get worse, at least in the short term.
These are the only terms in which it makes sense to address any such issues.
The first statement is a excessively simplistic and unrealistic proposition to make about such an issue.
The second statement in the OP is simply an unsupported supposition.
Hence the rest of the OP is pointless, meaningless word-play.
Thank you for demonstrating yet again the intellectual bankruptcy of your world-view.
Have a nice day.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Citation?
No, I'm stating that saying "if God exists...then this could be the case" is not an argument for God being the "external stimuli you were talking about. And if you aren't making an argument that God is the supposed external stimuli for whatever you are talking about, I fail to see what argument you are making.
Well, since "humanity" is equivalent to "all individuals" any argument pertaining to "all individuals" necessarily pertains to humanity. So to state that humanity cannot achieve a certain state on its own, and then stating that all individuals could achieve the same state, is contradictory.
(P1) is an incomplete sentence in logic, as is P2. If must be followed by then. I cannot interpret this because it is meaningless.
But then why include this as "evidence" for your proposition"? Claiming that (2) in your evidence list is evidence for your proposition would be like saying that "Johnny is a lab" is evidence for the case that "Johnny is black".
Well, you began with the premise that it is observed that people have this capacity which we will call A. Then you stated from this that it is reasonable to suppose that we can extend to this capacity to all people. I fail to see why this is the case.
So...how this is argument relevant to anything at all. I utterly fail to see how this is anything but completely pointless. All you are saying is "this has never happened. Maybe it will. For it to happen requires a condition A. "God" fulfills the condition A. Therefore, maybe God". Actually, more precisely, "maybe it is the case that maybe it is the case that God". One maybe for the conditional being achieved, and the other maybe for God being the constant that fulfills the requirement for the conditional being achieved. Wow, talk about a mind-blowing argument.
Pointless. You haven't demonstrated anything that isn't already trivially true just by the application of formal logic.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Ah shit, I can't remember the name of the guy who is the perfect example. Give me a few minutes. Someone else feel free to name him if you remember before I track it down.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Got it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phineas_Gage
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
Well then.. I respond in this way:
Assume you see a house. On the floor next to house lies a sheet of paper. On the paper it says: Built by Johnny.
P1: All houses are built by people.P2: Johnny claims to have built the house.C1: Johnny may have built the house.
Valid belief?
My argument is merely meant to support the validity of the belief. This whole site is predicated upon the "belief" that all thestic beliefs are irrationale. So, I merely need to establish that one is not in order to act as a counterexample.
The site does not claim that "all claims that God is real are irrationale," but rather the belief is irrationale.
And so, I present the statement Johnny example as one to see if we agree on at least something.
If we agree on that, then please distinguish:
P1: Humanity has failed to live peacefully.P2: A book claims that some non-human source will bring peace.C1: This non-human source may bring peace.
..Why would it need to be followed by "then"?
Fine.. if you really need it to be in a particular form:
"Most labs are black and Johnny is a lab, therefore Johnny may be black."
Better for you? Yet I don't see how you could not have derived this sentence from my original breakdown of premises and conclusions.
"A and B share substantially the same qualities and A has quality X, therefore B may also have quality X."
Once again, not a necessary conslusion, but not unreasonable in the least either.
P1: Humanity has failed to live peacefully.P2: A book claims that some non-human source will bring peace.C1: This non-human source may bring peace.
And claiming it's a reasonable conclusion to make.
And the "point" of making such a claim was stated before when I said this: "My argument is merely meant to support the validity of the belief. This whole site is predicated upon the "belief" that all thestic beliefs are irrationale. So, I merely need to establish that one is not in order to act as a counterexample."
Interesting stuff.. I remember reading about him back in college, nice to get a refresher.
Response to your other statement to follow shortly.
The provided link does not support the conclusion that it is "impossible" that all individuals are capable of "not murdering, not raping, not physically abusing," merely that the brain controls personality.
Tis true that my argument is predicated upon a belief in "freewill." If you accept such a premise, then our only disagreement is whether it is complete, or partial, and I venture to say neither of us will get very far in determining what is the "actual" freewill people have. I claim that it is enough in all cases to choose whether to murder, rape, abuse; and you may not. So how to we move on?
If you do not agree with the premise, then this conversation is completely pointless to begin with because if neither you nor I have freewill, then our beliefs, our conversations, our actions, are all predetermined anyways.. so, what's the point?
So, we must proceed upon the belief that their is freewill, even though it be but an illusion.
I simply said that by your post, riddled as it was with trivial or invalid 'logic' in attempt to show some ill-defined ideas, demonstrates to me that you are one very confused individual, a judgement further supported by your failure to grasp the flaws in your 'reasoning' when pointed out.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
Rhad, your generalizations about what this site claims are misleading. Those of us on this site who are versed in logic tend to claim the following:
1) Theism is, in all cases, founded on beliefs that are factually inaccurate, logically invalid, or both.
2) Individual cases of theistic belief can be described as rational, given that the person is intellectually incapable of understanding the evidence or logic, ignorant of the evidence or logic, or sufficiently brainwashed that it is unreasonable to expect logic or evidence to hold sway.
As for your argument, I could take it apart, but I'd only echo what DG has already said. You've managed to go around your ass to get to your elbow, and all you've demonstrated (If you correct all the improper or fallacious logic) is that it might be the case that it might be the case that God is the cause of something that probably won't happen.
To call it banal would be giving it undue credit.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Yes, but these theistic beliefs state that "X is the case". You are stating only that X may be the case. When we say theistic belief is irrational, we are not (usually)referring to the formal structure of the belief but the content. We mean it is irrational in the sense that people believe it is true despite lacking a sound reason to. From a formal logical standpoint, a statement like "X could be true", as what you have stated, is automatically satisfied unless someone demonstrates that X cannot be the case. However, the statement "X is true" is only satisfied when one demosntrates that X is true. So to say that "X may be true" is a statement that can be derived without any premises.
This argument is not a demonstration that the theistic belief in C1 is not irrational. As I stated before, to state that X may be the case, from a formal standpoint, is a statement which can be derived with no premises and can only be disproven by beginning with it as a premise and deriving a contradiction. On the other hand to believe that X is the case without any jusitification is irrational.
But the theistic beliefs that are being referred to are those that state that X is the case without any justification. All you've stated is that X could be the case. This does not need to be derived from any premises. If on the other hand you altered C1 and declared that this non human source exists and will bring peace then the belief would be an irrational. You don't need any argument to state that C1 may be the case.
Once again, you've failed to anything other than absurd mental gymanstics, using basic formal principles to state that something may be the case, a conclusion which requires no argument to make. Then you've somehow absurdly transposed that an argued that this demonstration constitutes an invalidation of the statement that theistic belief is irrational. You know full well that "theistic belief" in this context refers to a set of assertions about the way the world is which lack justification.
EDIT: Upon reading, I realized I made a slight error. I stated that "X could be the case" is derivable with no premises. This is not quite true. In order to make a statement that X could be the case, in a formal context, one is stating that X is not contradictory. Therefore, one would have to construct a model (using the machinery of set theory) in which X is the case. In this case, we are giving you the benefit of ignoring this formality and assuming that your statement is not internally contradictory.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
A statement about the purpose of the site, is not a statement with regard to you. If you do not believe what I purpose to address, then don't respond. It's very simple.
If that's what you claim, great. If you think it's inconsistent with what I've stated thus far, then address what I've stated thus far. If you think it's only inconsistent so far as "I claimed something about the site that doesn't apply to you," then see the statement above and learn to distinguish yourself from the site.
If you do not think what I've stated thus far is inconsistent with what you claim, then what are you doing in this thread?
See above.
I have practice extreme patience when it comes to the regulars on this site. The few times that I have reacted in the intellectually arrogant way to prevalant here, the value of the conversation has descreased exponentially.
I have no doubt that I could make high-horsed statements about how your close-mindedness with regard to religiosity would not allow you to distinguish between feces and fruit, but I do not. Such a statement serves no purpose.
If, however, one takes from your long windedness the only thing that really matters, one is left with this: "Rhad, all you've stated is that God could be the thing that brings about a state of nonmurder, nonrape, nonphysical abuse."
This is indeed what I have said. Now what? My question was whether a belief in such a statement would be unreasonable or irrationale. You have not addressed either of those and so, like so many times, you have spent a long time saying nothing.
Something many people are guilty of, like me.
I appreciate your help on this one.
Call me names if you like. I'm sorry if educated rejection of your poorly constructed proof of a triviality comes off as high horsed. It took me some effort to reach my metaphorical "educational height," so if I can make it to the high horse, so much the better for me.
Your proof is poorly constructed and proves a banal point. Any competent logician would concur.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
High horsed? Arrogant? Long windedness?
I merely implied them. I would never be so direct as to call you them.
You made no "educated rejection," in fact you explicitly failed to do so.
I'm glad that you think your effort has been fruitful. But consider, the most pompous of educated dimwits still speak like Socrates. Pretty words and perfect grammar do not translate to substance and correctness.
I am not saying that you are one of these individuals, merely saying.
How conclusory of you.
I have many times learned a great deal from you. Yet, you are not without fault. No place is this more true, IMO, then when it comes to judging religion and its adherents.
Now you are leaving the domain of formal structure and talking about content. That's good because it means I can drop the formal rigidity. I guess my response would be...not really, no. Not enough of a difference to warrant any real consideration.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Yes. I did. I concurred with Deludedgod's rejection because he's right, and I'm learned enough to know so.
Would you like me to repeat what he said? That would be rather... long winded, wouldn't it?
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm afraid I'm going to have to push you a little harder on this one..
The legal definition of "relevant evidence" is "something that makes the matter at issue more or less likely than it would have been without it."
So I need a clear "yes or no" response in order to move forward. I'm having a little trouble interpreting "not really, no" as fitting into any of those categories.. and I just want to make sure I understand you before moving on. In the alternative, "I can see the arguments for both" is also okay.
Touche'.
So then.. I will continue chatting with Delude.
This statement confuses me for several reasons. The most obvious is the strange frame of reference it assumes. Murder, rape, and physical abuse are human behaviours, and defined by human words. "... can exist without" is only strange because it presents an alternative to observed human behaviours, and that alternative has never been observed. I can imagine a world without such behaviours in the same way I can imagine Luke using the Force, but it's difficult not to consider that you're dabbling exclusively in the hypothetical, here.
Second, if God is what can bring about the eradication of these behaviours, wouldn't the eradication of these behaviours be the affirmation of a God, and not the other way around? Have I read that wrong?
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
In that case, no. It wouldn't make the case more likely to be true. As someone whose job depends on the ability to articulate why gathered empirical evidence is a valid reason to draw conclusions, I can say that the forms of evidence you describe (hearsay) are not sufficient to draw any meaningful conclusions. They suffer from underdetermination problems (in other words, we have no way to say this was not made up). Firstly, we don't usually speak of the reliability of a single form of evidence. Instead, we talk about multiple testable predictions being fulfilled and the strength of the conglomerate of those predictions. For example, if we do an identification of an unknown compound, we would speak not of the individual reliability of the mass spec, the IR spec and the gas-liquid chromatography, but rather that the evidence from all three points to a particular conlusion.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I just want to throw in that I think it's important that we recognize the difference between the ACTUAL question here and the analogous question about the house.
The actual question appears to be: Is God-belief irrational?
The analogous question: Is believing that Johnny built the house irrational?
Even if we're now debating probabilities instead of absolutes, there is a difference between the actual question and the analagous question. The analogous question was only raised in order to demonstrate that believing that it was PROBABLE (in some degree, great or small) that Johnny built the house was rational, and so we must assume (with some help from past experience) that the therefore statement will be "therefore, it is rational to believe that it is probable (in some degree, great or small) that the universe has a creator."
We cannot draw any conclusions from these types of analogies and metaphors. For instance, in order for the conclusion to the analogous situation to help form the conclusion to the ACTUAL situation, the situation has to be truly analogous. As it stands, it's only superficially so. A play on words.
From past experience, I surmise that the house in the second question is aiming to be analogous to the universe in the god question. This in itself is questionable, because everyone knows that houses have builders, but the question as to whether the universe has a builder is the VERY QUESTION that is being discussed, and so this stacks the deck in favor of the OPs position.
Secondly, I surmise that the OP has something specific in mind that is analogous to the note indicating that Johnny is the architect. In the second question, this note serves as evidence that lends a degree of credibility to the belief that Johnny was, in fact, the architect. However, we must ask what this note is analogous to in the original god question. I suspect, from past experience, that the OP has some specific things in mind that he will regard as "evidence" of God-as-architect, and this evidence is exactly what the atheists will reject, probably on scientific grounds.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: analogies and metaphors only serve to obfuscate the actual question and derail the interlocutor. Let's cut out the bullshit and stick to the point.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
What about when the "hearsay" is considered with "the credibility I assign to this person based upon the way in which he speaks."
Not that you would, but rather do you consider it reasonable that a person accepts this "hearsay+perceived credibility" as "evidence"?
I suppose their could be a non-human eradication of it, as well as a human eradication of it. For instance, as Spence pointed out, drugs might one day be able to wipe out these forms of human behavior. For me that would be uncontestable proof that God is not needed to wipe out these sorts of human behavior on a planetary level because I would interpret the drug-approach as a human and not a non-human eradication of the problem.
That is not to say that all believers would view it as such. Some may even interpret the "drug approach" as "God inspired," or something along those lines. I don't believe myself to be a part of that group.
Since when is credibility measured by oratory skills?
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What's the difference between a hypothetical and an analogy? If nothing.. then let me state that 50% of my legal education is based upon hypotheticals and I believe they have more than their fair share of use. That is not to say that they "make the point," but rather that they get to the heart of the disagreement.
You can argue for hours and hours that "letting someone die is the same as killing them" based upon sociological and psychological treastises, but it's perhaps only through a hypothetical that one determines the difference between what one truly believes and what one has only be conditioned to say.
And no.. my analogy was not meant to equate a house with the universe, although I see how that would be the reasonable inference to make.
That being said, your writing is impressively clear. If only I had such skill.
Would you rather me be more specific and say "based upon his intonation, mannerisms, body language"? While "way in which he speaks" does not necessarily include these things, it was the meaning I meant.
Again, since when do we measure credibility in this way? If we are evaluating an individual (as opposed to their argument) there is only one way to evaluate them: their demonstrated expertise in the subject matter.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Well, for one, a hypothetical is not necessarily an analogy; but in the case of our discussion, your analogy is hypothetical.
I don't necessarily have a problem with asking hypothetical questions. I'm only pointing out that when you raise a hypothetical question that is supposed to be similar to the original question, two things can happen:
1) Asking the analogous question helps everyone understand the original question better.
Or:
2) Asking the analogous question obfuscates the nature of the original question and derails everybody.
Asking analogous questions, or explaining through metaphor, tends to be useful when you simply need to jumpstart other people into thinking in the same frame you're thinking in. No analogy is perfect, and so no analogy itself is an explanation. But if they are effective, they can jolt the brain of the other person enough in your direction that the other person can fill in the necessary gaps and smooth out the rough edges by themselves. (e.g. When Richard Dawkins only wants you to think about how evolution IS LIKE climbing a mountain while ignoring, temporarily, the thousands of others ways in which it is NOT LIKE climbing a mountain.)
However, it is not appropriate to use an analogy to answer a question. You must answer a question the proper way (i.e. without analogy). You may use analogy to explain the answer once you have it, but an analogy cannot serve as an answer. Specifically, it cannot be a crutch that compensates for lack of an adequate answer/explanation. That is an improper use.
If this is not the direction you're heading in, then fair enough; but it frequently occurs among the theists we see, and I hope you can understand my wanting to nip it in the bud.
Maybe you mean the same thing I was saying above?
It happens often. Although the most infamous is: "Every painting has a painter."
Writing (including organization of thought) can always, always be improved. I especially refer to my own, but I thank you for the compliment.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
The subject matter in this case is the claim that "Johnny built this house." How does one demonstrate expertise in this subject matter? Assume the only foundation for his claim is the claim that he saw Johnny build it.
I know what you mean, but I don't think I was ever guilty of doing so. I will try to avoid doing so in the future.
I think maybe so.
But you're still arguing about whether or not a God is needed to produce an imagined state of affairs. If you replace "God" with "drug", then you're still arguing about a hypothetical situation wherein humans no longer behave like humans.
I'm just not sure why. I get that it would be nice if we didn't hurt each other - that's not what I'm saying. I'm wondering why the introduction of a hypothetical group of behaviours (that is, humans that do not murder one another) is being considered at all.
Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence
I'm not arguing whether or not a God is needed. I'm asking whether or not the belief that he is is unreasonable.
The "why" question is simply stated, "because I think people would be a lot better served by giving the other person the benefit of the doubt when it comes to the "reasonableness" and "rationality" of their beliefs because everything can be doubted, and everything can be spouted." (My nihilistic roots).
Whether it's a matter of unicorns, god, or elves, one should presume the person is reasonable and rationale, if for no other reason than the truth of the matter of reasonable/rationale is really of little importance. What does matter is the fulness of life and the actions individuals take. Address those things.. not ideas of rationality and reasonableness.
Afterall, everyone is reasonable in their own mind.
(Well.. maybe just most).
Keep in mind that we are helping you greatly by working with the assumption throughout the course of this thread that the concept is coherent at all. Frankly, I don't think it is.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
I understand that position. Had it many a times here. I just don't agree. "God" is rarely defined. I find it hard to believe that there is not one that can be made that is coherent.
But that merely nullifies the entire issue because the word has no definition. We might as well just do away with it altogether. The way that the word os tradiationally used would seem to imply some sort of ethereal father figure, a notion which can be dismissed by any individual with an ounce of capacity for rational thought. Beyond that, the confusing hodgepodge of possible definitions and deliberately vague notions (such as "higher power" ) make the word so devoid of any concrete meaning as to be useless.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Nullifies the entire issue we are talking about now? I don't believe so. I've defined it enough for the purposes of the discussion. Although, really, we've gotten far more narrow in our discussion and I have settled on discovering your way of thinking with regard to evidence. Once that has been established, then we move on.
No you haven't. You haven't defined God. We've just assumed that we know what it is. That's the problem with religion. People say things that they think they know what they mean but which don't mean anything.
You should know. I am a scientist. You know what I require, as per my job.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Merely because you are a scientist does not mean your understanding of evidence is completely limited to the scientific requirements of evidence. The standard in the sciences is very high, not so much in the legal realm. So, I guess what I'm asking is whether or not you can understand another (arguably valid) way of viewing evidence--more specifically, a legal sense? Keep in mind that in the legal sense, "I claim I saw someone do something" + "credibility judgment of the jury based upon nothing else but his demenoir," is sufficient grounds for a conviction.
Acceptable or no? Based upon your past answer, it seems no, but I want to make sure.
You are a scientist, yes, but I will not assume that means you are unwilling to accept other ways of looking at the world--even though you would (of course) be within your rights to be so.
(Also, as a qualifier, I realize that legal and scientific understandings of the term "evidence" are not mutually exclusive, their is overlap. Yet, if I understand your framing of the scientific understanding of "evidence," then at least in one respect they divide.
Of course not. My first training was in mathematical and theoretical physics. I hold mathematical reasoning in higher regard.
Well, I'm not a lawyer, so I'm not familiar with how a court of law judges hearsay. I tend to recognize a firm divide between empirical claims which are either "repeatable" or "repeatably testable" and those which are not. This distinction should be upheld. Claims about the way electrons behave, or how cells transcribe, or how stars form etc. are repeatable. Claims of the permanent existence of an entity called God would also be repeatable. It only creates confusion to compare standards of evidence in such cases to those for one-off events. A repeatably testable proposition on the other hand, need not be repetable (it might pertain to historical events) but the event leaves many mutually reinforcing pieces of evidence behind. I think that in court this is often demanded anyway. A forensic scientist stating that "this powder is definitely cocaine" in a court of law usually must present three pieces of analytical evidence to back that up. In this case I would imagine that to be mass spec, IR spec and NMR spec. Hearsay is only as good as its corroboration. Like I said, do not judge individual pieces of evidence by themselves, but rather how well they corroborate each other. Hearsay by itself, I would be suspicious of.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
What is significant about your definition of "God," though? Let's look at the original idea (paraphrased):
1. People do bad things.
2. x is an external stimuli that will stop people from doing bad things.
3. If people stop doing bad things, x exists.
Ignoring the problems with the logic that others are already addressing...why is x equivalent to "God?" I realize you hinted at this with your comment a few posts back about unicorns and elves, but why can't x be the teapot orbiting Jupiter or the dragon in my garage? Even if the stimuli exists, how do you then saw "oh, x ALSO has these other properties?" For all you know, x could be a comet "barely" missing the Earth or something and the experience unites humanity. How does that prove "God" exists, let alone properties you'd attach to "God?"
If you're just claiming "God" is a nice label to attach to this "force," why call it God? Why not call it "the cosmic sneeze" or something? If you're claiming God is defined as more than that...what other properties does it have?
That is an incorrect summary of my argument.. More specifically, 3 is incorrect.
As I conceeded earlier, 3 can be caused new human discoveries on how to control human nature, or by x.
As for the rest of your argument. If your problem with my argument is that I attach the word "God" to it, so be it. Attach whatever word you want to it. The significant portions, for the purpose of the original op, are (1) external, (2) stops bad things, (3) through knowledge and or power, (4) not experienced throughout history.
This eliminates certain things from the definition: (1) you, (2) me, (3) others, (4) historical occurences observed during human history.
You continually impress me delude.
Agreed. But upholding the importance of one does not necessitate the eliminating of relevance from the other.
Obviously.
Suspcious of, indeed, as would most people. Still, we are talking (at least it is my purpose to talk of) relevance as defined previously. Once again I must state that the upholding of the probative value of the forensic scientists, or other expert witnesses, testimony does not eliminate the probative value, i.e., relevance, of hearsay.
I am merely looking for agreement on its relevance, not whether it supersedes or is equivalent to other forms of evidence.
Edit: I realize that we may not agree. And if this is the case, then at least I understand the level on which we depart ways...
But rhad, Deludedgod was just trying to explain this to you. This is exactly why this argument is pointless and almost tautologically trivial. I tried before to explain this to you. You're going around your ass to get to your elbow to prove that if an improbable event were to occur, we could speculate that something might have caused it... and it might or might not be true that whatever "something" we picked might be the cause.
You can just skip all the runaround and say, "If humans ever act uniformly un-human-like, something might have caused them to act that way." That's a perfectly sound and valid statement, and you don't have to prove it. It's a premise, really. Not a conclusion.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Welcome back Hamby.
Explain more please.