Crufix's kiddie apologetics

[Lord Kenneth]

OK. Hello people...There is no way to prove there is or isn't a God...Final Proof and all...

Either you can't explan there is a God because he just doesn't exist, Or you can't explain it because His existance is on a plane far above ours, and he 'lives' outside our conception of logic.

If that is the case, no amount of human study/research/testing/etc will ever prove anything.

I don't understand why this continues to be such a debate topic. There are Athiests who are messed up and there are Theists who are messed up. Picking on someone's beliefs just makes them bitter, and if we are aiming for a better world in general, it's best to debate a major topic than chip at one person's thinking.

Such a post reeks ignorance of the scientific method.

Science is not out to prove there is or isn't a god.

In fact, science is often more concerned with that isn't true than what is.

Scientists come out with a hypothesis or theory, and try through different observations and experiments to prove it wrong. We use Occam's razor to help us best analyze the data we have. Thus, the most reasonable explanation possible with all the data we have is selected. Like you said, God cannot be "disproven", but it hardly matters as there is no evidence to support the claim. The claim is a unfalsifiable construct, as well, much like an invisible magic dragon in the garage.

Again, take astrology. You cannot disprove that the planets don't affect our actions. That does not make it a valid claim.

Since God is an unlikely entity itself and the whole hypothesis is unscientific and unverifiable it's rejected (not to mention it completely lacks evidence).

I pull this post out for two reasons-- one, I hate Crufix personally, and two, this is rather childish thinking, reeking of a kid who has not been acquanted with scientific method.

Even if your God does exist, in every shape and form you think him to be, you are still not justified in your belief because you arrived at that conclusion by pure speculation.

 

[Suddenly]

[Sgt. Hulka]Lighten up, Francis.[/Sgt. Hulka]

Perhaps you should calm down and let go of your Ahab like obsession with people who are uncomfortable with your worldview. You understand the scientific method. Fine. What you seem to ignore is the fact that most everyone finds applying that method to matters of religion unacceptable for emotional reasons. Maybe they are "wrong" about this point. So what? Do you understand the emotional and psychological difficulties most people have with abandoning a belief in a deity?

If you are going to "hate" people who think like this for their "childish thinking" you are going to have a lonely life, not that their is anything wrong with that, it's your choice. Many smart people hit a roadblock when it comes to God. This is more a matter of emotion than intellegence for them.

Lets just hope when you run into someone smarter than you they treat you with much more respect and dignity than you treat those you find to be your intellectual inferiors.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I hate Crufix for other reasons, Suddenly.

I am not aware of any psychological difficulties that are exclusive to being able to admit that there is a very little likelihood a deity exists.

It's just mistrust, arrogance, and lack of thinking. And arguments based on fallacy to boot.

 

[The Don]

These problems include being insufficiently self-confident to be happy that there's no supreme being looking after you and you personally are accountable for all your actions. A ot of people like to be looked after.

You could characterise it as a flaw, but as the majority of people seem to be that way maybe people who don't need a God are the freaks.

The ability to accept other people's beliefs and the willingness to understand if these are not always fully supportable is just part of the normal social interraction. In the same way that I don't argue with friends who are pro-fox-hunting, it just isn't worthwhile in that context.

If you feel (and I happen to agree with you) that Crufix argues poorly just be happy that this is the case, accept that they are not going to be able to handle a resoned argument and take on those people with whom you do enjoy crossing swords

 

[Cleopatra]

I hate Crufix for other reasons, Suddenly.

I thought that he was new in this board

 

[Suddenly]

I hate Crufix for other reasons, Suddenly.

Not that it's any of my business, but perhaps you should consider what you accomplish by "hating" someone. Isn't "hate" in a way a failure of the scientific method you seem so invested in, as it presupposes a level of prejudice against a person?

I am not aware of any psychological difficulties that are exclusive to being able to admit that there is a very little likelihood a deity exists.

This is argument from ignorance and shifting the goal posts. First, the post you cite seems fine with the lack of evidence of a deity. The question isn't lack of evidence, rather a question of paradigm. Some people just don't apply the scientific method to faith, rather they find it axiomatic that faith justifies itself. It isn't accepting the lack of evidence, rather accepting that a lack of evidence is relevant.

I have no studies or objective proof that people have psychological and/or emotional problems with abandoning religious belief. I'd hope it's such an obvious point that it doesn't need support. Some people have a need to believe. It's like the old joke about the woman whose husband thinks he's a chicken:

The Woman: Doctor, my husband thinks he's a chicken.
Doctor: No problem, bring him in and we'll fix that.
The Woman: I would, but Doctor, we really need the eggs.

In this case:

Believer: Help, my husband believes in an unverifyable deity.
Skeptic: No problem, I'll talk to him and show him he's wrong.
Believer: No thanks, he really needs the feeling of purpose and security he gets from his belief.

That's what I'm getting at when I say emotional and psychological difficulty. Some people just think they really need the eggs so they will go really far to avoid the reality that they are not a chicken.

It's just mistrust, arrogance, and lack of thinking. And arguments based on fallacy to boot.

Or just a failure to approach all aspects of life with the cold hard light of reason. I try to approch life in that manner and I hit a lot of resentment, sometimes serious but usually token (i.e. "You're too logical"). I think the difference, when fully examined, lies in premises and not logic. It's just that sometimes believers use science to try to justify faith, with uniformly poor results. These arguments usually arise as a response to skepical criticism of their beliefs. What we see as a poor excuse for proof they see as a statement that their faith paradigm and our science paradigm are not mutually exclusive, because science cannot affirmitively disprove the existence of a deity. Of course, science this gives no basis for faith, but this doesn't matter if faith is assumed axiomatic.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I hate Crufix for other reasons, Suddenly.

Not that it's any of my business, but perhaps you should consider what you accomplish by "hating" someone. Isn't "hate" in a way a failure of the scientific method you seem so invested in, as it presupposes a level of prejudice against a person?

Hate is simply an emotion of dislike based on characteristics or bad experiences with something. I invited Crufix to these boards.

I am not aware of any psychological difficulties that are exclusive to being able to admit that there is a very little likelihood a deity exists.

This is argument from ignorance and shifting the goal posts. First, the post you cite seems fine with the lack of evidence of a deity. The question isn't lack of evidence, rather a question of paradigm. Some people just don't apply the scientific method to faith, rather they find it axiomatic that faith justifies itself. It isn't accepting the lack of evidence, rather accepting that a lack of evidence is relevant.

Faith is basically elected ignorance. I find it, by scientific standards, impossible to justify.

I have no studies or objective proof that people have psychological and/or emotional problems with abandoning religious belief. I'd hope it's such an obvious point that it doesn't need support. Some people have a need to believe. It's like the old joke about the woman whose husband thinks he's a chicken:

No, it's not and obvious point. Knowing that death was really death, that it was THE end, was not comforting for me, either. But I am more prepared for reality knowing the truth.

I cannot possibly think of likely situations where believing in fantasy is crucial to someone's survival or continued happiness. The most I see the claims of religion doing is promising false hope, not actual happiness.

The Woman: Doctor, my husband thinks he's a chicken.
Doctor: No problem, bring him in and we'll fix that.
The Woman: I would, but Doctor, we really need the eggs.

In this case:

Believer: Help, my husband believes in an unverifyable deity.
Skeptic: No problem, I'll talk to him and show him he's wrong.
Believer: No thanks, he really needs the feeling of purpose and security he gets from his belief.

Why does she ask for help in the first place? And anyways, if he needs to make up fantasy to get purpose and security then he needs counseling or something. Just because a religion brainwashes you to think that purpose and security (subjective things) can only be achieved by religion does not justify belief in religion. It makes me, however, only want to destroy the lies even more.

That's what I'm getting at when I say emotional and psychological difficulty. Some people just think they really need the eggs so they will go really far to avoid the reality that they are not a chicken.

Religion produces no egg fit for consumption. It is based on a dangerous kind of thinking. Remove that thinking and religion goes with it.

It's just mistrust, arrogance, and lack of thinking. And arguments based on fallacy to boot.

Or just a failure to approach all aspects of life with the cold hard light of reason. I try to approch life in that manner and I hit a lot of resentment, sometimes serious but usually token (i.e. "You're too logical"). I think the difference, when fully examined, lies in premises and not logic. It's just that sometimes believers use science to try to justify faith, with uniformly poor results. These arguments usually arise as a response to skepical criticism of their beliefs. What we see as a poor excuse for proof they see as a statement that their faith paradigm and our science paradigm are not mutually exclusive, because science cannot affirmitively disprove the existence of a deity. Of course, science this gives no basis for faith, but this doesn't matter if faith is assumed axiomatic.

Faith is simply a name given to believing fictional stories (or stories that, given our current knowledge about them, are most likely fiction), or believing extraordinary claims without evidence, without use of the scientific attitude to analyze said claims.

 

[Suddenly]

Faith is basically elected ignorance. I find it, by scientific standards, impossible to justify.

Faith is simply a name given to believing fictional stories (or stories that, given our current knowledge about them, are most likely fiction), or believing extraordinary claims without evidence, without use of the scientific attitude to analyze said claims.

You seem to be missing the larger point. Faith is by definition not justified by scientific means. If it could be, it wouldn't be faith, correct? Ergo, saying that faith is unsupported by scientific means is not much of a statement in that it is obvious, like saying a bachelor is not married, or that three does not equal two.

What leads you to the conclusion that something not backed by science is not worthy of belief? At some point you had to assume something, no matter how obvious. Something like the fact that your senses are reliable, that you exist, and so on. Philosophers have tried for millenia to construct a coherent picture of reality without making assumptions, and they can't. Were stuck with just not worrying about it, or just assuming our senses work and the external world exists. It's a reasonable and necessary assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.

Thus, at some point you (and I) decide the scientific method is the basis for all belief. This is still at some level an assumption. Logic cannot speak to the quality of premises, it is simply a process for getting conclusions from premises. Other people make assumptions, and these assumptions include the value of faith in a higher power. Yes, science gives no basis for this, but science can't disprove it either. I don't think a burden of proof argument knocks this out either, because for them God is a basic assumption, like we use for reliance on our senses.

It is somewhat unreasonable and unhelpful for me to point out that it is impossible for you to prove by science that your senses are reliable, or that you in fact exist. These aren't conclusions, they are premises. For some people God is a premise.

Of course, there is a common invisible purple unicorn rebuttal that gets floated up about this point, about how this argument makes that as reasonable as God.

It does, but that again misses the point (and reeks of argument from personal incredulity). We all make assumptions just to get along. It is reasonable to cut them down to the minimum, only use what is needed. I find no need for a supernatural omnipotent creator. At least not anymore. Other people still have that assumption or need, and some of these people are very intellegent. They still fail when trying to bring God into the realm of science, usually using some sort of "God of the gaps" fallacy. This just shows the obvious, that the unverifyable in fact cannot be verified.

Yes, faith cannot be justified by scientific means. However, neither can science prove that the external world exists. Both are at some level an assumption. While we may agree that the latter is more reasonable, as we have seemingly much more inductive evidence to support it, your utter contempt for the former assumption seems to me more dogmatic that reasonable.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

You seem to be missing the larger point. Faith is by definition not justified by scientific means. If it could be, it wouldn't be faith, correct? Ergo, saying that faith is unsupported by scientific means is not much of a statement in that it is obvious, like saying a bachelor is not married, or that three does not equal two.

Of course faith is not justified by scientific means. It's because faith is irrational, untestable, and unfalsifiable. Even if the claims made on faith are correct they still aren't justified because they are made on nothing more than speculation.

What leads you to the conclusion that something not backed by science is not worthy of belief? At some point you had to assume something, no matter how obvious. Something like the fact that your senses are reliable, that you exist, and so on. Philosophers have tried for millenia to construct a coherent picture of reality without making assumptions, and they can't. Were stuck with just not worrying about it, or just assuming our senses work and the external world exists. It's a reasonable and necessary assumption, but an assumption nonetheless.

Almost all of my ideas are either the best decision given on the evidence available, and/or testable.

Hell, you can even test the scientific method itself to see if it works. Kind of a paradox, but it works.

Thus, at some point you (and I) decide the scientific method is the basis for all belief. This is still at some level an assumption. Logic cannot speak to the quality of premises, it is simply a process for getting conclusions from premises. Other people make assumptions, and these assumptions include the value of faith in a higher power. Yes, science gives no basis for this, but science can't disprove it either. I don't think a burden of proof argument knocks this out either, because for them God is a basic assumption, like we use for reliance on our senses.

But I have no reason to think that what I see is not actually happening in some way or another, whether it's happening objectively or being intepreted (not flawlessly, either!) by my brain. It doesn't matter if science can't disprove the claims, there are no basis for them and they are not even scientific.

It is somewhat unreasonable and unhelpful for me to point out that it is impossible for you to prove by science that your senses are reliable, or that you in fact exist. These aren't conclusions, they are premises. For some people God is a premise.

It is very possible to prove that senses are reliable (or not). Not absolutely, but that's not what us scientific types EVER shoot for, or expect. Our senses are not all that reliable, either, if they were we would not have magicians in business.

Of course, there is a common invisible purple unicorn rebuttal that gets floated up about this point, about how this argument makes that as reasonable as God.

It does, but that again misses the point (and reeks of argument from personal incredulity). We all make assumptions just to get along. It is reasonable to cut them down to the minimum, only use what is needed. I find no need for a supernatural omnipotent creator. At least not anymore. Other people still have that assumption or need, and some of these people are very intellegent. They still fail when trying to bring God into the realm of science, usually using some sort of "God of the gaps" fallacy. This just shows the obvious, that the unverifyable in fact cannot be verified.

Just because some people think it is a good explanation does not mean it is one! That's the very thing I am fighting-- faith-thinking and ignorance!

Yes, faith cannot be justified by scientific means. However, neither can science prove that the external world exists. Both are at some level an assumption. While we may agree that the latter is more reasonable, as we have seemingly much more inductive evidence to support it, your utter contempt for the former assumption seems to me more dogmatic that reasonable.

Science cannot prove that the external world exists absolutely. But there are mountains of evidence to show that, in fact, there is an objective existence. In fact, to reject such a notion you would have to accept dualism, which is itself silly (Hi, Interesting Ian!) and unscientific.

 

[Suddenly]

Of course faith is not justified by scientific means. It's because faith is irrational, untestable, and unfalsifiable. Even if the claims made on faith are correct they still aren't justified because they are made on nothing more than speculation.



Almost all of my ideas are either the best decision given on the evidence available, and/or testable.

Hell, you can even test the scientific method itself to see if it works. Kind of a paradox, but it works.

But what criteria are you going to use? The scientific method? All this shows is that the scientific method is not self-referentially incoherent.

But I have no reason to think that what I see is not actually happening in some way or another, whether it's happening objectively or being intepreted (not flawlessly, either!) by my brain.

Aren't you here stating a truth and asking it to be disproved? My contention was that sense reliablity can't be proven by science. "No reason to think otherwise" fails that test does it not? You wouldn't accept that argument to argue for God, and rightly so, so it isn't a valid argument for anything else.

It doesn't matter if science can't disprove the claims, there are no basis for them and they are not even scientific.

True, they are not scientific, and that is the problem. Somone who claims a belief and is specific that they understand there is no basis in science for that belief, that belief is not effectively rebutted by saying that belief has no basis in science. We have to look deeper and regard the core reasons for the belief. If that person says the belief is simply assumed, it is fair to call that belief foolish. However, this brings up the obvious question of whether or not we do the same thing, and assume things to be true out of convenience.

It is very possible to prove that senses are reliable (or not). Not absolutely, but that's not what us scientific types EVER shoot for, or expect. Our senses are not all that reliable, either, if they were we would not have magicians in business.

It isn't possible. The only way to judge the data is ... the use of your senses. This is not unlike asking a crazy person if he is sane. You can't even prove you are awake. This is all silly to be sure, but it is true in a technical sense. I think we are wise to make these assumptions, but they are still assumptions.

Just because some people think it is a good explanation does not mean it is one! That's the very thing I am fighting-- faith-thinking and ignorance!

That's not the claim at all. The claim is that it is impossible to even function without making some sort of assumption. I agree we do the best we can, but that doesn't mean assumptions aren't made at some point. My point is that it doesn't make sense to have utter contempt for people who haven't made the same decisions as to what it is reasonable to assume. God is drilled into the minds of most people and many of their thoughts and feelings grew with a sense of God as an anchor. I don't like it, and would like to end that state of affairs, but holding someone in contempt for failing to break free of such things seems unfair, much like having contempt for those born into poverty.

Science cannot prove that the external world exists absolutely. But there are mountains of evidence to show that, in fact, there is an objective existence.

But the acceptance of that evidence rests on an acceptance of the outside world, right? That's bootstrapping, just as relying on senses to prove that sense is reliable is bootstrapping. This just shows consistency, not absolute truth.

In fact, to reject such a notion you would have to accept dualism, which is itself silly (Hi, Interesting Ian!) and unscientific.

Why dualism? Couldn't you just reject the physical all together?

Also, this is a whole different topic, but how are you defining dualism? I'm not Ian, and I haven't read his posts past his "atheism" definition, which lead me to believe my time is better spent elsewhere. I'd agree that a "ghost in the machine" type dualism doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even if one gets past the supernatural aspects.

That said there are other definitions of the soul that seem plausible, such as the soul being to the body what a program is to a computer. That kind of soul is hardly supernatural as it is more a concept than a actual thing. It may be silly semantic games, but it does suggest a plausible concept of existence seperate from the body. Not consciousness or any manifenstation of physical existence, just purely conceptual. Just a thought.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

But what criteria are you going to use? The scientific method? All this shows is that the scientific method is not self-referentially incoherent.

The scientific method can be applied to itself. There is no other superior criteria.

Aren't you here stating a truth and asking it to be disproved? My contention was that sense reliablity can't be proven by science. "No reason to think otherwise" fails that test does it not? You wouldn't accept that argument to argue for God, and rightly so, so it isn't a valid argument for anything else.

Sense reliability CAN be proven by science. You've totally ignored what I said regarding magicians, for example. There is no reason to think our senses are more fallible than they really are because there is no evidence to indicate that-- it is simple speculation.

True, they are not scientific, and that is the problem. Somone who claims a belief and is specific that they understand there is no basis in science for that belief, that belief is not effectively rebutted by saying that belief has no basis in science. We have to look deeper and regard the core reasons for the belief. If that person says the belief is simply assumed, it is fair to call that belief foolish. However, this brings up the obvious question of whether or not we do the same thing, and assume things to be true out of convenience.

If the belief has no basis in science, there is no reason believing in it (if you set aside certain philosophical ideas such as free will, but many can be applied to science as well anyways-- define free will and you can use scientific evidence to see if we have it).

It isn't possible. The only way to judge the data is ... the use of your senses. This is not unlike asking a crazy person if he is sane. You can't even prove you are awake. This is all silly to be sure, but it is true in a technical sense. I think we are wise to make these assumptions, but they are still assumptions.

I can prove I am awake. Analyze my brain waves, see how I react to stimuli, etc...

Or are you saying that such could all be a dream, as well? It could be but I have no reason to think it is (no evidence to support such a position).

These are assumptions in the sense that they are the most parsimoneous explanation.

That's not the claim at all. The claim is that it is impossible to even function without making some sort of assumption. I agree we do the best we can, but that doesn't mean assumptions aren't made at some point. My point is that it doesn't make sense to have utter contempt for people who haven't made the same decisions as to what it is reasonable to assume. God is drilled into the minds of most people and many of their thoughts and feelings grew with a sense of God as an anchor. I don't like it, and would like to end that state of affairs, but holding someone in contempt for failing to break free of such things seems unfair, much like having contempt for those born into poverty.

Yes, but these assumptions are not the same thing as mindless speculation regarding, say, "God". These are the most parsimoneous explanations possible.

I think scientifically because that is the only way of thinking that I can percieve of as being accurate.

But the acceptance of that evidence rests on an acceptance of the outside world, right? That's bootstrapping, just as relying on senses to prove that sense is reliable is bootstrapping. This just shows consistency, not absolute truth.

If you don't accept the outside world then you are just speculating. This is the very reason we have science, to analyze, at the very least, what we percieve to be the outside world.

Why dualism? Couldn't you just reject the physical all together?

Yes, but rejecting the physical entirely is a slightly greater leap.

Also, this is a whole different topic, but how are you defining dualism? I'm not Ian, and I haven't read his posts past his "atheism" definition, which lead me to believe my time is better spent elsewhere. I'd agree that a "ghost in the machine" type dualism doesn't make a whole lot of sense, even if one gets past the supernatural aspects.

Dualism-- the mind and body are seperate, the mind being some sort of supernatural entity existing outside of this physical realm.

That said there are other definitions of the soul that seem plausible, such as the soul being to the body what a program is to a computer. That kind of soul is hardly supernatural as it is more a concept than a actual thing. It may be silly semantic games, but it does suggest a plausible concept of existence seperate from the body. Not consciousness or any manifenstation of physical existence, just purely conceptual. Just a thought.

That is exactly why scientists and philosophers need to define such terms when they use them. I've had to tell people on other messageboards to define "true love" and "free will" so we can be certain we are talking about the same thing.

 

[Suddenly]

The scientific method can be applied to itself. There is no other superior criteria.

Basis for this? Or is this just assumed. Using the scientific method to prove the scientific method is circular, like using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Sense reliability CAN be proven by science. You've totally ignored what I said regarding magicians, for example. There is no reason to think our senses are more fallible than they really are because there is no evidence to indicate that-- it is simple speculation.

I'm not ignoring what you said, it's just that I'm not talking about degrees, I'm saying it can't be proved at all by any method other than gathering data through the senses, and that is circular. I'm not saying that senses fool you every now and then, I'm asking how one justifies belief in them at all. I see a book. How do I know it's there without use of my senses? I can't. It just isn't possible. I can't justify belief in what my senses indicate without relying on data from my senses. It's circular.

I can prove I am awake. Analyze my brain waves, see how I react to stimuli, etc...

Or are you saying that such could all be a dream, as well? It could be but I have no reason to think it is (no evidence to support such a position).

These are assumptions in the sense that they are the most parsimoneous explanation.

Thus we return to the burden of proof problem. "No reason to think it is" is not a valid basis for belief, so as you say you are making a presumption, be it parsimonious or not. We are getting to my point, as this was all I was trying to establish with this line of inquiry.

Yes, but these assumptions are not the same thing as mindless speculation regarding, say, "God". These are the most parsimoneous explanations possible.

I agree, but still we are making some kind of assumption. I'm just saying that the degree may be different, but the "sin" so to speak is the same, the acceptance of fact without evidence. The difference is the justification. We "just know" we aren't asleep. They "just know" God exists. I've been there, and it took me a lot of years to get over it. It was 12 years after I left the Christian Church before I finally abandoned deism. I'm afraid that if I would have encountered your tactics and tone towards believers back then it may have taken longer. The difference in these assumptions may be huge to you, but not to others and you are judging them a bit unfairly as it is more a question of perception than logic or obvious truth. I'm not saying they are right, just that you should calm down a bit.

If you don't accept the outside world then you are just speculating. This is the very reason we have science, to analyze, at the very least, what we percieve to be the outside world.

Perhaps true, but this doesn't address that accepting the outside world is also speculation, perhaps more useful, but still speculation.

Yes, but rejecting the physical entirely is a slightly greater leap.

True, but this was a response to the "have to accept dualism" comment. I was just pointing out that wasn't precisely true. Not really germane to the discussion but I was just being nitty.

Dualism-- the mind and body are seperate, the mind being some sort of supernatural entity existing outside of this physical realm.

That is exactly why scientists and philosophers need to define such terms when they use them. I've had to tell people on other messageboards to define "true love" and "free will" so we can be certain we are talking about the same thing.

I'd agree as to the need for definition. I've never considered "supernatural" as part of the definition of dualism or the soul.

My whole point with this quasi-surreal series is that someone can in fact believe in God and not be a moron, just be a little "off" (as we may put it) in chosing what to assume. I think this is reasonable given the wildly aggressive deist nature of our society. You may disagree, but maybe you have never been exposed or affected by popular pressure to believe. It's a powerful force. I'm now an athiest but I still have moments when I can feel the years of conditioning struggling in the back of my mind, like there is some sort of void there. Perhaps by chance or luck you are spared that, or maybe you are aggressive because that is how you deal with that void. Not really any of my business.


P.S. "Parsimonious" is spelled "ious" not "eous"







I know this 'cause I had to look the *&^*&#$ing thing up. I thought I had a bad habit of using $.50 words.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

Basis for this? Or is this just assumed. Using the scientific method to prove the scientific method is circular, like using the Bible to prove the Bible.

Yes, that's true. But there are no other ways to be justified in knowing things.

I'm not ignoring what you said, it's just that I'm not talking about degrees, I'm saying it can't be proved at all by any method other than gathering data through the senses, and that is circular. I'm not saying that senses fool you every now and then, I'm asking how one justifies belief in them at all. I see a book. How do I know it's there without use of my senses? I can't. It just isn't possible. I can't justify belief in what my senses indicate without relying on data from my senses. It's circular.

Not proved with 100% certainity, but evidence can be provided for. If it's not testable or observable, it can possibly exist, but there's no reason or justification for believing in it.

You rely on your senses because that is all you have to make such decisions (besides books, anecdote, etc...).

Thus we return to the burden of proof problem. "No reason to think it is" is not a valid basis for belief, so as you say you are making a presumption, be it parsimonious or not. We are getting to my point, as this was all I was trying to establish with this line of inquiry.

Because there is NO evidence! There's not even a reason to bring it up! That's why there is no reason to think it is... there is no justification in believing it.

I agree, but still we are making some kind of assumption. I'm just saying that the degree may be different, but the "sin" so to speak is the same, the acceptance of fact without evidence. The difference is the justification. We "just know" we aren't asleep. They "just know" God exists. I've been there, and it took me a lot of years to get over it. It was 12 years after I left the Christian Church before I finally abandoned deism. I'm afraid that if I would have encountered your tactics and tone towards believers back then it may have taken longer. The difference in these assumptions may be huge to you, but not to others and you are judging them a bit unfairly as it is more a question of perception than logic or obvious truth. I'm not saying they are right, just that you should calm down a bit.

First of all, we don't "just know" we are not asleep and are not realizing it. We have no evidence to indicate such a thing, and thus even if it is true we have no way of knowing and can thus disregard it.

You are arguing through solipsism.

It's not the exceptence of fact without evidence, it's the rejection of a "fact" for not having any evidence.

Perhaps true, but this doesn't address that accepting the outside world is also speculation, perhaps more useful, but still speculation.


True, but this was a response to the "have to accept dualism" comment. I was just pointing out that wasn't precisely true. Not really germane to the discussion but I was just being nitty.

"Just speculation"? What do you have to show that objective reality isn't real? I have more than enough evidence for objective evidence. (and yes, I do know what you are talking about).

I am rejecting that position because there is no evidence supporting it.

I'd agree as to the need for definition. I've never considered "supernatural" as part of the definition of dualism or the soul.

My whole point with this quasi-surreal series is that someone can in fact believe in God and not be a moron, just be a little "off" (as we may put it) in chosing what to assume. I think this is reasonable given the wildly aggressive deist nature of our society. You may disagree, but maybe you have never been exposed or affected by popular pressure to believe. It's a powerful force. I'm now an athiest but I still have moments when I can feel the years of conditioning struggling in the back of my mind, like there is some sort of void there. Perhaps by chance or luck you are spared that, or maybe you are aggressive because that is how you deal with that void. Not really any of my business.

It is understandable for someone to be a theist in today's unskeptical society. It is not, however, justifiable to remain one after being introduced to proper arguments

P.S. "Parsimonious" is spelled "ious" not "eous"







I know this 'cause I had to look the *&^*&#$ing thing up. I thought I had a bad habit of using $.50 words.

I realized it may have been wrong, the e didn't look right, but I was too lazy to check.

 

[Suddenly]

You rely on your senses because that is all you have to make such decisions (besides books, anecdote, etc...).

Arguing that you really need something is not evidence that something is true. Plus, how can you use books, etc. without your senses?

Because there is NO evidence! There's not even a reason to bring it up! That's why there is no reason to think it is... there is no justification in believing it.

Exactly. Why not say the same about God? The fact is we are having a "burden of proof" argument. I'm starting from nothing and accepting nothing not proven. You are saying you have no reason to doubt sense, etc. However, that presupposes a belief in the senses, etc., which is an assumption made without evidence, at least without evidence not supplied from the very source being proven.

First of all, we don't "just know" we are not asleep and are not realizing it. We have no evidence to indicate such a thing, and thus even if it is true we have no way of knowing and can thus disregard it.

I'd agree it is not practically relevent. This is not the same as evidence, however.

You are arguing through solipsism.

If we are defining solipsism as: "The philosophical theory that the self is all that you know to exist" then it isn't so much that I'm arguing through it, rather I'm arguing for it. I'm saying lets assume nothing and only accept what can be proven to any degree. The fact is from that standpoint nothing can be accepted. We must assume something at some point.

It's not the exceptence of fact without evidence, it's the rejection of a "fact" for not having any evidence.

You mean "acceptance" right? "Exceptance", were it a word would seem the same as "rejection," no?

Either way I fail to see your point. At some point for a fact to be it must have evidence to support it. Without that evidence belief in a fact is unsupported. I'm just being skeptical about everything and not giving any fact a free pass. When you do this the whole thing seems to collapse into solipsism, except maybe not, as perhaps even the "self" doesn't exist.

"Just speculation"? What do you have to show that objective reality isn't real? I have more than enough evidence for objective evidence. (and yes, I do know what you are talking about).

I am rejecting that position because there is no evidence supporting it.

Now take the above and substute "God" for objective reality. Your evidence can only be accepted if you allow for objective reality. Their evidence can only be accepted if you allow for God. Same deal.

It is understandable for someone to be a theist in today's unskeptical society. It is not, however, justifiable to remain one after being introduced to proper arguments.

I would agree with this in theory. I completely agree that there is no scientific evidence to support such a belief. However, if such a belief is a matter of assumption, I'd still agree but not as enthusiastically, as we have to make assumptions as well. Our assumptions are tighter and more reasonable, in my opinion, but we all do the same thing.

I realized it may have been wrong, the e didn't look right, but I was too lazy to check.

You do realize I was paying a grudging compliment, right? It's not often I have to hit the dictionary for reasons other than spelling. I've been trying to cut back on large words recently, as I have embraced the whole "Law in plain English" movement. So, while I usually by nature use large words, I've been making an effort towards more common usage.

Just a note. People are impressed by big words. However, for some odd reason if they find out one of those words are misspelled they tend to think the user a pompous fraud. I've been perplexed by this, and I try not to care too much, but being a person whose vocabulary exceeds the ability to spell, I keep dictionary.com on my desktop pretty much all the time.

I'm leaving town for the weekend and won't be back until Monday, so any lack of response in that time is due to technical limitations and is not an indication of contempt. We may have reached a jumping off point anyway, but I'll look for this thread when I get back in case you respond.

 

[Lord Kenneth]

I think you are arguing with strawmen here. There is no evidence that God doesn't exist. You don't need any to come to that conclusion with what we currently know.