Hello,
by investigating further don’t you mean applying logic?
Eventually. But I think where we are missing each other is in where in the process we think we are. Right now, I think that in many of the conversations we have here, I would be of the opinion that we are in the 'evidence gathering' stage; and there is far too little to start creating theories of any kind of substance. You seem to indicate the jury is already in and the verdict rendered. I don't see it.
If you do not apply logic until after you have already established it’s EVIDENCE then you just have the illusionary magic part. It only becomes real Evidence after you apply logic, of course by then it’s LOGICAL Evidence.
Okay. To me, evidence isn't logical or not; it's just evidence. It takes someone interpreting it to be logical or not. But I think I see what you are saying.
Latimer:
Ptolomeic astronomy had lots of evidence to support it. However, as it turned out with further observation, the model was not as logical as had been thought. Still, it accurately predicted for centuries the motions of the planets. So, although it was thought to be logical, it turned out not to be.
No, it was Logical, it just wasn’t the most logical.
So, uh, what happened to the coin flipping; if it isn't heads it must be tails? Are you saying there are
degrees of logical-ness?
Yeah, but mainly you are wrong about the God business.
Okay - Let's examine that. How am I wrong about the 'God business?' How do you know what I do and do not believe? You are a skeptic; please provide evidence to me that you understand my belief structure *at all.*
Of course, you might be able to ask the Logical Goddess, and She might be able to give you some juicy details of my belief system. If She does, and you post them, I shall have to seriously consider the validity of Logical Deism to be more likely.
I await the result of this experimental verification of Logical Deism with great anticipation.
Evidence is evidence? All evidence is created equal? One of John Edwards followers telling you that JE really can talk to dead people is just as good as Hubble’s evidence for an expanding Universe? Is that what you are saying?
Nope. There are different qualities of evidence. However, the way to sift through is to gather -- you guessed it -- MORE evidence. Once that's done, you can logically deduce some things; but the gathering of further evidence, or the continued testing of the evidence you already have, is just as important as the logical conclusion.
What is the arbiter of evidence Latimer? … It’s Logic, that is what you use to decide which explanation conforms more accurately with observation.
Well, yes and no. Logic is certainly part of it, but how do you use logic to prove or disprove illogical things? I love my wife, but how might I prove that logically? There is evidence that I love my wife; but can you logically conclude such a thing?
That is True, if you have new information (a new observation/new evidence) that contradicts an existing explanation (Theory). If this new information makes your existing explanation logically inconsistent, then you must modify your explanation, or perhaps even seek a radically different explanation altogether.
Yep, I agree.
It is dishonest to imply that the majority of astronomers, physicist, and cosmologists are in unanimous agreement about the existence of Black Holes. There are MANY problems with the theory and the logical ramifications of it, and there are MANY simpler explanations which better describe the observations (check out Gravistars for example).
The Gravistar theory has some interesting advantages but has a long way to go. And, really, there is disagreement among astronomers, physicists, and cosmologists about the *nature* of black holes. There is little to no debate about the *existence* of them.
A-Theists just think Black Holes are sexy. But we don’t need to divert off on that tangent.
I don't know what's terribly sexy about them, but okay. What evidence could *possibly* be presented to you to change your opinion about the impossibility of black holes?
You seem to be asking me if I can imagine a more realistic model of the Universe then I presently have.
No. I am asking what evidence can you *imagine* being presented to you that might change your opinion. Any at all?
In my mind this is an absurd question. Are you honestly telling me Latimer, that YOU are capable of imagining a more realistic worldview than the worldview you presently hold?
Sure; I did twice before. If someone presented me with irrefutable, concrete evidence that we lived in a Matrix-style computer Universe (by allowing me to jack out of reality, for example) then I would certainly have to adjust my worldview to incorporate this new evidence, wouldn't I?
So, back to you: What evidence can you *imagine* shaking your foundations so much that your belief system would be in doubt? Is there *none* you can *imagine?*
If that is the case, then why not simply switch to the imaginary superior worldview?
Well, because I haven't been jacked out of reality yet.
But I can still imagine it.
I am a Logical Deist, because my lifetime of experience has lead me to the inevitable conclusion that Logical Deism is the most accurate description of reality presently available.
Could you be wrong? And, if so, what would it take to convince you you were wrong? Would convincing you that you were wrong even be *possible?* And what makes your lifetime of experience of a superior quality to anyone else's lifetime of experience? Why can't you allow them to have *their* 'inevitable conclusion?'
If you believe that your worldview is superior, then you will have to convince me of it.
Well, actually, no I don't. The whole superior/inferior idea smacks of elitism. I don't care if anyone shares my worldview or not. It has seemed to work for me; and that's enough. I don't need to convince anyone that my way is the only way; or as a wiser man put it: There are as many different ways up a mountain as there are people who climb it.
So you make up a logically contradictory question, and then based on me telling you that this is a logically contradictory question you conclude that I’m wrong and there is no God?
Sigh. One, the question is not logically contradictory, as I have just explained. Two, there is no pro or anti God part to the question *at all.* You put all that in by yourself.
Latimer, I have noticed that A-Theists like to make up the most ridiculous concept of God that they can possibly imagine, and then pat themselves on the back for disbelieving their own absurd imaginary strawmen.
Okay. What concept of God have I *ever* put forth? What strawman have I knocked down?
If that is what you call Science, or Seeking the Truth, then you can keep your method and I’ll stick to mine.
Okay, and no need to get nasty. But you are accusing me of things and beliefs I have never professed and have never posted. So stop blaming me for strawman arguments I have never made, and for beliefs and concepts I have never typed on this forum (or any other). Fair enough?
Unless you can give me a Logical reason for believing that you have free will or that you get to choose between options, then I’d say any rational mind goes with the superior evidence and concludes:
Well, Free will I have never argued about at all. As for choosing between options, I seem to recall the experience of looking on a menu and picking something to eat; that could be argued as choosing between options.
It must be dinnertime.
Now, so it doesn't get lost in the shuffle; what we were talking about earlier...
You are stating that you have evidence of a deterministic Universe; that randomness does not exist. Yet, you cannot make the prediction of what a single six-sided dice will roll with 100 percent accuracy. You cannot predict the weather with 100 percent accuracy. So, your syllogism needs refining to address these observations.
You can state that you don't have enough information to make these predictions; how can it be *assumed* that the information exists?
You can argue that if the Universe is not deterministic, then nothing can be predicted, but that's simply carrying the argument too far. It's using the Either/Or fallacy, without addressing any of the ground in between.
As an example: I cannot predict with complete accuracy the rolling of a single six sided die. However, I can predict with *some* accuracy the rolling of 1000 such dice. (If you add up the total it should be fairly near to 3500.) The more dice are rolled, the more accurate my prediction will be; but never to 100 percent accuracy. Because each time we roll the 1000 dice, there is the chance they will all roll '1.' It's unlikely, statistically, but it happens. And yet, predicting the roll of every single dice of the 1000 is much more difficult.
So, these seem to be demonstrations that probabilistic outcomes can exist without determinism. You'd need to provide evidence that, with complete understanding of a system in which any randomness exists at all, would be 100 percent predictable.
I'll close with a question: If the fifty-five mile per hour speed limit were a law of physics, wouldn't I be obeying it at 53 as well as 55 miles per hour? Answer Yes or No.
Keep smiling,
