How long have we been at this BS? It'll be a decade next year. I was kinda hoping to feel out DJK3654. But, I see he's skipped my post (as you've skipped everyones else's) and left me in your capable hands. I kinda had a feeling as I first responded to DJK3654 this would likely turn into 'Take 37' in this dance you and I dance. We're very acquainted with one another on this subject, BS, and I say -unabashedly- you've taught me just about everything I know about it. It would be an honor to met you.
It's always felt weird to me to have this level of intimacy with another human being without ever seeing their face or hearing their voice. This is going to sound creepy (and it probably is), but every time I go to a new gaming store or GP or whathaveyou I always look around the room for you. I always think to myself "One of these people could be BS. Maybe one of them will say something that will tip me off this time." It just feels weird that I will never knowingly lay eyes on your physical form. I will likely die devoid of any real knowledge about someone who's impacted my life -off and on- for a myriad of years...
...Well... Anyway, you were saying
But, saying 'probably not that' IS ranking a claim higher than other claims, mainly the 'not that' claim.
I literally just said that "probably not X" applies equally to all X.
Including "X='notGod'" ?
Because if you're ranking "probably not 'notGod'" as equally (which is to say 'nowhere' since are ranking system is nonexistence) as "probably not 'God'" than your an agonistic agonistic, not an agonistic atheist.
But, from your post it seemed clear you didn't mean "for all X, including -but not limited- to X='notGod'" You're ranking "X=God" as more improbable than "X=notGod," without real evidence to do so.
"If I roll a d20, it's probably not going to land on the number 1. It's also probably not going to land on the number 2. And so on and so forth. It does not follow from this that it's probably not going to land on any number.
Right. The difference being, in this example we know quite a bit about d20's. If it was a d1 -for example- your "it's probably not going to land on the number 1" would be very incorrect. If it was a d20 with every side reading '2' then your "It's also probably not going to land on the number 2" would also be incorrect.
So, if we don't know anything about the thing, it wouldn't be logical to start making guesses, "nots" or otherwise.
@highroller
Morality is a culturally generated concept, it's not something you can test or measure, it's something to be thought. It's subjective and immaterial.
Concepts and thoughts don't exist in objective reality?
@TomCat26
I already clarified this. It's simple: for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute. Scientific method is designed to find objective explanations for everything that it can, to posit something outside it but within its territory is therefore to question it's validity. Day to day decisions are not truths, so science doesn't need apply, art and spirituality are subjective so the same is true, philosophy deals with immaterial and subjective things, so is also not scientifically bound.
But many religious beliefs including Gods are theoretically testable (or in some cases, have been tested, providing scientific disproof), objective, potential truth, so science is applicable. Therefore, you need either scientific support or a very, very good explanation for why you don't need science, which are the two things I am asking for.
Science, and the scientific method, doesn't provide objective truths.
And this [quote=}for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute.{/quote], (heck your entire post and rationale for which to apply the scientific method and for which to not) seems incredibly subjective.
I mean... what the bloody hell does "within its territory" even mean?
The scientific method can be applied to virtually all perceivable things in reality.
@lycodrake
Metaphysics is by definition outside testing and observation and therefore fundamentally invalid as explanation. The claim that something is metaphysical is equivalent to saying it is not worthy of debate except by philosophers, metaphysics hold no basis in evidence, only in sheer possibility, which has already been discussed andin this thread and the conclusion is clearly that possibility is mostly arbitrary: burden of proof is positive. Metaphysics is the admission to not having an argument and not actually being able to make one. We can discount the metaphysical explanation of the soul on this basis, so the soul is discredited.
I can only disagree with you on this; I am done here, then.
@Taylor
There probably isn't a God is a negative affirmation. It can be said because the burden of proof is on theists, until they can give some evidence, the logical conclusion is to discount God, that's the whole point of Russell's Teapot. We should not give credence to something just because it's possible, there are far too many possibilities for that. If a possibility isn't positively supported by evidence, it's similarly likely to every other unsupported possibility, which makes it extremely unlikely by the sheer number. This is just maths.
@highroller
Concepts are infinite, they don't need describe reality. This is why self definitive statements are true e.g. all bachelors are single, because bachelor is a concept, it need not apply to be true in concept. Morality is a concept, and it's highly subjective at that. There is nothing within the mechanics of the universe that decides whether murder or any other immoral act should be done, humans artificially created it. If we cannot test, observe or measure something it's outside science and outside objective reality, in the way that we cannot test, observe or measure the immorality of something, we can only subjectively decide it.
@magickware99
Science is totally objective provided you accept it's philosophical assumptions, which, if you didn't, you'd been in an asylum most likely because everybody instinctively assumes what science does.
The point of my rationale is to say for all matters that science fits practically and logically (within it's territory), there is no substitute because no method has been proposed with the same high standard of objectivity. Scientific method is pretty intuitive, asking for it's validation isn't much of a leap from common sense. Empirical evidence is a fancy name, but it merely describes observable evidence, it describes exactly what you'd probably look for to see if something is true, that's why it is used. If you think you can provide justifactation for religious beliefs (excluding moral concepts or historical accounts) outside science, then you must further justify why you don't need science despite the fact that such beliefs fall under scientific rationale.
@highroller
Concepts are infinite, they don't need describe reality.
Morality does not describe reality?
This is why self definitive statements are true e.g. all bachelors are single, because bachelor is a concept, it need not apply to be true in concept.
Bachelors don't exist?
There is nothing within the mechanics of the universe that decides whether murder or any other immoral act should be done, humans artificially created it.
How can something that is created not exist? That's what the word "create" means.
If we cannot test, observe or measure something it's outside science and outside objective reality,
Which is rather the problem: you think that "outside of the natural sciences" means "not real." But that's not actually what the word "science" means. The sciences are disciplines, fields of study of observable phenomena that can be quantified and experimented on. But there are disciplines outside of the sciences. For example: the discipline of history. I cannot test, observe, or measure Alexander the Great. I cannot see, smell, taste, touch, or feel Alexander the Great. So did Alexander the Great exist?
Also, seriously, are you actually arguing that thoughts don't exist?
in the way that we cannot test, observe or measure the immorality of something, we can only subjectively decide it.
Does language exist? There are no language molecules, language atoms, language particles of any kind. One cannot test the chemical reactions of language. Language is not biological in nature. Language is not subject to any physical laws because it does not exist physically.
But it still exists. We are using it. And this is your problem. You are taking things to mean that because something is outside of the discipline of science's boundaries, it does not exist. Yet, language clearly exists. Hell, we observe its usage all the damn time.
Science is totally objective provided you accept it's philosophical assumptions, which, if you didn't, you'd been in an asylum most likely because everybody instinctively assumes what science does.
Erm... No. They don't. That's why science is learned, and why it took a while for the scientific method to appear. Philosophy is not something instinctual, and saying that is rather diminishing to all of the great thinkers that got us to where we are.
But it still exists. We are using it. And this is your problem. You are taking things to mean that because something is outside of the discipline of science's boundaries, it does not exist. Yet, language clearly exists. Hell, we observe its usage all the damn time.
And we do science on it. So clearly it's not even outside science's boundaries.
Erm... No. They don't. That's why science is learned, and why it took a while for the scientific method to appear. Philosophy is not something instinctual, and saying that is rather diminishing to all of the great thinkers that got us to where we are.
There are some really basic assumptions you need to do science that are instinctual and fall under the general description of "being sane". Stuff like "The universe exists and I'm not just hallucinating" and "The universe behaves according to consistent rules and things don't just happen randomly". But yes, much has been built upon these basic premises by very clever people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
@magickware99
Science is totally objective provided you accept it's philosophical assumptions, which, if you didn't, you'd been in an asylum most likely because everybody instinctively assumes what science does.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "instinctively assumes". I'm going to assume that you mean that people attempt to ascribe meaning to anything and everything. Which isn't a very helpful assumption to make, since it is generally accepted that it is this very assumption that caused people to create religion.
In any case, I wrote "science doesn't provide objective truth", not "science is not objective". If we follow "...provided you accept its philosophical assumptions", then Christianity makes a lot of sense. Everything does, provided you accept its philosophical assumption.
The point of my rationale is to say for all matters that science fits practically and logically (within it's territory), there is no substitute because no method has been proposed with the same high standard of objectivity. Scientific method is pretty intuitive, asking for it's validation isn't much of a leap from common sense. Empirical evidence is a fancy name, but it merely describes observable evidence, it describes exactly what you'd probably look for to see if something is true, that's why it is used. If you think you can provide justifactation for religious beliefs (excluding moral concepts or historical accounts) outside science, then you must further justify why you don't need science despite the fact that such beliefs fall under scientific rationale.
My mother had cancer. The doctors got rid of it through a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. It returned an year and a half or so later. Doctors found it through a routine blood test. They confirmed it through biopsy and MRI (I think it was MRI, or w.e.they use to confirm large masses in the intestines). When they went into surgery to remove it, they found absolutely nothing. The surgeon spent 6 hours digging through her intestines to find even a tiny sign of a tumor. Nothing. Blood tests show nothing. MRI (or .w.e they used) taken shortly later show nothing.
It would be a severe ******* understatement to write that it baffled her oncologists.
She has been cancer-free for another two years now. Her oncologists don't like her very much.
Now, onto the real part-
My parents are Christians. Their church held a really big prayer session at the hospital shortly before she went into surgery. Her pastor and many in the congregation claim that the power of prayer removed the tumor. My parents don't quite believe in this, but consider it a miracle anyhow.
How do you suppose they (let's assume this means the pastor and my parents for a moment here) arrived at their respective conclusions?
I suppose the only failures they have in applying the scientific method is that they're working with N=1 and this cannot be replicated.
There are some really basic assumptions you need to do science that are instinctual and fall under the general description of "being sane". Stuff like "The universe exists and I'm not just hallucinating" and "The universe behaves according to consistent rules and things don't just happen randomly". But yes, much has been built upon these basic premises by very clever people.
Wouldn't the instinct here really just be plain human inquisitiveness?
@magickware99
Science has two philosophical assumptions: that there exists an objective, consistent reality, and that we can accurately perceive, directly and indirectly, that reality.
I don't think there is a sane person in history that doesn't instinctively think this way. Philosophers took a time to narrow down that these are assumptions and not truths. We otherwise wouldn't even consider the possibility that everything you can see is wrong. This is simply because these assumptions are probably right, we have no real reason to doubt them, only the knowledge that they are potentially fallible. Hence, science establishes objective truth within those assumptions, and strong rationality even if you question the assumptions.
-
On to your anecdotal miracle, it is virtually worthless on account of the reliability of the source (as an anecdote) and the existence of perfectly good explanation (failure of the practitioners, complicating factors, etc.) to oppose prayer-power, which is in-and-of-itself a bad explanation due to limited explanation ("god did it"- but how?) and a record of abysmally poor testing support.
EDIT: To elaborate on the testing of prayer-power, it is has the same experimental results as homeopathy, not at all discernibly different from a placebo, i.e. probably IS placebo.
Not really, it relates to reality, but it's not part of reality. Morality is not part of the universe's mechanics, it's a human code of conduct. It's part of conceptual reality, not 'true' reality, under the assumptions of science and common sense (believing that things you can see don't exist is impractical for one).
Bachelors might not exist. Philosophically, we can't be sure. But we know all bachelors are single because "bachelor" is a concept that itself denotes being single. It need not apply to reality, but the concept is always true. Objective reality is absolute in existence but cannot be known absolutely, conceptual reality cannot be absolute in existence (because concepts merely describe or relate to reality, they are not part of it) but is known absolutely.
Which is rather the problem: you think that "outside of the natural sciences" means "not real." But that's not actually what the word "science" means. The sciences are disciplines, fields of study of observable phenomena that can be quantified and experimented on. But there are disciplines outside of the sciences. For example: the discipline of history. I cannot test, observe, or measure Alexander the Great. I cannot see, smell, taste, touch, or feel Alexander the Great. So did Alexander the Great exist?
Also, seriously, are you actually arguing that thoughts don't exist?
No I don't think outside the natural sciences means not real, I know that outside the natural sciences, or perhaps some other method with the same fundamental components, means not really possible to prove being real. You can observe indirectly evidence that Alexander the Great exists: archaeology and even the weak anecdote. History has elements of science, it just takes more liberties with the standard of evidence required, notably that anecdotes are actually considered significant. Hence, the science component is sufficient to suggest the existence of Alexander the Great and other historical matters. Anything that cannot be analysed by science is either subjective, immaterial or outside our abilities. All of which mean that they cannot be proved. The burden of proof being positive, they are discounted as objective reality.
Thoughts exist in a material sense, but thoughts are also concepts, where the concepts being thought of describe the imagery produced by the material brain. Morality is a thought, but unless you include the material process that are connected to it, it doesn't exist in a material sense. It relates to material things, but doesn't describe any particular one. In this way, morality is outside science, but validly so because it doesn't compete with science like many religious beliefs do.
Does language exist? There are no language molecules, language atoms, language particles of any kind. One cannot test the chemical reactions of language. Language is not biological in nature. Language is not subject to any physical laws because it does not exist physically.
But it still exists. We are using it. And this is your problem. You are taking things to mean that because something is outside of the discipline of science's boundaries, it does not exist. Yet, language clearly exists. Hell, we observe its usage all the damn time.
One can observe language, language is sound. One can test language, in it's ability to effectively convey information to another brain. And even if it didn't exist materially, it would still exist conceptually, just not objectively within reality, which was what I was saying. If something is outside science, it may well exist, but we have no method of proving it, in the same way as something within science may not exist, but we have no reason to deny it.
Erm... No. They don't. That's why science is learned, and why it took a while for the scientific method to appear. Philosophy is not something instinctual, and saying that is rather diminishing to all of the great thinkers that got us to where we are.
Philosophy is not instinctual, the philosophical assumptions of science are. That's why they are instinctual "assumptions", we don't truly know that they are right, but we instinctively think that they are- until we analyse our thinking using philosophy.
@Blinking Spirit
You're not "leaving it at that" if you're writing a PS.
My understand is the Principle of Explosion shows all statements made from nonsense are 'equal.' The question is like the omnipotence paradox, illogical. Thus, it doesn't have an answer.
And, I know what you're driving at with the rest of your statements about probability. You're claiming the set "not God" is bigger than the set "God." But, we danced that one already. I stated -because of the infinite variations of "God"- both sets were uncountably large. Thus, neither was 'bigger' than the other. If you made some counterclaim, I don't recall.
I don't think you did.
@Taylor
There probably isn't a God is a negative affirmation. It can be said because the burden of proof is on theists, until they can give some evidence, the logical conclusion is to discount God, that's the whole point of Russell's Teapot. We should not give credence to something just because it's possible, there are far too many possibilities for that. If a possibility isn't positively supported by evidence, it's similarly likely to every other unsupported possibility, which makes it extremely unlikely by the sheer number. This is just maths.
Agnosticism isn't giving anything "credence;" that's ITS point. While agnostic atheism IS giving one side credence, but doing so without evidence. If I were to state "not all triangles have sides that add up to 180 degrees," I wouldn't have to prove it? I don't think so.
"Negative affirmations" (which is an oxymoron) -as you call them- are still positive claims; rebranding isn't going to change that fact. All claims need to be held to the same standard. I know it's upsetting to think that Dawkins' "I'm 99% sure there is no God" is held to the same standard as This Guy, but that's why we call them STANDARDS.
(If it makes you feel any better, Dawkins' DNA evidence for evolution is also held to the same standard, and there he crushes his competition--like Intelligent Design.)
My mother had cancer. The doctors got rid of it through a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. It returned an year and a half or so later. Doctors found it through a routine blood test. They confirmed it through biopsy and MRI (I think it was MRI, or w.e.they use to confirm large masses in the intestines). When they went into surgery to remove it, they found absolutely nothing. The surgeon spent 6 hours digging through her intestines to find even a tiny sign of a tumor. Nothing. Blood tests show nothing. MRI (or .w.e they used) taken shortly later show nothing.
It would be a severe ******* understatement to write that it baffled her oncologists.
She has been cancer-free for another two years now. Her oncologists don't like her very much.
Now, onto the real part-
My parents are Christians. Their church held a really big prayer session at the hospital shortly before she went into surgery. Her pastor and many in the congregation claim that the power of prayer removed the tumor. My parents don't quite believe in this, but consider it a miracle anyhow.
How do you suppose they (let's assume this means the pastor and my parents for a moment here) arrived at their respective conclusions?
I suppose the only failures they have in applying the scientific method is that they're working with N=1 and this cannot be replicated.
Let me first state that I'm very happy to hear your mother is now cancer-free! I'm working in cancer research myself and know devastating this disease can be.
However, on the debate on science. I think you are skipping on a few essential characteristics which, in my opinion, are a key aspect of the scientific method. First, your scientific experiment consists of the following setup:
At T=0 we have patient X where we think there is a tumor because we have two tests (with a low chance of false positives) telling us that it is the case.
At T=1 the patient X goes into surgery where we find no tumor whatsoever.
However, we have no empirical data on any moment between T=0 and T=1, to consider one of the things she did is the cause of her not having a tumor anymore we must be able to disregard all further variables. How do you know that, for instance, brushing her teeth is not the cause of her cure? The probability is just a high as the prayer being the cure. Furthermore, you only have one patient (indeed N=1 as you stated) which also doesn't provide enough statistical power.
You need many more patients with the same disease, all under the same controlled circumstances (with only the prayer being different between both groups) to be able to say anything about its function. Then again, if you do this you can only prove there is some benefit in the prayer, whether this is God's work or a human reaction can not be proven at all.
In my opinion the problem with this whole debate is that we will never get to a final answer. A good scientist will always agree with the fact that we know nothing for certain. For instance, if we look at 2.5 million swans, all of them having white feathers, we state that swans are white. However, it can always be that the next swan we look at is green..
We can never ever prove something definitely. The religious people will never cave, they think they are right (the book says so) and we can never disprove it.
So.. Basically, as a scientist you have to always state you are agnostic, you don't know if there is a God or not and you can not prove or disprove it.
In my opinion the problem with this whole debate is that we will never get to a final answer. A good scientist will always agree with the fact that we know nothing for certain. For instance, if we look at 2.5 million swans, all of them having white feathers, we state that swans are white. However, it can always be that the next swan we look at is green..
We can never ever prove something definitely. The religious people will never cave, they think they are right (the book says so) and we can never disprove it.
So.. Basically, as a scientist you have to always state you are agnostic, you don't know if there is a God or not and you can not prove or disprove it.
A truthless based science does not really exist. There are some hard facts which stand as the scientific paradigm, until proven otherwise. If we fall into the post-modernist pitfall trap, there will be nothing to research anymore.
Any case for which you can not bring any evidence and/or anti-evidence, or even the slightest of plausible thought, shouldn't really be discussed at all, hence rendering the discussion worthles which should, in a rational sense, lead to denial of the subject. Thus, said subject does not and can not exist.
In the past, so many false assumptions, ideas of old about world functioning, how diseases work, natural phenomena....
Science has actually disproven almost innumerable lasting theories.
As a scientist I can truthfully claim there is not a single god.
However, I know many religious people and I treat them indifferent from atheist people. One thing I particularly like about people being religious, in my experience, is that they show ambition.
My understand is the Principle of Explosion shows all statements made from nonsense are 'equal.' The question is like the omnipotence paradox, illogical. Thus, it doesn't have an answer.
The principle of explosion shows that if you assume a contradiction to be true, this implies an absurdity. Thus, the contradiction is false. Basic reductio ad absurdum. No hand-wavey notions of "neither true nor false" necessary.
And, I know what you're driving at with the rest of your statements about probability. You're claiming the set "not God" is bigger than the set "God." But, we danced that one already. I stated -because of the infinite variations of "God"- both sets were uncountably large. Thus, neither was 'bigger' than the other. If you made some counterclaim, I don't recall.
I don't think you did.
You don't determine probability by comparing Cantor cardinalities, because that would imply absurdities about probabilities on continua (where all sections no matter how small have the same number of points). Even if you did, you don't have any Cantor cardinalities to compare here -- "uncountably infinite" is everything above aleph-null.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Not really, it relates to reality, but it's not part of reality. Morality is not part of the universe's mechanics,
Which does not mean it's not a part of reality. Language is not related to the universe's mechanics. Once again, you are conflating "not the domain of the hard sciences" with "does not exist," which does not follow.
In fact, it's another demonstration of how you don't actually seem to understand what the word "science" means, as there are social sciences. Saying something is a human creation and therefore not real is a very confusing position for a proponent of science determining reality when anthropology is considered a social science.
It's part of conceptual reality, not 'true' reality,
Ok, unless you're advocating some strange dualism, concepts exist in our reality because anything that exists must exist in reality. That's what "reality" means.
Thoughts exist. We have them in our physical brains which physically exist.
Bachelors might not exist.
No, bachelors DO exist. A bachelor is an unmarried male person. Unmarried male people exist.
Quote from DJK3654 »
Morality is created conceptually, not within objective 'true' reality.
Again, our brains exist in objective, 'true' reality, as you so call it, and therefore our thoughts must also, because thoughts come from our brains.
No I don't think outside the natural sciences means not real,
You have demonstrated that this is what you think, actually.
And even if it didn't exist materially, it would still exist conceptually, just not objectively within reality, which was what I was saying.
If something exists, it exists within reality. Otherwise, how could it exist?
If something is outside science, it may well exist, but we have no method of proving it,
We have no way of proving the existence of concepts? We are demonstrating the existence of concepts right now!
Philosophy is not instinctual, the philosophical assumptions of science are.
They most certainly are not. The scientific method is far from instinctual. If it were instinctual, we would have had science at the dawn of time, as opposed to the entirety of history between our common ancestor with the bonobos and Aristotle to come up with scientific inquiry, and we wouldn't have needed the 1500-or-so years it took between Aristotle and the arguable beginnings of modern science.
The principle of explosion shows that if you assume a contradiction to be true, this implies an absurdity. Thus, the contradiction is false. Basic reductio ad absurdum. No hand-wavey notions of "neither true nor false" necessary.
Alright, but I don't think any of that helps your case as to the answer to the absurd question. The question might be 'false,' but the answer is still not. Since the answer is what were talking about, I stand by original statement: "You're confusing "nonsense" with "false.""
You don't determine probability by comparing Cantor cardinalities, because that would imply absurdities about probabilities on continua (where all sections no matter how small have the same number of points). Even if you did, you don't have any Cantor cardinalities to compare here -- "uncountably infinite" is everything above aleph-null.
Then what bases are you using to justify "not God" as being more probable than "God?"
Alright, but I don't think any of that helps your case as to the answer to the absurd question. The question might be 'false,' but the answer is still not.
What? A question actually is something that's neither true nor false. Because, y'know, it's a question. Of course I'm talking about the answer!
Since the answer is what were talking about, I stand by original statement: "You're confusing "nonsense" with "false.""
If by "nonsense" you mean "contradiction", as you appear to and as you should in this case, then you already have my response: all contradictions are false.
Then what bases are you using to justify "not God" as being more probable than "God?"
Do what you actually do when calculating probabilities over continua: recognize that you're really just talking about regions in a probability space mathematically equivalent to the geometric concept of areas (or lengths or volumes or 4-volumes or whatever), and can compare their sizes easily. Think of the probability space as a dartboard that you are labeling and then throwing darts at to guess the cause of the universe. Your task is to determine the size of the "God" hypothesis region. Would you give it half the board? Okay. Now determine the size of the "sea turtles" hypothesis region. Would you give it half the board? Okay. Now determine the size of the "New Age music" hypothesis region. Would you give it half the board? Well, you can't; you've used the whole board already.
Clearly some of these regions have to be smaller than half the board. And clearly they all have to be the same size, or else you're privileging one hypothesis over the others. So the "God" hypothesis region is smaller than half the probability space. Which means the regions that are not the "God" hypothesis region are collectively larger than half the probability space. This is okay because "not God" is not a hypothesis. It's every hypothesis, except the "God" one(s).
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Something being a social construct doesn't make it not real, it just makes it not tangible.
Look, I get the objective/subjective reality thing. I really do. But our subjective experiences are still 'real', too.
I don't believe there is some objective arbiter of a universal morality, but I do believe human beings evolved with morality to make a cooperative species. If we were all sociopaths, we wouldn't get anywhere as a society. So, morality is real in the same way love is real, or hunger is real. They're concepts to describe impulses in our brains. They're still real, even if they're not some kind of universal constant (like Interstellar *gag* implies).
God (or no God) I love discussions like these. So much intelligence. It really is a Blast of Genius even though alot goes over my head. As they say "A book a day keeps the Dr away."
@Highroller
The fundamental point to establish here is that immaterial cannot be proven to exist. It's not that once you step outside science, you are outside reality per say, and I thought I made this clear, but that you can no longer prove something of reality. The only useful, practical definition of reality is a scientific one. Philosophical definitions are still valid, but without materiality, doubt becomes absolute.
Hence, when we look at morality, unless we count the material representations of it, morality does not exist in reality in this sense. Fundamentally, it has no connection to observations we can make of obsevable reality, only representations of the process that it entails and the material thought that creates it. It still exists in concept however, it can still be described and discussed, but it cannot be proven or tested. It merely exists as an idea, a method.
It's always felt weird to me to have this level of intimacy with another human being without ever seeing their face or hearing their voice. This is going to sound creepy (and it probably is), but every time I go to a new gaming store or GP or whathaveyou I always look around the room for you. I always think to myself "One of these people could be BS. Maybe one of them will say something that will tip me off this time." It just feels weird that I will never knowingly lay eyes on your physical form. I will likely die devoid of any real knowledge about someone who's impacted my life -off and on- for a myriad of years...
...Well... Anyway, you were saying
Including "X='notGod'" ?
Because if you're ranking "probably not 'notGod'" as equally (which is to say 'nowhere' since are ranking system is nonexistence) as "probably not 'God'" than your an agonistic agonistic, not an agonistic atheist.
But, from your post it seemed clear you didn't mean "for all X, including -but not limited- to X='notGod'" You're ranking "X=God" as more improbable than "X=notGod," without real evidence to do so.
Right. The difference being, in this example we know quite a bit about d20's. If it was a d1 -for example- your "it's probably not going to land on the number 1" would be very incorrect. If it was a d20 with every side reading '2' then your "It's also probably not going to land on the number 2" would also be incorrect.
So, if we don't know anything about the thing, it wouldn't be logical to start making guesses, "nots" or otherwise.
True. And, to say "I don't know" isn't to "privilege the hypothesis of sea turtles." It is to say "I don't know."
You're confusing "nonsense" with "false."
The statement "X came before everything" is nonsense; it's not true or false.
Or -at least- it's self contradictory, so we invoke the Principle of explosion.
And, unless you also apply this principle to your positive affirmation of "There probably isn't a God," you're special pleading.
Science, and the scientific method, doesn't provide objective truths.
And this [quote=}for all things to which evidence based reasoning is applicable and practical, there is no substitute.{/quote], (heck your entire post and rationale for which to apply the scientific method and for which to not) seems incredibly subjective.
I mean... what the bloody hell does "within its territory" even mean?
The scientific method can be applied to virtually all perceivable things in reality.
I can only disagree with you on this; I am done here, then.
EDH: GWCaptain Sisay
PS: All contradictions are false. The principle of explosion is a proof of this.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
There probably isn't a God is a negative affirmation. It can be said because the burden of proof is on theists, until they can give some evidence, the logical conclusion is to discount God, that's the whole point of Russell's Teapot. We should not give credence to something just because it's possible, there are far too many possibilities for that. If a possibility isn't positively supported by evidence, it's similarly likely to every other unsupported possibility, which makes it extremely unlikely by the sheer number. This is just maths.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Concepts are infinite, they don't need describe reality. This is why self definitive statements are true e.g. all bachelors are single, because bachelor is a concept, it need not apply to be true in concept. Morality is a concept, and it's highly subjective at that. There is nothing within the mechanics of the universe that decides whether murder or any other immoral act should be done, humans artificially created it. If we cannot test, observe or measure something it's outside science and outside objective reality, in the way that we cannot test, observe or measure the immorality of something, we can only subjectively decide it.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Science is totally objective provided you accept it's philosophical assumptions, which, if you didn't, you'd been in an asylum most likely because everybody instinctively assumes what science does.
The point of my rationale is to say for all matters that science fits practically and logically (within it's territory), there is no substitute because no method has been proposed with the same high standard of objectivity. Scientific method is pretty intuitive, asking for it's validation isn't much of a leap from common sense. Empirical evidence is a fancy name, but it merely describes observable evidence, it describes exactly what you'd probably look for to see if something is true, that's why it is used. If you think you can provide justifactation for religious beliefs (excluding moral concepts or historical accounts) outside science, then you must further justify why you don't need science despite the fact that such beliefs fall under scientific rationale.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Bachelors don't exist?
How can something that is created not exist? That's what the word "create" means.
Which is rather the problem: you think that "outside of the natural sciences" means "not real." But that's not actually what the word "science" means. The sciences are disciplines, fields of study of observable phenomena that can be quantified and experimented on. But there are disciplines outside of the sciences. For example: the discipline of history. I cannot test, observe, or measure Alexander the Great. I cannot see, smell, taste, touch, or feel Alexander the Great. So did Alexander the Great exist?
Also, seriously, are you actually arguing that thoughts don't exist?
Does language exist? There are no language molecules, language atoms, language particles of any kind. One cannot test the chemical reactions of language. Language is not biological in nature. Language is not subject to any physical laws because it does not exist physically.
But it still exists. We are using it. And this is your problem. You are taking things to mean that because something is outside of the discipline of science's boundaries, it does not exist. Yet, language clearly exists. Hell, we observe its usage all the damn time.
Erm... No. They don't. That's why science is learned, and why it took a while for the scientific method to appear. Philosophy is not something instinctual, and saying that is rather diminishing to all of the great thinkers that got us to where we are.
There are some really basic assumptions you need to do science that are instinctual and fall under the general description of "being sane". Stuff like "The universe exists and I'm not just hallucinating" and "The universe behaves according to consistent rules and things don't just happen randomly". But yes, much has been built upon these basic premises by very clever people.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "instinctively assumes". I'm going to assume that you mean that people attempt to ascribe meaning to anything and everything. Which isn't a very helpful assumption to make, since it is generally accepted that it is this very assumption that caused people to create religion.
In any case, I wrote "science doesn't provide objective truth", not "science is not objective". If we follow "...provided you accept its philosophical assumptions", then Christianity makes a lot of sense. Everything does, provided you accept its philosophical assumption.
My mother had cancer. The doctors got rid of it through a combination of chemotherapy and surgery. It returned an year and a half or so later. Doctors found it through a routine blood test. They confirmed it through biopsy and MRI (I think it was MRI, or w.e.they use to confirm large masses in the intestines). When they went into surgery to remove it, they found absolutely nothing. The surgeon spent 6 hours digging through her intestines to find even a tiny sign of a tumor. Nothing. Blood tests show nothing. MRI (or .w.e they used) taken shortly later show nothing.
It would be a severe ******* understatement to write that it baffled her oncologists.
She has been cancer-free for another two years now. Her oncologists don't like her very much.
Now, onto the real part-
My parents are Christians. Their church held a really big prayer session at the hospital shortly before she went into surgery. Her pastor and many in the congregation claim that the power of prayer removed the tumor. My parents don't quite believe in this, but consider it a miracle anyhow.
How do you suppose they (let's assume this means the pastor and my parents for a moment here) arrived at their respective conclusions?
I suppose the only failures they have in applying the scientific method is that they're working with N=1 and this cannot be replicated.
Wouldn't the instinct here really just be plain human inquisitiveness?
Science has two philosophical assumptions: that there exists an objective, consistent reality, and that we can accurately perceive, directly and indirectly, that reality.
I don't think there is a sane person in history that doesn't instinctively think this way. Philosophers took a time to narrow down that these are assumptions and not truths. We otherwise wouldn't even consider the possibility that everything you can see is wrong. This is simply because these assumptions are probably right, we have no real reason to doubt them, only the knowledge that they are potentially fallible. Hence, science establishes objective truth within those assumptions, and strong rationality even if you question the assumptions.
-
On to your anecdotal miracle, it is virtually worthless on account of the reliability of the source (as an anecdote) and the existence of perfectly good explanation (failure of the practitioners, complicating factors, etc.) to oppose prayer-power, which is in-and-of-itself a bad explanation due to limited explanation ("god did it"- but how?) and a record of abysmally poor testing support.
EDIT: To elaborate on the testing of prayer-power, it is has the same experimental results as homeopathy, not at all discernibly different from a placebo, i.e. probably IS placebo.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
Not really, it relates to reality, but it's not part of reality. Morality is not part of the universe's mechanics, it's a human code of conduct. It's part of conceptual reality, not 'true' reality, under the assumptions of science and common sense (believing that things you can see don't exist is impractical for one).
Bachelors might not exist. Philosophically, we can't be sure. But we know all bachelors are single because "bachelor" is a concept that itself denotes being single. It need not apply to reality, but the concept is always true. Objective reality is absolute in existence but cannot be known absolutely, conceptual reality cannot be absolute in existence (because concepts merely describe or relate to reality, they are not part of it) but is known absolutely.
Morality is created conceptually, not within objective 'true' reality.
No I don't think outside the natural sciences means not real, I know that outside the natural sciences, or perhaps some other method with the same fundamental components, means not really possible to prove being real. You can observe indirectly evidence that Alexander the Great exists: archaeology and even the weak anecdote. History has elements of science, it just takes more liberties with the standard of evidence required, notably that anecdotes are actually considered significant. Hence, the science component is sufficient to suggest the existence of Alexander the Great and other historical matters. Anything that cannot be analysed by science is either subjective, immaterial or outside our abilities. All of which mean that they cannot be proved. The burden of proof being positive, they are discounted as objective reality.
Thoughts exist in a material sense, but thoughts are also concepts, where the concepts being thought of describe the imagery produced by the material brain. Morality is a thought, but unless you include the material process that are connected to it, it doesn't exist in a material sense. It relates to material things, but doesn't describe any particular one. In this way, morality is outside science, but validly so because it doesn't compete with science like many religious beliefs do.
One can observe language, language is sound. One can test language, in it's ability to effectively convey information to another brain. And even if it didn't exist materially, it would still exist conceptually, just not objectively within reality, which was what I was saying. If something is outside science, it may well exist, but we have no method of proving it, in the same way as something within science may not exist, but we have no reason to deny it.
Philosophy is not instinctual, the philosophical assumptions of science are. That's why they are instinctual "assumptions", we don't truly know that they are right, but we instinctively think that they are- until we analyse our thinking using philosophy.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
You're not "leaving it at that" if you're writing a PS.
My understand is the Principle of Explosion shows all statements made from nonsense are 'equal.' The question is like the omnipotence paradox, illogical. Thus, it doesn't have an answer.
And, I know what you're driving at with the rest of your statements about probability. You're claiming the set "not God" is bigger than the set "God." But, we danced that one already. I stated -because of the infinite variations of "God"- both sets were uncountably large. Thus, neither was 'bigger' than the other. If you made some counterclaim, I don't recall.
I don't think you did.
Agnosticism isn't giving anything "credence;" that's ITS point. While agnostic atheism IS giving one side credence, but doing so without evidence. If I were to state "not all triangles have sides that add up to 180 degrees," I wouldn't have to prove it? I don't think so.
"Negative affirmations" (which is an oxymoron) -as you call them- are still positive claims; rebranding isn't going to change that fact. All claims need to be held to the same standard. I know it's upsetting to think that Dawkins' "I'm 99% sure there is no God" is held to the same standard as This Guy, but that's why we call them STANDARDS.
(If it makes you feel any better, Dawkins' DNA evidence for evolution is also held to the same standard, and there he crushes his competition--like Intelligent Design.)
Let me first state that I'm very happy to hear your mother is now cancer-free! I'm working in cancer research myself and know devastating this disease can be.
However, on the debate on science. I think you are skipping on a few essential characteristics which, in my opinion, are a key aspect of the scientific method. First, your scientific experiment consists of the following setup:
At T=0 we have patient X where we think there is a tumor because we have two tests (with a low chance of false positives) telling us that it is the case.
At T=1 the patient X goes into surgery where we find no tumor whatsoever.
However, we have no empirical data on any moment between T=0 and T=1, to consider one of the things she did is the cause of her not having a tumor anymore we must be able to disregard all further variables. How do you know that, for instance, brushing her teeth is not the cause of her cure? The probability is just a high as the prayer being the cure. Furthermore, you only have one patient (indeed N=1 as you stated) which also doesn't provide enough statistical power.
You need many more patients with the same disease, all under the same controlled circumstances (with only the prayer being different between both groups) to be able to say anything about its function. Then again, if you do this you can only prove there is some benefit in the prayer, whether this is God's work or a human reaction can not be proven at all.
In my opinion the problem with this whole debate is that we will never get to a final answer. A good scientist will always agree with the fact that we know nothing for certain. For instance, if we look at 2.5 million swans, all of them having white feathers, we state that swans are white. However, it can always be that the next swan we look at is green..
We can never ever prove something definitely. The religious people will never cave, they think they are right (the book says so) and we can never disprove it.
So.. Basically, as a scientist you have to always state you are agnostic, you don't know if there is a God or not and you can not prove or disprove it.
A truthless based science does not really exist. There are some hard facts which stand as the scientific paradigm, until proven otherwise. If we fall into the post-modernist pitfall trap, there will be nothing to research anymore.
Any case for which you can not bring any evidence and/or anti-evidence, or even the slightest of plausible thought, shouldn't really be discussed at all, hence rendering the discussion worthles which should, in a rational sense, lead to denial of the subject. Thus, said subject does not and can not exist.
In the past, so many false assumptions, ideas of old about world functioning, how diseases work, natural phenomena....
Science has actually disproven almost innumerable lasting theories.
As a scientist I can truthfully claim there is not a single god.
However, I know many religious people and I treat them indifferent from atheist people. One thing I particularly like about people being religious, in my experience, is that they show ambition.
DECKS:
UB Faeries [Midrange/Tempo]
RWUGB Affinity[Aggro]
FAERIES TOO STRONK!!!1111
- Fae Prophecy, 201
5678You don't determine probability by comparing Cantor cardinalities, because that would imply absurdities about probabilities on continua (where all sections no matter how small have the same number of points). Even if you did, you don't have any Cantor cardinalities to compare here -- "uncountably infinite" is everything above aleph-null.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In fact, it's another demonstration of how you don't actually seem to understand what the word "science" means, as there are social sciences. Saying something is a human creation and therefore not real is a very confusing position for a proponent of science determining reality when anthropology is considered a social science.
Ok, unless you're advocating some strange dualism, concepts exist in our reality because anything that exists must exist in reality. That's what "reality" means.
Thoughts exist. We have them in our physical brains which physically exist.
No, bachelors DO exist. A bachelor is an unmarried male person. Unmarried male people exist.
Again, our brains exist in objective, 'true' reality, as you so call it, and therefore our thoughts must also, because thoughts come from our brains.
You have demonstrated that this is what you think, actually.
If something exists, it exists within reality. Otherwise, how could it exist?
We have no way of proving the existence of concepts? We are demonstrating the existence of concepts right now!
They most certainly are not. The scientific method is far from instinctual. If it were instinctual, we would have had science at the dawn of time, as opposed to the entirety of history between our common ancestor with the bonobos and Aristotle to come up with scientific inquiry, and we wouldn't have needed the 1500-or-so years it took between Aristotle and the arguable beginnings of modern science.
Then what bases are you using to justify "not God" as being more probable than "God?"
If by "nonsense" you mean "contradiction", as you appear to and as you should in this case, then you already have my response: all contradictions are false.
Do what you actually do when calculating probabilities over continua: recognize that you're really just talking about regions in a probability space mathematically equivalent to the geometric concept of areas (or lengths or volumes or 4-volumes or whatever), and can compare their sizes easily. Think of the probability space as a dartboard that you are labeling and then throwing darts at to guess the cause of the universe. Your task is to determine the size of the "God" hypothesis region. Would you give it half the board? Okay. Now determine the size of the "sea turtles" hypothesis region. Would you give it half the board? Okay. Now determine the size of the "New Age music" hypothesis region. Would you give it half the board? Well, you can't; you've used the whole board already.
Clearly some of these regions have to be smaller than half the board. And clearly they all have to be the same size, or else you're privileging one hypothesis over the others. So the "God" hypothesis region is smaller than half the probability space. Which means the regions that are not the "God" hypothesis region are collectively larger than half the probability space. This is okay because "not God" is not a hypothesis. It's every hypothesis, except the "God" one(s).
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Look, I get the objective/subjective reality thing. I really do. But our subjective experiences are still 'real', too.
I don't believe there is some objective arbiter of a universal morality, but I do believe human beings evolved with morality to make a cooperative species. If we were all sociopaths, we wouldn't get anywhere as a society. So, morality is real in the same way love is real, or hunger is real. They're concepts to describe impulses in our brains. They're still real, even if they're not some kind of universal constant (like Interstellar *gag* implies).
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath
The fundamental point to establish here is that immaterial cannot be proven to exist. It's not that once you step outside science, you are outside reality per say, and I thought I made this clear, but that you can no longer prove something of reality. The only useful, practical definition of reality is a scientific one. Philosophical definitions are still valid, but without materiality, doubt becomes absolute.
Hence, when we look at morality, unless we count the material representations of it, morality does not exist in reality in this sense. Fundamentally, it has no connection to observations we can make of obsevable reality, only representations of the process that it entails and the material thought that creates it. It still exists in concept however, it can still be described and discussed, but it cannot be proven or tested. It merely exists as an idea, a method.
RUNIN: Norse mythology set (awaiting further playtesting)
FATE of ALARA: Multicolour factions (currently on hiatus)
Contibutor to the Pyrulea community set
I'm here to tell you that all your set mechanics are bad
#Defundthepolice
TerribleBad at Magic since 1998.A Vorthos Guide to Magic Story | Twitter | Tumblr
[Primer] Krenko | Azor | Kess | Zacama | Kumena | Sram | The Ur-Dragon | Edgar Markov | Daretti | Marath