Author Topic: Why Worship?  (Read 4634 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline jaimehlers

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 8940
  • Darwins +1134/-27
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #232 on: April 16, 2018, 10:20:49 PM »
@kevinagain:

Let me stop you right there.  The null hypothesis is basically the empty hypothesis.  In science, it is the hypothesis that says there is no relationship between given phenomena.  For example, if one were trying to see if water would dissolve silicates, the null hypothesis is that nothing would happen.

The hypothesis you describe as "there exists at least one god" is not null.  The true null hypothesis is "gods have no effect on reality".  The reason strong atheists reject gods is because of Occam's razor; if gods have no effect on reality, then asserting any entities of the class 'god' is unnecessary.  The point is to minimize assumptions and avoid ad hoc additions that don't actually tell us anything.

This, I think, is the reason things like reincarnation are disregarded, while black holes are not.  It doesn't have anything to do with them being odd or not odd.  The oddity of something has no bearing on whether it exists.

I'll save albeto the trouble of having to look this up; the assumptions of the scientific method are that phenomena are understandable as an effect of nature and that there is no exception to the 'rules' nature operates under.

http://www.science20.com/rugbyologist/scientific_assumptions
Nullus In Verba, aka "Take nobody's word for it!"  If you can't show it, then you don't know it.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #233 on: April 16, 2018, 10:40:52 PM »
hi bud

@kevinagain:

Let me stop you right there.  The null hypothesis is basically the empty hypothesis.  In science, it is the hypothesis that says there is no relationship between given phenomena.  For example, if one were trying to see if water would dissolve silicates, the null hypothesis is that nothing would happen.

The hypothesis you describe as "there exists at least one god" is not null.  The true null hypothesis is "gods have no effect on reality".  The reason strong atheists reject gods is because of Occam's razor; if gods have no effect on reality, then asserting any entities of the class 'god' is unnecessary.  The point is to minimize assumptions and avoid ad hoc additions that don't actually tell us anything.

sure. that will work. would you please rephrase it in the context of this discussion?

you recognize that asserting that an explanation is unnecessay is not the same as asserting that it is false?

occam's razor is a tool of convenience. it isnt a test of any kind.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2018, 10:45:59 PM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #234 on: April 17, 2018, 08:27:35 AM »
albeto, i am still interested in your opinion.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #235 on: April 17, 2018, 08:42:16 AM »
no, tbere is no justification in eitber statement for asserting the existence of a ball of yarn. no one agreeing with eitber statemnt could consistently say tbat tbey believed tbe yarn existed.
So you would agree that person would not possess belief in the existence of a 50m diameter ball of yarn in Paris, France?

Quote
regarding misunderstanding, i am distinguishing a statement of existential import-- i believe tbere is no ball of yarn--from one without existential import-- i have no belief in the ball of yarn.
Could you better clarify 'existential import'?  I think that is related to this:
What's the difference between 'certainty regarding beliefs' and 'certainty regarding their truth value'?  Can you elaborate on what you mean by those statements?  What's being measured regarding certainty when speaking of 'certainty regarding belief'?  If it's different from 'truth value' or 'confidence in truth value', what is that difference?  Are you just talking about knowledge regarding a belief?

Like, distinguish these two statements for me:
1) I am nigh-certain that my belief that a door is in front of me is true.
2) I am nigh-certain that there is a door in front of me.

Is statement two a statement that is independent of belief?  Does the first statement make no claims or assertions regarding truth value?


Quote
the first statement asserts tbe existence of a condition, that tbe yarn is not there. tbe second does not make any assertion at all except for a lack of knowledge.
And as far as beliefs are concerned, both statements would indicate that the entity making said statement would not possess a belief in the existence of the yarn, yes?

I just want to make sure we're both on the same page on that one.  Again I think I need more clarity on 'existential import' but I do suspect we're roughly on the same page here.

Quote
is tbis how you were using the ideas?
I was trying to understand how you use the ideas.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #236 on: April 17, 2018, 08:57:45 AM »
Quote from: kevin
i agree with that completely. certainty regarding atheism is as much a faith belief as pentacostalism. that's why i don't call myself an atheist.

What am I misunderstanding here?

i'm not sure. i think it's probably semantics, which you'll notice has gotten in the way of communication more than once recently.

"certainty regarding atheism" is the shorthand i use for what people call explicit atheism, which is i define as this:
Maybe don't use such an egregious, assumptive shorthand in the future?  I feel like you said that you dislike cake, and we had a conversation that basically revealed that you're fine with cake but you don't like chocolate cake.  I was trying to figure out what it is you thought about cake batter.  Turns out cake batter has nothing to do with it.

Quote
explicit atheism is the rejection of the null hypothesis that there exists at least one god.
I believe jaimehlers has tackled this but I have to say it is weird to consider that the null hypothesis.

Quote
i suppose some people might call that "strong atheism," which i suppose is okay. rather than substitute a label, which has proven confusing, i find it easier and quicker just to ask people to explain what they believe, in a sentence or two. for example, i believe that i do not know whether gods exist or not. i call that agnosticism, and don't need to analyze the etymology.

is this what you were asking?
I was asking what I was misunderstanding about these rather contradictory (mutually exclusive, cannot be simultaneously true, etc) statements on your part:
youve interpreted it backwards. i dont think that you exercise faith in anything, which was the point i was trying to make.
Wherein you are saying that you don't think that I, a person you know with nigh-certainty that self-identifies as 'atheist', am exercising faith in anything, and:
i agree with that completely. certainty regarding atheism is as much a faith belief as pentacostalism. that's why i don't call myself an atheist.
Wherein you state that atheism is as much a faith belief as pentacostalism.

The misunderstanding stems from you leaving out information.  That's fine.  It happens.  What I want to make sure - what I want to be clear on - is that when someone tells you that they are an atheist - for example, me - you have as few incorrect assumptions regarding that person's position and views.  Prior to us conversing, if I had introduced myself and said "hi I'm jdawg70 and I am an atheist," would you have assumed that I was exercising faith in something?  If yes, then you understand the point of our discussion I hope.  If no, then simply be more careful and less assumptive in the future.

Still interested in what faith you think is being exercised in those who take a 'strong atheist' position by the by, and certainly interested in how that is roughly quantified as 'on the same level as a pentacostal', though that may be a different conversation.  I don't find that claim (that strong atheism is a position of faith) to be correct.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #237 on: April 17, 2018, 09:01:56 AM »
lol

yes, yes, and yes, i think? none of the assertions you describe contain wording that requires a belief in the ball of yarn.

not believing in something asserts absence of belief . . . in the yarn.

dis-believing in something asserts presence of disbelief, not of belief, in the yarn.

existential import is the implication of existence ina phenomenon inherent in a proposition. in aristotelean logic, the statement " all frogs lay eggs in the water" infers the pre-existence of frogs. in boolean logic, the inference is not consequent. i can say that frogs lay eggs in the water without requiring the statement "frogs exist" to be true. it has consequences in terms of what inferences are valid from ones premises.

let me get to opening the door i dont believe in a bit. im still reading your other thread.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #238 on: April 17, 2018, 09:10:47 AM »
jdawg, you have to understand also that youre difficult to talk with. when i make a one-line humorous joke about a giant ball of yorn, you respond with paragraphs of writing speculating on my hidden meanings. the density of your posts takes lots of consideration.

slow down a bit. i dont have the tools or the brains to translate braided streams into canals, and i get pretty terse when i am faced with multiple ntertwined lines of thought in a single post.

its a limit in my thinking. im pretty linear.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #239 on: April 17, 2018, 10:37:40 AM »
i don't believe in reincarnation. but i don't see why reincarnation is any odder than black holes, or light that bends, or neutrinos, or the indeterminate location of electrons. i don't think it's likely enough to pursue, but i make a clear distinction between things i know and things i don't know, and i don't know that reincarnation does not exist. and so on, including god. or quaggas. or fairies, for that matter.

The difference between reincarnation and black holes, bending light, neutrinos, or the indeterminate location of electrons is the existence of evidence that contributes to such hypotheses. The evidence you provided for reincarnation, informal and off the cuff as it may have been, was essentially "new forms of life." This doesn't make sense to me, and in no small part because I can't figure out what you mean by "new forms of life." It seems to me that what you noted with regard to the trees, fungus, and chorals was more detailed information, but that information seems to me to fit squarely into the realm of biology. Why would that be insufficient?

Quote
many people base their rejection of god on their own SPAG. for example, WWGHA is primarily a christianity website. not because its members are christians, but because christianity is the primary focus of probably 90 percent of the conversations that occur here regarding religion. it's what people here are most interested in talking about when they discuss atheism. if we actually counted, i might be wrong, but i don't think so.

because this is a christianity website, you will read the same story over and over:

i was raised a christian , but i disagreed with [x, y, and z.] it is absurd to think that a god would behave in a manner that is so [illogical/immoral/unreasonable/etc]. i justify my atheism on that basis. god does not exist because he is not like me.

this is NOT a definition of atheism, which i never claimed it to be. it IS the explanation of why many people -- here on WWGHA-- are atheists, and frequently supplies the evidence that i read over and over-- here on WWGHA. i'm not saying any of this is wrong, or unreasonable. i am merely observing what is. people define god according to their own projections of what god would be like if they were god-- SPAG-- and reject the idea because the one they hear about isn't like the god that they project.

I'm not sure I understand correctly. Do you suggest if atheists could hear the "right" version of god described, they wouldn't be atheists any more? If that self projection could work out logically for them, then they would no longer identify as atheist?

Quote
my turn.

you cite the scientific method fairly frequently as the basis for understanding reality, and for addressing the question of whether there are or are not gods.

the scientific method is a means of investigating reality. like any tool, there are some purposes for which it is better or worse suited than others.

what are the assumptions of the scientific method, as you see it? what ideas form its foundation?

I don't think science addresses whether or not there are gods. I don't think science can. Science addresses the nature of reality, and thus far there has been no evidence to suggest a god variable, or any magical or supernatural interjection of any kind is realistic.

I'm not sure off the top of my head I can think of a tool that explains any part of reality better than the scientific method. What other tools are so reliable?

Many thanks to jaimehlers. The explanation he posted resonates with my understanding as well. 

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #240 on: April 17, 2018, 10:54:53 AM »
okay, can we simplify? i think these questions summarize what you have been asking. correct me if i'm wrong, please.


The misunderstanding stems from you leaving out information.  That's fine.  It happens.  What I want to make sure - what I want to be clear on - is that when someone tells you that they are an atheist - for example, me - you have as few incorrect assumptions regarding that person's position and views.  Prior to us conversing, if I had introduced myself and said "hi I'm jdawg70 and I am an atheist," would you have assumed that I was exercising faith in something?  If yes, then you understand the point of our discussion I hope.  If no, then simply be more careful and less assumptive in the future.

no, i would not have assumed you had faith in anything. if you had introduced yourself as an an atheist, i would have concluded that you had no belief in god. your statement would have had no information about whether or not you considered the hypothesis that at least one god did not exist was false. i've said this from the start, jdawg, clearly, to my mind, and you've repeated the question over and over, so obviously i'm missing something about expressing the idea to you.

Quote
Still interested in what faith you think is being exercised in those who take a 'strong atheist' position by the by, and certainly interested in how that is roughly quantified as 'on the same level as a pentacostal', though that may be a different conversation.  I don't find that claim (that strong atheism is a position of faith) to be correct.

i disagree with you there. i think strong atheism is a position of faith in the untestable assertion that no gods exist:

- strong atheism asserts a belief in something that is unknowable, the lack of gods in the universe.

- that belief cannot be disproven.

- to say that "no gods exist," is a positive assertion of knowledge in exactly the same measure as a pentacostalist asserting, "one or more gods exists."

both are statements adequately summarized by the author of hebrews: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

i don't quantify the comparison except to state that since the arguments are the same, the lack of evidence is the same, and the conclusion is the same, then the level of belief required in either is likely to be the same as well.


this is why i believe this:

if you take jaime's formulation of the null hypothesis, which is clearer than mine was:

. . . "gods have no effect on reality". . .

then you have an idea which cannot be falsified. certainly, demonstrating the activity of a god would contradict the null hypothesis. but that is impossible to test, because gods can choose whether to manifest themselves or not. gods are not chemical reactions, or statistical tests, or lottery balls subject to probability. an unequivocal demonstration of a god event would be falsify the null hypothesis, but the lack of a god event tells you nothing. there is no P value you can apply.

it's the same as testing for the presence of the mary ann in the next room, using the null hypothesis that mary ann is not present. if my test is to call out, "hey, mary ann, sup, babe . . ." and she answers, then i know she is in there. but if she doesn't answer, i know nothing, because mary ann may have chosen not to answer because she thinks i'm full of shit. even if i look into the room, mary ann may step into the closet.

just like asserting that mary ann  is not in the next room, strong atheism asserts that gods do not exist, not that someone simply lacks belief in them. there is no test that i know of that can demonstrate that to be true, or all of its opposing statements to be false.

hence i assert that strong atheism and pentacostalism require equivalent levels of faith in things unseen.
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 11:02:18 AM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #241 on: April 17, 2018, 11:27:09 AM »
jdawg, you have to understand also that youre difficult to talk with. when i make a one-line humorous joke about a giant ball of yorn, you respond with paragraphs of writing speculating on my hidden meanings. the density of your posts takes lots of consideration.
That is fine, but understand that my tangent with the ball of yarn, as far as I can tell, was very, very, very relevant to the topic at hand.  I used it as a springboard to further our exchange of ideas.  Personally I think I'm saying some good stuff regarding that ball of yarn, in terms of what it means to accept or withhold belief and why it may or may not be appropriate to do such a thing depending on circumstances.  That you made it as a joke is fine but I feel like you're sortakinda missing the broader point, and I genuinely feel like that broader point is quite relevant to our discussion.

Quote
slow down a bit. i dont have the tools or the brains to translate braided streams into canals, and i get pretty terse when i am faced with multiple ntertwined lines of thought in a single post.
That is fine.  Have you noticed the amount of lag time between my posts to you?

Also, if you do get to the point of just not being interested in a discussion (due to lack of interest or conversational exhaustion or just because you want to focus on other topics/discussion/people), like this one with me for example, it is fine if you want to drop it.  Just let me know.

Quote
its a limit in my thinking. im pretty linear.
I'm guessing your thinking is a lot less linear than you think it is.  This is neither a good nor a bad thing; it's just a thing.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #242 on: April 17, 2018, 11:35:13 AM »
It isn't a surprise that kevin now declares his ball of yarn analogy a "joke"f. It wass posted as a reason why to do something.  Your analogy failed and now it becomes a "joke". 

Kevin wants to use the word faith as a theist would, and then make the baseless assumption that an atheist would have this belief based on nothing, as a theist would.   I, as an atheist, and as one who is sure that there are no gods in the universe, have reached that conclusion because of evidence and lack of evidence, because I know how humans define god, and that they don't mean some vague undetermined thing that doesn't do anything.  it requires kevin to make up soemthign that isn't a god and insist that this thing that he cannot define may exist and be aghast that no one believes in such a thing.  For some reason he feels that keeping an "open mind" to something that can't be defined and can't be seen to exist to be the better position for some reason.  In this, it would be just as better a position to believe in the great bugblatter beast of traal. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #243 on: April 17, 2018, 11:38:27 AM »
My dog lacks a belief in God.  I don't think you guys do.  I think you actually believe there is no God because that's the way you consciously live your life, as if all God claims are false.

what you think makes no difference, since you are simply wrong and basing your claims on wishful thinking.  You want to believe that people agree with you but, using the tedious old theist lie about atheists, want to claim that we just want to ignore your ever so special god because we want live our lives without obeying it. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #244 on: April 17, 2018, 11:49:15 AM »
hey albeto


The difference between reincarnation and black holes, bending light, neutrinos, or the indeterminate location of electrons is the existence of evidence that contributes to such hypotheses. The evidence you provided for reincarnation, informal and off the cuff as it may have been, was essentially "new forms of life." This doesn't make sense to me, and in no small part because I can't figure out what you mean by "new forms of life." It seems to me that what you noted with regard to the trees, fungus, and chorals was more detailed information, but that information seems to me to fit squarely into the realm of biology. Why would that be insufficient?

why would a god not fit squarely into the realm of biology? what is impossible about a form of life that is poorly detected but still fits into the usual view of how the universe works, but with a nature that might change the paradigm? to say that it doesn't exist because we haven't found it is an assertion that our search was 100 percent adequate. is that reasonable?

regarding evidence, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of reincarnation. every book in the vedas asserts it, explains why it is reasonable, and makes predictions. crazy people provide evidence for past lives in every mental institution. you can assert that the available evidence is flawed, that it is inconclusive, or that you just don't believe it, and that nothing is proven, but you can't assert that no evidence exists. evidence is not proof.

Quote
I'm not sure I understand correctly. Do you suggest if atheists could hear the "right" version of god described, they wouldn't be atheists any more? If that self projection could work out logically for them, then they would no longer identify as atheist?

nope. of course, some might.


Quote from: jaime
I don't think science addresses whether or not there are gods. I don't think science can. Science addresses the nature of reality, and thus far there has been no evidence to suggest a god variable, or any magical or supernatural interjection of any kind is realistic.


i agree that science currently cannot address whether there are gods. but there's plenty of evidence. there is no scientific proof.

Quote
I'm not sure off the top of my head I can think of a tool that explains any part of reality better than the scientific method. What other tools are so reliable?

Many thanks to jaimehlers. The explanation he posted resonates with my understanding as well.

to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. when faced with a screw, the hammer doesn't work. asserting that screws therefore do not exist is not a reasonable solution, although it results in a belief that hammers are a reliable tool for every fastener.

what is wrong with the following assertion?

reality consists of all things that can be tested using the scientific method.

albeto, please return to a previous question. earlier i pointed out that quantum mechanics rendered newtonian mechanics obsolete. but up to that day, everybody stated that certain things were impossible because that wasn't how the world worked. and they were wrong. the paradigm changed. you did not address that point.

is it possible that the world works in ways that the scientific method does not yet address?


don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #245 on: April 17, 2018, 11:53:51 AM »
jdawg, you have to understand also that youre difficult to talk with. when i make a one-line humorous joke about a giant ball of yorn, you respond with paragraphs of writing speculating on my hidden meanings. the density of your posts takes lots of consideration.
That is fine, but understand that my tangent with the ball of yarn, as far as I can tell, was very, very, very relevant to the topic at hand.  I used it as a springboard to further our exchange of ideas.  Personally I think I'm saying some good stuff regarding that ball of yarn, in terms of what it means to accept or withhold belief and why it may or may not be appropriate to do such a thing depending on circumstances.  That you made it as a joke is fine but I feel like you're sortakinda missing the broader point, and I genuinely feel like that broader point is quite relevant to our discussion.

Quote
slow down a bit. i dont have the tools or the brains to translate braided streams into canals, and i get pretty terse when i am faced with multiple ntertwined lines of thought in a single post.
That is fine.  Have you noticed the amount of lag time between my posts to you?

Also, if you do get to the point of just not being interested in a discussion (due to lack of interest or conversational exhaustion or just because you want to focus on other topics/discussion/people), like this one with me for example, it is fine if you want to drop it.  Just let me know.

Quote
its a limit in my thinking. im pretty linear.
I'm guessing your thinking is a lot less linear than you think it is.  This is neither a good nor a bad thing; it's just a thing.

when i said you were difficult to talk to, i didn't mean it in a negative sense. i meant to point out that answering you requires me to think about what i believe.

but i don't know what else i can address about the ball of yarn, i think i've answered everything i've come across. is there a point i'm missing?

and anyway, i'm here because talking to people makes me think harder about what i believe. i've had my mind changed about significant things by conversations with people lots smarter than i'll ever be, and it has resulted in me being here now. i'm still trying to figure out what you think i'm missing, because you clearly are making a point that's going over my head.

what is it?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 11:55:25 AM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #246 on: April 17, 2018, 11:54:51 AM »
no, i would not have assumed you had faith in anything. if you had introduced yourself as an an atheist, i would have concluded that you had no belief in god. your statement would have had no information about whether or not you considered the hypothesis that at least one god did not exist was false. i've said this from the start,
I'm just going to remind you what started our conversion:
i agree with that completely. certainty regarding atheism is as much a faith belief as pentacostalism. that's why i don't call myself an atheist.
From the start, near as I can tell, you have associated 'atheism' with 'having as much a faith belief as pentacostalism'.  Now, you've clarified what you meant.  Which is good.  But I want to be very clear on the circumstance here, kevinagain.

Quote
jdawg, clearly, to my mind, and you've repeated the question over and over, so obviously i'm missing something about expressing the idea to you.
I get it now.  When you said 'atheist' early, you did not mean 'atheist'.  You meant something more specific.  That's fine.  The last thing I posted to you was me explaining in what way I now understand what you are saying.  Henceforth the 'if no, then simply be more careful and less assumptive in the future.'  Your answer was 'no', ergo the information I was trying to convey to you in my post was to simply ask you to be more careful and less assumptive in the future.

Quote
Quote
Still interested in what faith you think is being exercised in those who take a 'strong atheist' position by the by, and certainly interested in how that is roughly quantified as 'on the same level as a pentacostal', though that may be a different conversation.  I don't find that claim (that strong atheism is a position of faith) to be correct.

i disagree with you there. i think strong atheism is a position of faith in the untestable assertion that no gods exist:

- strong atheism asserts a belief in something that is unknowable, the lack of gods in the universe.
What makes that unknowable?  Is there something you know about gods that allows you to say whether or not their existence in the universe, or reality at large, is knowable?

Quote
- that belief cannot be disproven.
Why can't that be disproven?  Is there something you know about gods that allows you to say whether or not the belief in their lack of existence in the universe, or reality at large, is provable?

Quote
- to say that "no gods exist," is a positive assertion of knowledge in exactly the same measure as a pentacostalist asserting, "one or more gods exists."
When you ask a strong atheist what their basis is for claiming no gods exist, are you saying that what they tell you sounds the same as what a pentacostalist would say that their basis is for claiming "one or more gods exist?"

Quote
both are statements adequately summarized by the author of hebrews: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Is that the basis of a strong atheist's claim that no gods exist?  Would you say that a strong atheist hopes that god does not exist?

Can you think of any negative claim (e.g. "There is no 2nd Earth moon") wherein the statement 'evidence of things not seen' doesn't apply?

Quote
i don't quantify the comparison except to state that since the arguments are the same,
Are they?

Quote
the lack of evidence is the same,
Is it?

Query: is the absence of a bruise on your face evidence that no goat has kicked you in the face?  I don't mean to ask if that definitely concludes that no goat has kicked you in the face, but I am asking if you think that constitutes evidence that no goat has kicked you in the face?

Is 'no evidence' the same as 'insufficient evidence'?

Quote
and the conclusion is the same,
...what?

Quote
then the level of belief required in either is likely to be the same as well.
I don't think I quite get how you're making this conclusion.  Do you mean level of conviction?

Quote
this is why i believe this:

if you take jaime's formulation of the null hypothesis, which is clearer than mine was:

. . . "gods have no effect on reality". . .

then you have an idea which cannot be falsified.
Wouldn't a god affecting reality immediately falsify this idea?  Or do you know something about gods that precludes this?

Quote
certainly, demonstrating the activity of a god would contradict the null hypothesis. but that is impossible to test, because gods can choose whether to manifest themselves or not. gods are not chemical reactions, or statistical tests, or lottery balls subject to probability. an unequivocal demonstration of a god event would be falsify the null hypothesis, but the lack of a god event tells you nothing. there is no P value you can apply.
Unequivocal?  Is this the same as 'certain'?

Is there a difference between 'no evidence' and 'insufficient evidence'?

Quote
it's the same as testing for the presence of the mary ann in the next room, using the null hypothesis that mary ann is not present. if my test is to call out, "hey, mary ann, sup, babe . . ." and she answers, then i know she is in there. but if she doesn't answer, i know nothing, because mary ann may have chosen not to answer because she thinks i'm full of shit. even if i look into the room, mary ann may step into the closet.
Surely you know something.  At the very least, you know that "Mary Ann's non-existence" is still in the bucket of possible explanations or descriptions of reality.  Right?

And what do you mean that you know she is there?  What if it were a Mary Ann impersonator?  A sophisticated computer program?  A ghost?  A demon?  A god?  How can you make this claim of knowledge based on hearing a response to you saying "hey, mary ann, sup, babe"?

Is there a difference between 'no evidence' and 'insufficient evidence'?

Quote
just like asserting that mary ann  is not in the next room, strong atheism asserts that gods do not exist, not that someone simply lacks belief in them. there is no test that i know of that can demonstrate that to be true, or all of its opposing statements to be false.
So...I guess, are you saying you'd never be able to be in the position to state "Mary Ann is not in the next room" without explicitly walking into the room to check, and even then, how could you say that Mary Ann is not in the next room just because you can't see her?  Is "Mary Ann is not in the next room" really a testable claim?

Is there a difference between 'no knowledge', 'some knowledge', and 'complete knowledge'?

Quote
hence i assert that strong atheism and pentacostalism require equivalent levels of faith in things unseen.
Personally I don't think you've thought it through enough.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #247 on: April 17, 2018, 12:01:22 PM »
no, i would not have assumed you had faith in anything. if you had introduced yourself as an an atheist, i would have concluded that you had no belief in god. your statement would have had no information about whether or not you considered the hypothesis that at least one god did not exist was false. i've said this from the start,
I'm just going to remind you what started our conversion:
i agree with that completely. certainty regarding atheism is as much a faith belief as pentacostalism. that's why i don't call myself an atheist.
From the start, near as I can tell, you have associated 'atheism' with 'having as much a faith belief as pentacostalism'.  Now, you've clarified what you meant.  Which is good.  But I want to be very clear on the circumstance here, kevinagain.

Quote
jdawg, clearly, to my mind, and you've repeated the question over and over, so obviously i'm missing something about expressing the idea to you.
I get it now.  When you said 'atheist' early, you did not mean 'atheist'.  You meant something more specific.  That's fine.  The last thing I posted to you was me explaining in what way I now understand what you are saying.  Henceforth the 'if no, then simply be more careful and less assumptive in the future.'  Your answer was 'no', ergo the information I was trying to convey to you in my post was to simply ask you to be more careful and less assumptive in the future.

Quote
Quote
Still interested in what faith you think is being exercised in those who take a 'strong atheist' position by the by, and certainly interested in how that is roughly quantified as 'on the same level as a pentacostal', though that may be a different conversation.  I don't find that claim (that strong atheism is a position of faith) to be correct.

i disagree with you there. i think strong atheism is a position of faith in the untestable assertion that no gods exist:

- strong atheism asserts a belief in something that is unknowable, the lack of gods in the universe.
What makes that unknowable?  Is there something you know about gods that allows you to say whether or not their existence in the universe, or reality at large, is knowable?

Quote
- that belief cannot be disproven.
Why can't that be disproven?  Is there something you know about gods that allows you to say whether or not the belief in their lack of existence in the universe, or reality at large, is provable?

Quote
- to say that "no gods exist," is a positive assertion of knowledge in exactly the same measure as a pentacostalist asserting, "one or more gods exists."
When you ask a strong atheist what their basis is for claiming no gods exist, are you saying that what they tell you sounds the same as what a pentacostalist would say that their basis is for claiming "one or more gods exist?"

Quote
both are statements adequately summarized by the author of hebrews: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Is that the basis of a strong atheist's claim that no gods exist?  Would you say that a strong atheist hopes that god does not exist?

Can you think of any negative claim (e.g. "There is no 2nd Earth moon") wherein the statement 'evidence of things not seen' doesn't apply?

Quote
i don't quantify the comparison except to state that since the arguments are the same,
Are they?

Quote
the lack of evidence is the same,
Is it?

Query: is the absence of a bruise on your face evidence that no goat has kicked you in the face?  I don't mean to ask if that definitely concludes that no goat has kicked you in the face, but I am asking if you think that constitutes evidence that no goat has kicked you in the face?

Is 'no evidence' the same as 'insufficient evidence'?

Quote
and the conclusion is the same,
...what?

Quote
then the level of belief required in either is likely to be the same as well.
I don't think I quite get how you're making this conclusion.  Do you mean level of conviction?

Quote
this is why i believe this:

if you take jaime's formulation of the null hypothesis, which is clearer than mine was:

. . . "gods have no effect on reality". . .

then you have an idea which cannot be falsified.
Wouldn't a god affecting reality immediately falsify this idea?  Or do you know something about gods that precludes this?

Quote
certainly, demonstrating the activity of a god would contradict the null hypothesis. but that is impossible to test, because gods can choose whether to manifest themselves or not. gods are not chemical reactions, or statistical tests, or lottery balls subject to probability. an unequivocal demonstration of a god event would be falsify the null hypothesis, but the lack of a god event tells you nothing. there is no P value you can apply.
Unequivocal?  Is this the same as 'certain'?

Is there a difference between 'no evidence' and 'insufficient evidence'?

Quote
it's the same as testing for the presence of the mary ann in the next room, using the null hypothesis that mary ann is not present. if my test is to call out, "hey, mary ann, sup, babe . . ." and she answers, then i know she is in there. but if she doesn't answer, i know nothing, because mary ann may have chosen not to answer because she thinks i'm full of shit. even if i look into the room, mary ann may step into the closet.
Surely you know something.  At the very least, you know that "Mary Ann's non-existence" is still in the bucket of possible explanations or descriptions of reality.  Right?

And what do you mean that you know she is there?  What if it were a Mary Ann impersonator?  A sophisticated computer program?  A ghost?  A demon?  A god?  How can you make this claim of knowledge based on hearing a response to you saying "hey, mary ann, sup, babe"?

Is there a difference between 'no evidence' and 'insufficient evidence'?

Quote
just like asserting that mary ann  is not in the next room, strong atheism asserts that gods do not exist, not that someone simply lacks belief in them. there is no test that i know of that can demonstrate that to be true, or all of its opposing statements to be false.
So...I guess, are you saying you'd never be able to be in the position to state "Mary Ann is not in the next room" without explicitly walking into the room to check, and even then, how could you say that Mary Ann is not in the next room just because you can't see her?  Is "Mary Ann is not in the next room" really a testable claim?

Is there a difference between 'no knowledge', 'some knowledge', and 'complete knowledge'?

Quote
hence i assert that strong atheism and pentacostalism require equivalent levels of faith in things unseen.
Personally I don't think you've thought it through enough.

jdawg, ^^^this post exceeds my ability to respond. can you summarize your thoughts?
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #248 on: April 17, 2018, 12:02:24 PM »
what is it?

I guess...why should I have been careful with my example of the ball of yarn?  Prior to any evidence of any kind whatsoever, like the picture you posted, would you have said it advisable to possess the belief that there is, in fact, a giant ball of yarn in Paris, France?  If I suddenly pulled out a leprechaun from my desk, would you feel like you would have had egg on your face for withholding belief in the existence of that leprechaun in my desk based on solely my claim "I have a leprechaun in my desk"?  You would not have felt justified in withholding belief that a leprechaun exists in my desk prior to me showing some evidence of that leprechaun?

Perhaps it's just easier to try to collapse my point with the following questions:
I am going to straight up claim that there is a leprechaun in my desk.  After hearing that claim, and just hearing that claim, would you say you would be reasonably justified in holding a position of not believing that I have a leprechaun in my desk, and would you say that reasonable justification is pretty much the exact same degree of reasonable justification a pentacostal would have for holding a position of believing that god exists?  And would a circumstance of you asking me to show you this leprechaun, and me being unable to show you this leprechaun, constitute as evidence - not necessarily conclusive or definitive evidence but evidence - of a lack of existence of a leprechaun in my desk?
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline jdawg70

  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 5050
  • Darwins +1080/-10
  • Ex-rosary squad
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #249 on: April 17, 2018, 12:04:54 PM »
jdawg, ^^^this post exceeds my ability to respond. can you summarize your thoughts?

You've asked me to slow down, which is fine, but I'm going to go ahead and ask you to do the same please.  The post you're trying to respond to ought to require more than 3 minutes of thought.  Read it, digest it, then put it aside and come back to this conversation tomorrow.

This forum is a mode of asynchronous communication, and there is no necessity for immediacy.  If it takes you a few days or so to respond to a post I make, that's perfectly fine.  I've done that to you a number of times already.  It's fine.
"When we landed on the moon, that was the point where god should have come up and said 'hello'. Because if you invent some creatures, put them on the blue one and they make it to the grey one, you f**king turn up and say 'well done'."

- Eddie Izzard

http://deepaksducttape.wordpress.com/

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #250 on: April 17, 2018, 12:24:42 PM »
it's not speed, it's complexity. doubling the questions with each post exceeds my ability to answer. all i can do is pick out the most important question, and pare the conversation down to a single line of discussion. as you have noticed, this results in confusion because i simply don't address everything, such as your ball of yarn.

i have a ten-dollar bill's worth of analytical ability, and one line of thought in a conversation will get all ten dollars. twenty different lines in the same conversation get two-bits each.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #251 on: April 17, 2018, 12:49:17 PM »

Perhaps it's just easier to try to collapse my point with the following questions:
I am going to straight up claim that there is a leprechaun in my desk.  After hearing that claim, and just hearing that claim, would you say you would be reasonably justified in holding a position of not believing that I have a leprechaun in my desk, and would you say that reasonable justification is pretty much the exact same degree of reasonable justification a pentacostal would have for holding a position of believing that god exists?

yes.

if you qualify the scenario by stating that leprechauns have an established definition, agreed upon by all reasonable parties, and that you accept that definition as adequate and comprehensive to define a leprechaun-- it's size, weight, abilities, folklore, and so on, then my answer is yes.

if the pentacostal described his god to you in the same way, and you rejected that god as being inadequately established to your satisfaction, i would consider you justified in expressing a strong atheism with respect to that god. were you then to extend that understanding to all gods based on the failure of the pentacostal to convince you, i would say your strong atheism was not justified.

Quote
And would a circumstance of you asking me to show you this leprechaun, and me being unable to show you this leprechaun, constitute as evidence - not necessarily conclusive or definitive evidence but evidence - of a lack of existence of a leprechaun in my desk?

again, yes. but if someone asked you to show him this leprechaun, and demanded that you do so by opening the closet door and not your desk, then i would not consider the absence of the leprechaun established. opening the closet door does not tell me anything about what is in your desk.

your test is reactive, and works only for those leprechauns (and gods) already defined by other people. it does not work for the idea of gods in general.

asserting strong atheism regarding gods in general requires pentacostal-like faith. it requires you to extrapolate beyond your data points with no knowledge of the function you are estimating.

thank you for persisting in this conversation, by the way.



« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 12:54:36 PM by kevinagain »
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #252 on: April 17, 2018, 03:09:46 PM »
why would a god not fit squarely into the realm of biology?

Then biology would explain it. What would make this god unique from a naturally occurring biological organism?

Quote
what is impossible about a form of life that is poorly detected but still fits into the usual view of how the universe works, but with a nature that might change the paradigm?

If it was explained with biology, then why would it change the paradigm of biology?

If it could not be explained by biology, then by what tool would it be explained?

I don't really understand what you mean by changing the paradigm.

Quote
to say that it doesn't exist because we haven't found it is an assertion that our search was 100 percent adequate. is that reasonable?

I do not believe that's reasonable, but neither is it an accurate summary of my argument.

Quote
regarding evidence, there's plenty of evidence for the existence of reincarnation. every book in the vedas asserts it, explains why it is reasonable, and makes predictions. crazy people provide evidence for past lives in every mental institution. you can assert that the available evidence is flawed, that it is inconclusive, or that you just don't believe it, and that nothing is proven, but you can't assert that no evidence exists.


You're typing the word "evidence" but you're describing "claims." The two are not the same.

Do you believe heartfelt claims and genuine belief should count as evidence?

Quote
evidence is not proof.

Proof exists in mathematics and alcohol, not science. It doesn't exist in science because it's not possible to prove a claim is true like it is in math. I'm finding it a bit weird to see this misunderstanding and the previous one coming from a person who claims to have not one but two master's degrees in two different fields of science.

Quote
i agree that science currently cannot address whether there are gods. but there's plenty of evidence.

What evidence is there of the existence of gods?

Why you not believe in gods in which you believe there is compelling evidence?

Quote
to a man with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. when faced with a screw, the hammer doesn't work. asserting that screws therefore do not exist is not a reasonable solution, although it results in a belief that hammers are a reliable tool for every fastener.

This doesn't answer my question. I feel like it doesn't really address it other than illustrate your rationalization for dismissing it.

Quote
what is wrong with the following assertion?

reality consists of all things that can be tested using the scientific method.

I'm not asking about "all things," I'm asking about alternatives to science as a tool to reliably explain reality.

Quote
albeto, please return to a previous question. earlier i pointed out that quantum mechanics rendered newtonian mechanics obsolete. but up to that day, everybody stated that certain things were impossible because that wasn't how the world worked. and they were wrong. the paradigm changed. you did not address that point.

To quote a simple summary from stack exchange that resonates with my admittedly limited familiarity, "Einstein extended the rules of Newton for high speeds. For applications of mechanics at low speeds, Newtonian ideas are almost equal to reality. That is the reason we use Newtonian mechanics in practice at low speeds."

What do you mean by the paradigm being changed? What's the difference between a paradigm shift and expanding knowledge in this context?

Quote
is it possible that the world works in ways that the scientific method does not yet address?

Sure. And it's an interesting possibility. It raises the question - how would one know? What method would be employed as an alternative to the scientific method with regards to understanding how the world works?

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #253 on: April 17, 2018, 04:04:03 PM »
Then biology would explain it. What would make this god unique from a naturally occurring biological organism?

nothing.

Quote
If it was explained with biology, then why would it change the paradigm of biology?

If it could not be explained by biology, then by what tool would it be explained?

I don't really understand what you mean by changing the paradigm.

you understand how quantum mechanics changed the paradigm of physics? how plate tectonics changed the paradigm of geology? how evolution changed the paradigm of biology? like that.

Quote
You're typing the word "evidence" but you're describing "claims." The two are not the same.

Do you believe heartfelt claims and genuine belief should count as evidence?

you don't understand the difference between evidence and proof, albeto. all evidence is "claims." all of it. proof is evidence that cannot be disputed.

Quote
Proof exists in mathematics and alcohol, not science.

no. ^^^this is completely incorrect. open a thread, please, if you still don't understand: "all evidence is claims. some evidence is proof." for example, if i see a bandersnatch in the basement, my observational evidence is proof for my claim that that a bandersnatch is in the basement. to deny that my claim is not evidence providing proof is to deny reason.

you're describing popperian falsification. that's a special case in hypothesis testing, not the general situation of expanding knowledge

Quote
What do you mean by the paradigm being changed? What's the difference between a paradigm shift and expanding knowledge in this context?

they are the same. the difference is in the magnitude and the explanatory ability. it's an informal descriptor.

Quote
Quote
is it possible that the world works in ways that the scientific method does not yet address?

Sure. And it's an interesting possibility. It raises the question - how would one know? What method would be employed as an alternative to the scientific method with regards to understanding how the world works?

whatever explained the world better.

albeto, look up evidence and proof, please.


don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #254 on: April 17, 2018, 06:54:25 PM »
you understand how quantum mechanics changed the paradigm of physics? how plate tectonics changed the paradigm of geology? how evolution changed the paradigm of biology? like that.

I don't understand because more information does not change the framework containing the basic assumptions, ways of thinking, and methodology that are commonly accepted within the scientific method, it contributes to it. I suspect we're thinking about different things when we're thinking about the concept of paradigms.

What's the difference between "god" and "little known biological organism" in this hypothetical scenario?

Quote
they are the same. the difference is in the magnitude and the explanatory ability. it's an informal descriptor.

So a paradigm shift isn't a shift at all, it's just more knowledge.

You seem to have a habit of making claims then walking them back when they're taken seriously. That's frustrating because I want to take you seriously but I'm losing faith that you mean what you say because it's later revealed that you didn't mean that at all.

Quote
whatever explained the world better.

You can't think of one that is reliable, but you're basing your ideas like reincarnation and the existence of gods on the possibility a way to identify them might be found? Some day? Maybe?

That's nice, and a fun use of imagination, but why should we consider your imagination accurate enough to apply to this process of understanding reality?

Out of curiosity, is there any reason you have to not trust the reliability of science?

Quote
albeto, look up evidence and proof, please.

Wait wait wait! Are you telling me you have evidence of reincarnation and of gods but you won't share them? That despite all the experiments and studies ever conducted throughout the centuries, you alone have your finger on the keys of these things, but you're keeping it to yourself?

And...

While you have all this evidence that would likely not only earn you the Nobel Prize in Physics or something, it would catapult your name to such fame and recognition through the centuries, like Confucius, DaVinci, Einstein, but you don't believe these things yourself?

Anyway, perhaps you can share a resource that defines all scientific evidence as "claims." I'd like to see that.



Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #255 on: April 17, 2018, 07:19:47 PM »
What's the difference between "god" and "little known biological organism" in this hypothetical scenario?

nothing, albeto. why is this so hard?

Quote
So a paradigm shift isn't a shift at all, it's just more knowledge.

albeto, i don't make this stuff up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

Quote
You seem to have a habit of making claims then walking them back when they're taken seriously. That's frustrating because I want to take you seriously but I'm losing faith that you mean what you say because it's later revealed that you didn't mean that at all.

no, albeto, what is happening is that you are reading things into my posts that i never said and don't believe, and are then becoming frustrated when i won't defend them for you.

read what i say and stop there.

Quote
Quote
whatever explained the world better.

You can't think of one that is reliable, but you're basing your ideas like reincarnation and the existence of gods on the possibility a way to identify them might be found? Some day? Maybe?

That's nice, and a fun use of imagination, but why should we consider your imagination accurate enough to apply to this process of understanding reality?

Out of curiosity, is there any reason you have to not trust the reliability of science?

Quote
albeto, look up evidence and proof, please.

Wait wait wait! Are you telling me you have evidence of reincarnation and of gods but you won't share them? That despite all the experiments and studies ever conducted throughout the centuries, you alone have your finger on the keys of these things, but you're keeping it to yourself?

And...

albeto. understand this.

i do not believe in reincarnation. i have never said i believed in reincarnation. i have never provided evidence for reincarnation.

if you make something up again about reincarnation and ask me to defend it one more time, i will never respond to you again.

Quote
While you have all this evidence that would likely not only earn you the Nobel Prize in Physics or something, it would catapult your name to such fame and recognition through the centuries, like Confucius, DaVinci, Einstein, but you don't believe these things yourself?

Anyway, perhaps you can share a resource that defines all scientific evidence as "claims." I'd like to see that.

you need to catch up in a bad way.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method10.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #256 on: April 17, 2018, 08:23:34 PM »
if you make something up again about reincarnation and ask me to defend it one more time, i will never respond to you again.

because everyone is so afraid of you not responding when you have no evidence for what you claim is possible.

quantum physics have evidence to support it.  plate tectonics have evidence to support it.  you've mentioned reincarnation as something we should consider as possible but you have no reason why other than you seem to again want to consider your mind so open that you accept anything as possible, no matter the evidence. This is why I said that you seem to be the agnostic who wants to feel superior to everyone else; you don't want to ever be found wrong, so you have these vague beliefs so you can come down on any side and say "see, see what I told you".
« Last Edit: April 17, 2018, 08:27:49 PM by velkyn »
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline albeto

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1769
  • Darwins +356/-4
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #257 on: April 17, 2018, 10:56:30 PM »
nothing, albeto. why is this so hard?

The difficulty comes when you ask a question or pose an idea only to walk it back later. Let me explain why I think this. You asked me why would a god not fit squarely into the realm of biology. You asked if I would consider it might be possible that a form of life that is poorly detected but still fits into the usual view of how the universe works, but with a nature that might change the paradigm. I'm assuming you're arguing *for* this idea you want me to consider. I'm assuming you're arguing *for* the idea that a god might fight squarely into the realm of biology but with a nature that might inspire a paradigm shift.

Now you're suggesting there is no difference between a "god" and "little known biological organism." Why ask about gods if you're not talking about gods? See my confusion?

Quote
albeto, i don't make this stuff up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradigm_shift

That's fine, but keep in mind you asked me if I could consider this god/little known biological organism might change the paradigm of biology. You later clarified that paradigm shift and expanding knowledge in this context are the same thing, that the difference is in the magnitude and the explanatory ability. You said you meant this as an informal descriptor.

Which meaning do you want to ask me about? When you ask about paradigm shifts, do you mean "expanded knowledge" or a "fundamental change in the basic concepts and experimental practices of a scientific discipline" (from wiki link)? If you mean to ask about paradigm shift literally and not expanded knowledge, would you explain what basic concept you believe has been changed? What experimental practices do you believe have been altered? If you don't believe any have, why are you asking me to consider such a thing? What's the purpose of that line of questioning?

Quote
i do not believe in reincarnation. i have never said i believed in reincarnation. i have never provided evidence for reincarnation.

Again, I do understand that. Nevertheless, in another thread you posed a question asking if we've considered it as a legitimate possibility, and just today suggested "there's plenty of evidence for the existence of reincarnation." You go on to suggest that "every book in the vedas asserts it, explains why it is reasonable, and makes predictions. crazy people provide evidence for past lives in every mental institution."

You suggest you believe there is evidence in reincarnation but don't believe it's realistic? Is that right? I've never encountered a person who does not believe a thing exists despite what they believe to be evidence that supports it. I'd love hear more about your opinion, how you dismiss a conclusion you feel there is ample evidence to support, but at this point I'm afraid you're frustrated with me and this line of conversation.

Quote
if you make something up again about reincarnation and ask me to defend it one more time, i will never respond to you again.

For much of this post, I quoted you directly with copy/paste. I can provide links if you'd like.

Quote
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Term_logic

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_science

https://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/scientific-experiments/scientific-method10.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inference

Here's the trouble I'm having with this. I cannot find anything that corroborates your assertion that all evidence is "claims." all of it. Or that proof is evidence that cannot be disputed. Again, these are your words.

What I understand of science is that claims are statements made that assert a particular reality as being true. For example, I may make the claim flies are created from rotten meat. That claim, I'm sure you'd agree, is not evidence, it is merely an assertion inspired from observing maggots suddenly appearing on rotten meat.

In any case, the evidence comes from the results of careful experiments, it is not the claim itself. In this case, the original claim was wrong so that can't be evidence. Instead, a careful experiment is set up, observations made, data is recorded and analyzed, a conclusion is extrapolated, shared, analyzed some more. Perhaps someone else has a new question inspired from the experiment, and the process continues to add to the growing pile of evidence about entomology, decaying foods, etc. Still, such a thing is not understood to be scientifically proven even if it the evidence can't be disputed (Common misconceptions about science I: “Scientific proof”).

Perhaps you meant something else and used the word "claims" as shorthand for a more detailed explanation, but I can only assume you meant the word in the conventional sense unless directed otherwise.

Offline kevinagain

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 555
  • Darwins +24/-4
  • mean people suck.
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #258 on: April 18, 2018, 12:42:07 PM »

Here's the trouble I'm having with this. I cannot find anything that corroborates your assertion that all evidence is "claims." all of it. Or that proof is evidence that cannot be disputed. Again, these are your words.


Quote
Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion.[1] This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence

Quote
A proof is sufficient evidence or a sufficient argument for the truth of a proposition.[1][2][3][4]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_(truth)

albeto, "anything presented in support of an assertion" is as reasonable a definition of "claim" as it is necessary to provide. "a proof is sufficient evidence for the truth of a proposition" is as close to "proof is evidence that cannot be disputed" as the english language can deliver.

both these definitions were at the top of the links that you say you read.
don't make excuses for nasty people. you don't put a flower in an asshole and call it a vase.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 18317
  • Darwins +434/-25
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #259 on: April 18, 2018, 01:59:58 PM »
a claim is "a statement saying that something happened a certain way or will happen a certain way", per merriam webster definition for english students. 

a claim is an assertion, and evidence is what is used to support an assertion.  they are not the same. 

an assertion is "a declaration that something is the case"  the example given by MW is "He presented no evidence to support his assertions."  this can also be written "He presented no evidence to support his claims."   
 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline One Above All

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 14806
  • Darwins +625/-67
  • Supreme ruler of the multiverse; All In One
Re: Why Worship?
« Reply #260 on: April 18, 2018, 03:05:50 PM »
a claim is "a statement saying that something happened a certain way or will happen a certain way", per merriam webster definition for english students. 

a claim is an assertion, and evidence is what is used to support an assertion.  they are not the same. 

an assertion is "a declaration that something is the case"  the example given by MW is "He presented no evidence to support his assertions."  this can also be written "He presented no evidence to support his claims."

It's almost like kevinagain has no idea of what words mean in a scientific context, despite his two degrees.

kevinagain, if I were you, I'd demand a refund. You were robbed.
My names are many, yet I am One.
-Orion, son of Fire and Light, Sol Invictus.

Religions need books because they don't have gods.

Discord: https://discord.gg/Hhz7Ff2