Karma reasons for concrete message



    Global Moderator

    Posts: 6749
  • Darwins +485/-5

....if I thought long enough and had the time I'm sure I could come up with an example where there were 10 or more ways of validating something, with a progressing level of certainty leading up to the point of 100% validation.

At what point, then, is it possible to consider somebody 'foolish' for believing something to be true? If person A is convinced at point 4, and person B is convinced at point 6 or 7, but nobody has gotten to point 10 ( 100% validation ), then is person B really entitled to act all superior, as if they are more rational?

With the point, I presume, being that everybody would be convinced about "X" if only ALL the information were available to them?  Well, good luck with humanity then.  There are people out there why believe that the earth is hollow, or on the inside of a sphere.  Millions of people of (not-your-god) believe that (not-your-god) is real and does miracles.  Should we call them foolish for not believing?  Well, the BIBLE says we should..... ;D

It seems to me the answer lies with what we experience. That seems to me a good validation of truth. Our brain might tell us one thing, when experience tells us different. So doesn't it make sense to go with what you personally experience, even if your experience is at odds with somebody elses, or seems contrary to what somebody's elses brain tells them?

Does it?  How do you diagnose hallucinations, MM?  Shouldn't we accept that what a person SAYS they experience, IS actually what they experience?

How do judges and juries decide, MM?  If one person says "I saw him take the gems", and another says "I watched him, and he DIDN'T take the gems", are they both correct?  Should we treat them both as correct - and if so, how?

When you look at Hal's optical illusion, are the lines REALLY wobbly?  When you look at all the studies on how easily eye-witnesses unconsciously embellish their stories, add bits, change them when asked leading questions.....I'm interested in how you can say that "what I done think happened" is a position we should just accept, and not worry about changing.  If Sarah says she saw fairies, great!  She saw fairies, and that's all there is to it.

Clearly that would be an impossible world to live in, even if everyone kept their beliefs to themselves.  But they don't, and those beliefs have real and often dramatic effects on the world itself.

Its why letting people alone with their unverifiable viewpoints is not an option.  Its why we treat people who see things that aren't there.  Its why we use CCTV to see who REALLY took the gems.  Its why we don't build ships based on what some guys "believes" would make a damn good floaty thing, but on carefully observed and tested principles.  The guy who is convinced that sponge and lead would be good things to build a ship from is firmly shown the door.

But how do we tell who we should listen to when we are thinking about building a ship?  Well, when someone says:

The conslusion I reach? My brain and my experience convince me 100% of God's existence. It's a lock, for me. I took it to the bank years ago.

...we say to them okay - SHOW us.  Demonstrate it.  Show us how your experience can be verified, how we can repeat it, how we can be empirically sure that your experience matches up with the reality of what happened.  Especially when the experience that person is asserting is contrary to all the things that we CAN show we should expect.

You're telling me that your brain, and presumably your expereince, tells you that God does not exist.
But if you can't point to some 100% validation, and if you can't demonstrate that the product of your thinking is somehow more valid than mine (remembering that your brain has no external, ultimate intelligence backing it up) then can you really claim the high ground in our differences?

If I couldn't?  No.  If I couldn't in any way show you that my hypothetical wardrobe exists, then I probably COULDN'T claim to be any more sure it was there than you were it was not.

But I'm confident I can.

I don't just disbelieve in gods on a whim.  I do not believe they exist because when I test the propositions of what should happen if they exist, those propositions fail.  Sometimes that definition of the goddess in question becomes so vague and woooly that it becomes completely untestable - but when I reach THAT stage in a conversation, when the "does it? doesn't it?" is completely unanswerable, then frankly I no longer give a toss.  When the purported goddess is so intangible that it has no demonstrable effect on the world then it is completely irrelevant and may just as well not exist.

So go ahead, MM - as several others have asked you in this thread.  You have become "100% convinced" that your particular god exists.  I look forward to seeing the several aspects of verifiable, testable, and repeatable evidence that you can point to as support that your conviction is not simply the result of chance, coincidence, and wishful thinking.  This is the SCIENCE section of the forum, after all.  So let's see the SCIENCE behind your assertions.

Or is your god really one of those ones that is so irrelvant to the world that it may just as well NOT exist?

Changed Change Reason Date
nogodsforme Good luck. I suspect this will be a shaggy dog story. August 17, 2012, 11:59:22 AM