Correction: the speed of light in a vacuum is c=299792458≈3.00×108 m/s for all observers. The speed of light changes in materials with a refractive index n that differs from 1. In glass the refractive index is approximately n=1.5, meaning that the speed of light in glass is v=c/1.5≈2.00×108 m/s. This is obviously not indicative of interference from outside the known physical world. I think you already know this, but speaking as a physicist, I think you use very sloppy formulations here.
Given the two following alternatives:
Something outside of the known physical world have interfered to give us what appears as natural law.
This result is consistent with the natural laws that we have uncovered so far, and the laws seem to be inherent and fundamental to everything we can observe. We do not (as yet) know the deeper causes of why physical laws and constants are the way we observe them to be. Further investigation is necessary.
Which of these are the most parsimonious, the most honest? Which of them would you choose if you needed an explanation to whatever happened, and why?
In short: It is highly unlikely that you by randomly shuffling a deck of cards will end up with a particular configuration determined upon before the shuffle. However, it is certain that you will end up with one of the possible configurations, which you can check after the shuffling.
Also related to this is that the chances of winning on one partiuclar ticket in a lottery is 1/N, where N is the number of tickets drawn from, while it is certain that there will be one winner of the lottery (but chances are overwhelming that it will not be your particular ticket). This also extends (with some modification) to considerations regarding the exact configuration of our solar system, our galaxy, the cosmos, and to how evolution has resulted in the types of living creatures we can observe today.
Or even shorter: a priori vs a posteriori considerations.
To illustrate the simillarity between the assertions.
I explained why i felt it did not, at leat as well as other words.
My orig9nal response addressed the point, you chose to focus on just that part of it. And clearly i thought within the context of the clsmaim the distinction was between the words was important.
Yet you have now focused entirely on that part of my response, and are for some blaming me. It should also be clear that we might not agree on whether a point is important, or on how important.
It was an apropos question to the context of your assertion, why for example would one consider the second hearsay of tge gospel myths as evidence for tgeir own claims but the Harry Potter novels not. The usual answer is intent, but of course that alone doesn’t really address the issue.
I disagree, any claim for evidence necessitates a discussion about the quality of it, else the word loses all meaning.
I stand corrected. It was not meant to be a physics accurate figure, just a passing example, but I recognise and accept it was inaccurate all the same. My apologies.
I fully understand, and please understand I am not trying to make a case for something subverting our understanding of reality, I’m just making a case for epistemic humility - we can’t know, but we have to operate on the presumption. I take no issue with operating on the presumption, but having an awareness it is there all the same is reasonable in my view.
I am not trying to undermine the value of science or objective evidence at all.
I agree. The purpose of the point you quoted me as saying was that something can be unfalsifiable, yet can also be proved true (in this case, someone could shuffle a deck of cards - and yes, as you point out, we couldn’t know beforehand what specific configuration that shuffled deck of cards would be - but after the fact, that shuffled deck would be proof that the specific configuration has occurred at least once)
To illustrate the similarity between the assertions that there are numerous potential answers to (hypothetical deity being capable of defending their existence on their own) and (do mermaids smell of the sea)?
But why? What would be the relevance to highlighting an alleged similarity between two assertions?
It’s like someone asking “is an apple a fruit?” and a person says yes, and then someone else offers “just as is the sun is a star?” - sure, both have the same answer, so they are technically similar on that basis, but that doesn’t explain why you chose to bring it up - why you chose to reference a similarity between two responses in the first place.
And for the record, I would also say the question, “do mermaids smell of the sea?” doesn’t have numerous potential answers. It’s a straight forward question that is either yes or no. There may be a bit of an explanation as to why it may be yes or no, based on whichever fictional setting is being referred to (unless someone happens to claim mermaids exist and is replying in that context, but that is not supported by any current objective evidence, to my knowledge) - either way, fictional or not, it would be a simple answer with maybe a bit of explanation, whereas the other is much more complex in the hypothetical context - the question is covering a number of underlying questions that would naturally follow however it was answered.
And I explained why it did, within the specific context I used it in.
I didn’t focus on just that part. As per the previous quote, I also explained why the word was more appropriate in the context used.
I can understand the question being asked if I was making a claim and citing a religious text as evidence for that claim, but the point I had made was that there is a difference between evidence and objective evidence, and I mentioned religious texts, etc. as examples of what would fall into evidence and not objective evidence to support my presumption that you were talking about objective evidence when you said evidence.
I wasn’t trying to make any argument in favour of religious texts etc., it was merely for clarity of an unrelated point and to explain why I was re-framing what you said from “evidence” to “objective evidence”
As a reminder, you had initially stated:
and when I mentioned scriptures, it was in the context of an example of something that could be called evidence, but wouldn’t constitute objective evidence, which is why I was saying that objective evidence vs evidence seemed more important than evidence vs proof (at least in the original context used)
As per the quote below as a reminder:
I agree, but that’s not what it was about. I was literally trying to use this point you’re making now as an explanation for why I was pointing out you were talking about objective evidence and not evidence.
So I wasn’t trying to reference scriptures for any purpose other than to point out that objective evidence would be more appropriate than evidence, as the difference is more important.
(i.e., often when people use proof and mean evidence, the intentional meaning can typically be inferred from the context, whereas when it comes to the term “evidence” it would be more important to clarify that objective evidence is the intended meaning - testable, repeatable evidence in line with the scientific method, and not just “evidence” such as scriptures, etc.)
So in a sense, I was trying to skip forward to an position you would support (objective evidence), instead of responding to the specific word you used (evidence) and have the very argument we’re having now about this point.
Can we accept this particular point was a misunderstanding, and move on from it, or does it need further discussion and/or clarity?
Not really as those are objective facts, but answers about the olfactory sensation of mermaids is not.
Not really, since they exist only in the inagination we can make up anything we want, that’s rather the point. The answers woukd have no relevance to objective reality.
Doesn’t matter - there’s a similarity between two questions that can have an identical answer (yes) and two questions for which there can be an identical response (there are many potential answers to that question) so a similarity of similarities fits your original comparison.
If we’re just going by similarities, any objection is just arbitrary. Who makes the rules of what can be claimed as similarities?
Doesn’t explain why you brought it up to begin with though, or the fact that the mermaid question would have a straight-foward answer by comparison
We can make up anything we want, yes, but it would still be a straight-forward answer. And yes, as it’s made up the answers would have no relevance to objective reality.
That’s not exactly helping your case as to why you brought it up in the first place though, because it’s less and less of a match with the question/response you were saying it was similar to.
That’s true of any question if the answer is made up and unevidenced. This “may not matter” to someone who is emotionally invested in a particular answer, it absolutely does matter if the objective truth is your only concern.
No one, the rationale behind it either makes sense to you or it does not, to me as an atheist it does make sense to compare answers about a deity to answers about a mermaid, sas I base credulity solely on what can be supported by sufficient, and sufficiently objective evidence. Mermaids and deities fall outside that threshold thus far.
So could the god question, they could both be answered with I don’t know for example. Since there is no communicable objective knowledge of either.
It could yes, or a flowery plate of convoluted word salad, depending on whether one sets a critical and objective standard for answers.
Not to me, and I suspect others will have seen the relevance immediately as well.
but an actual answer wasn’t given in this case. My response was that there are many answers to such a question. It wouldn’t have been an objective answer either - just speculation.
as above, no answer was actually given. There was no relevant purpose in the discussion to bring up the comparison.
And yet you seem to be resistant to actually clarifying it.
but that’s not logical given that I didn’t give an answer in the first place. I just said there are many potential answers. The comparison serves no purpose if you’re comparing a non answer (which if an answer would be speculation, a non answer isn’t speculation) to another question with a non answer.
Of course it doesn’t violate any principle of logic to point out that answers to questions about imaginary things are limited only by our imagination.
I never claimed you’d answered the question, I only responded to the assertion you did make.
It serves the purpose I have already explained more than once, to highlight the similarity, as many answers will always be possible if we are talking hypotheticals about imaginary things, whether they be deities or mermaids, you just don’t seem to like the comparison, but that has no relevance.
I’ve explained multiple times now, so there isn’t any point re-asking the same question over and over, if the answer makes no sense to you. Or you just don’t like it.
Mermaids are in the same category as deities, in that answers about them are meaningless, if one cares that those answers are supported by any objectively verifiable evidence.
Thus the number of answers to MrDawn’s question was not relevant, to a person who sets that objective standard, since of course we can arbitrarily make up answers about imaginary things, answers that are limited only by our imagination, and not by objective reality, I believe this was precisely what MrDawn was getting at.
Of course there are, but none that are objectively verifiable, they’re all just made up arbitrarily. None that would be at all compelling in any objectively verifiable way, but a deity able to respond directly and with the ability to convince anyone, would be.
The real irony in your response to MrDawn’s question, is he was pointing out himself that deities people imagine, could respond directly and clear up the question of their existence, but like me I assume, no deity ever has ever made him unequivocally aware, and while I can’t speak for anyone else, being told by others that a deity exists is never going to convince me without sufficient, and sufficiently objective evidence, let alone none at all.
What’s more, an omniscient omnipotent deity like the one many religions imagine, would know this as well.
So
It doesn’t exist and can’t make me aware it is real.
It exists and doesn’t care if I believe. So why should I.
It exists but isn’t capable of making me aware, then it’s not the deity imagined, so why should I care what the people who’ve imagined it claim about what they think it wants.
Some answer I haven’t thought of, that doesn’t boil down to purely unevidenced speculation.
Perhaps this helps clear up why your response above, that there are multiple answers was meaningless to at least me, and MrDawn, and likely most atheists who set an objectively verifiable standard for evidence / belief.
See, this is my point. I was remaining within the hypothetical, and not seeking to engage in the direction of discussion the question prompted.
Your response with the comparison was signalling this very point you have now directly stated, and it seeks to shift the argument away from the hypothetical and beg the question.
I am not looking to debate the claim being made as per your quote.
My choice not to engage with that point does not signal an acceptance or a rejection of the point.
As per my previous objections, it was not about the subject of the comparison, it was the purpose for making the comparison, which until now was not referenced.
I have no problem with you taking the position you have, and I am not seeking to challenge that position, but as the initial question was a clear hypothetical and remained within that hypothetical, bringing bare assertions into it is unsupportable. However as above, I will not be engaging in such a discussion as I am not seeking to shift your position on that point.
Yes you evaded the question, but that was not directly relevant to my point f course.
The point (the original one from MrDawn) was almost Epicurean, and I pursued it in that vein. Of course if one is answering direct question about things that are only evidenced to exist in the imagination, then those answers will be limited only by our imagination.
I have made the relevance as clear as is possible, it was directly apropos to your response to MrDawn’s question.
No one is obliged to participate of course, but this is a public debate forum, and so all assertions can be addressed, as I did with yours.
As it seemed obvious from the start, but I am glad you understand finally.
On the contrary, it was central to my point about hypothetical answers about imaginary deities, or imaginary things in general, the fact one can provide multiple answers is of less relevance than the fact the answers have no objective value.
I wouldn’t say evaded. I acknowledged it and that any answer wouldn’t be a simple one (which would detract somewhat from the thread purpose), but as I have since stated, yes it would be speculation either way.
that’s different to what was said before - yes, if you’re talking about objective evidence and the absence thereof, then there is no dispute to that specific point.
That’s fine, but from the outset, I have been mindful of the forum purpose and I’m not looking to push specific beliefs or to re-voice arguments I’m sure have been done to death in the past. I acknowledge the question of objective evidence as a bar that cannot be reached. This post is one-such acknowledgement of that.
Which is the point I made in my last comment - you’re now switching between a bare assertion and an absence of (objective) evidence. As above, in terms of objective evidence, there is no dispute from me. In terms of bare assertions, that’s unsupportable, but I’m not looking to get into a debate over that, again for reasons as stated above.
And choice 4 is where this post/thread sits - no claim is being made as to whether something exists or not, but if choices 1-3 don’t apply, the post sets out how choice 4 could possibly manifest.
Fair point, in this instance I meant bare in the sence that no objectively verifiable evidence could be demonstrated to support the assertion.
Well I’m not sure how we’ve ruled out 1 through 3, but to clarify my point about sufficiently objective evidence, Idon’t believe one can argue something into existence, that is to say argument alone won’t suffice for me to invest credulity in a claim that something exists, since this is defined as being part of objective reality.
No objections here in terms of assertions without objectively verifiable evidence. If that is specifically the point, then I don’t offer any dispute to this position.
didn’t say they were ruled out - just saying “if choices 1-3 don’t apply”.
I agree. In this thread in particular, no such argument is being attempted. I’m not arguing that something exists, nor does the hypothesis call for any credulity to be invested. To the contrary, I have stated repeatedly that a person can continue in their present state in terms of disbelief/withholding belief until (and only if) they are convinced otherwise.