One of these is not the same… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCxrkl2igGY
It’s all one big black swan fallacy… I have never seen it… therefore… The FACT is, (If you are going to assert non-existence you must demonstrate it and you can not. All you can do is say something like… “So far, I have seen no good evidence for…”
My point was their arguing that something more complex must exist because we exist was flawed, not that this was somehow evidence for god not existing. Remember this is me trying to argue with the millions of Christians around me.
I guess for the future of this argument is just to state that it is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy to say that god must exist because we exist and leave it at that. Would you agree that this is best approach?
I think I am beginning to understand what you are saying, correct me if I am wrong. You are saying there are no odds, one way or another, since we do not have any kind of occurrence to work with.
I would also guess, could be wrong, that you disagree with people trying to estimate the probability of alien life since correct?
Not answering for Cog, just want to throw my 2 cents in:
You need data to start to put together an “odds of” there is no data for any of the god ideas.
What are the odds that I have 10,000 fingers instead of 10 fingers? Don’t know, there has never been any incidence of someone having 10,000 fingers. It has never been seen. No data points to pull from. How about 9,999 fingers? 10,001? We could go on forever like this.
At one point instead of trying to figure out odds of, we realize it is all pointless w/o any actual data.
There is actually data points on that. We know this planet has life, we look for evidence of similar setups, and we can check our own backyard, (other planets/moons.) We do not have very many data points, but we have at least one. (Maybe a bit more, I think we can be pretty sure that there is no life that survives on earth’s moon.
“God” does not even have a single data point. It is still within the same realm as any other completely unevidenced idea, like: rainbow farting unicorns.
Understood, and I’ll just drop that complexity argument; it is vague anyway. I’ve worked with statistics a lot in the past, but with concrete, measurable things. Calculating odds of unfalsifiable things is a bit out of my normal scope, unicorns and gods alike.
I remember one post recently where a few commented that they learn things here, which I have, and that is one of my goals as well. I may not comment on this forum too often since I’m generally busy, but I do check up on posts from time to time.
For the aliens bit, I know we have one data point, and some constraints on what we know, but White made this comment so I wanted a bit more info on his logic with that.
Yes… no odds. YET… I have never seen it. I have never seen evidence for it. (It does not exist) = Black Swan Fallacy.
Alien = Life in the universe. We know life in the universe exists. We know one version of life needs water and is based on carbon. The universe is loaded with carbon and water. We know the life we speak of thrives when water is in its liquid form, there are hundreds of planets we have now identified that meet all these criteria within direct observation and it is estimated that there are billions. We can estimate life. Life that did not originate on our planet is by definition; alien.
Intelligent alien life that flies about in UFOs and visits our planet only being observed by pilots and people who live in tailor parks? (The more variables you add to a proposition the less likely it is to be true. I give this one a much lower probability… much much lower.) I don’t think alien life can be ruled out.
Have you considered that alien life is happening on our own planet right now. Life exists in the deepest oceans by volcanic vents. Life exists in nuclear power plant waste. Life exists in acid baths. We have found life existing in many places where we could not exist. In environments that are toxic to us. We have found this alien life on our own planet.
What evidence is there for a God?
It’s definitely a circular argument, and it strikes me as an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy as well, we don’t know why we exist, therefore a deity must have done it.
It is logically fallacious to make any assertion about something based on not having an alternative or contrary explanation.
Those ships sailed away on the ocean, and were never seen again. They must have sailed off the edge of the world.
Or aliens. Still a popular belief.
IE “I lack the knowledge, imagination and wit to think of anything else, therefore god/aliens did it”
Not sure there is ‘a best approach’ .Appealing to logic and facts tends to be wasted on literalist because such people tend to be anti reason, anti science and anti intellectual. A trained apologist will continue to trot out one of Aquinas ’ Five Ways" until he runs out. Then he will attack you, if he has not done so already.
My usual approach is: ALL claims about god are unfalsifiable.IE so far no one has managed to prove or disprove any of them.
It is my position that god cannot be argued into or out of existence. I demand empirical evidence and will settle for nothing less.
To the interlocutor: IF you have no empirical evidence please stop wasting my time and Fuck off/go away/change the subject.
Me too, and many times they do not understand the concept of falsifiability, or its implications. So that is always the starting point to teach. I’ve essentially came up with a little “parable” for that. People always want to believe their unfalsifiable religion or conspiracy theory, but other people’s are ridiculous. One thing I try to do is setup falsifiability criterion with them. At what point would they stop believing their unfalsifiable thing. I know that it may sound silly, coming up with falsifiability criterion for unfalsifiable things, but it gets them to think in a way they haven’t before. I also would ask them how a Muslim would stop believing in her/his unfalsifiable thing.
I do find the discussion inevitably linked to logical fallacies because you have to employ some form of bad epistemology (which fallacies are a part of) in order to believe something unfalsifiable. Part of my investigation in this subject is to find the best path to do this. The fact is they believe the tooth fairy exists because they want to. When I talk to Christians, they will only admit to me that they believe “because they want to” as a final resort; after I shot down everything else. Then, a few weeks later, they will go to church and think their reasons are valid again.
Needless to say, I find this frustrating, but it is worth it. While religion overall seems to be declining around me, there are too many people who I’ve known my entire life who are going down the rabbit hole of conspiracies, especially QAnon. It isn’t a surprise to me that they are targeting Christians since they already believe a whole host of both religious and political unfalsifiable things. This is why epistemology is so important, and I try to put the focus there. I applaud and encourage any time any of these people I know actually use a good epistemology in deciding something. Either way, I’ve seen this as a very long process that they have to be open for.
[quote=“TheMagus, post:49, topic:258”]
So that is always the starting point to teach.[/quote]
Teach? A devout Christian? What a quaint notion.
Religion seldom comes up for me. Possibly because asking people about their personal beliefs is considered very rude in Australia. Certainly not something one asks a stranger or new acquaintance.
My position is that I really don’t care about the personal superstitions of others unless they get in my face. Then I may say something unkind. I feel no desire or obligation to even try to teach those dropkicks anything. I don’t care enough and am a rotten teacher anyway.
Atheists are a relatively small minority the world population. About 13% I believe. Although OK here, being known as an atheist in some countries can endanger one’s health.–And I’m not just referring to Arab countries. America is country which at present will not elect an atheist president, I find that troubling. I would certainly not make a thing about my atheism in the US.
The Republican party has gone to great lengths in the past to purge its leadership of the conspira-tards, and has been rather successful. They seem to have reversed that policy of late. Assuming Trump gets repudiated at the ballot box: we’ll see how they reform themselves. Will they complete their transformation into the party of bat shit crazy QAnon’ers? Or will they take the route of the Lincoln Project. Or maybe something entirely?
My guess is they will split. Some will go down the route conspiracies and their own version of truth, others will go the route of Lincoln project, or try to get back to “Reagan era” republicans.
At the moment of Republicans greatest triumph, (super majority conservative control of Scotus for possibly a generation,) might also see them lose so much more a mere week later, as republicans become increasingly irrelevant, and seems likely to me they will shatter into several different pieces that will not be able to hit majority status at the federal level again for a while. Republicans made a deal with the far right to get the votes they needed to beat out a growing majority of mostly apathetic democrats, but that deal will likely shatter once even that is not enough to deliver control to the republicans party as a whole.
If Florida does not break strongly for Biden, (A state that counts its mail in ballots early,) expect 1-12 weeks of pure chaos in USA, that makes the last few crazy months look tame in comparison.
Yeah, it’s fun to speculate what kinds and how many phoenixes will arise from ashes of the Republican party. All that assuming there will be ashes; who knows.
My wager is that it will contain some very strange bedfellows. So strange that they would be hard for us to imagine in the current environment.
I keep thinking of the sentence '“Biden wins by a landslide” .
I read that Trump has already lost many christian votes AND has now upset a lot of seniors. Two groups on which he depends. (that’s assuming ‘christian’ refers to bible belt rednecks)
Is there any realistic chance that Trump will [again] lose the popular vote but retain enough electoral college votes to win office?
Things in the real world are not “proved.” There is or there is not evidence for a claim. Things are generally believed to be true to the degree of the evidence provided. Proof happens in mathematics.
By combining the following properties of the system, that outcome is a very real possibility:
I’m predicting #3 will be worse than usual, and maybe even violent.
I hope so., It may spur the US public to change the system.
I’m using it in a vernacular sense. I know what I mean, but realise the term is strictly incorrect. However, I contend that it is ‘proof’, not evidence’ which is commonly used in daily life. Admittedly not in the daily lives of scientists , philosophers, and pedants.
that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.
to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest:He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
to support by evidence:He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.
noun
“the study finds little evidence of overt discrimination”
Similar:
proof
confirmation
verification
substantiation
corroboration
affirmation
authentication
attestation
documentation
support for
backing for
reinforcement for
grounds for
verb
“the quality of the bracelet, as evidenced by the workmanship, is exceptional”
https://www.google.com/search?client=opera&q=definition+of+evidence&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
one or more reasons for believing that something is or is not true:
The police have found no evidence of a terrorist link with the murder.
[ + to infinitive ] There is no scientific evidence to suggest that underwater births are dangerous.
[ + that ] Is there any scientific evidence that a person’s character is reflected in their handwriting?
Several experts are to give evidence on the subject.
There is only circumstantial evidence against her, so she is unlikely to be convicted.
Campaigners now have compelling documentary evidence of the human rights abuses that they had been alleging for several years.
Fresh evidence suggests that the statement had been fabricated.
The traces of petrol found on his clothing provided the forensic evidence proving that he had started the fire deliberately.
All the evidence points to a substantial rise in traffic over the next few years.
There is growing/mounting/increasing evidence that people whose diets are rich in vitamins are less likely to develop some types of cancer.
More examples
SMART Vocabulary: related words and phrases
(Definition of evidence from the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary & Thesaurus © Cambridge University Press)
evidence
noun [ U ]
US /ˈev·ɪ·dəns/
anything that helps to prove that something is or is not true:
These figures are being given as evidence of economic growth.
The FBI has found no evidence of a crime.
The weight of the evidence is against him.
Juries examine the evidence and decide on the basis of the facts.
(Definition of evidence from the Cambridge Academic Content Dictionary © Cambridge University Press)
evidence
noun [ U ]
LAWUK /ˈevɪdəns/ US
objects, documents, official statements, etc. that are used to prove something is true or not true, especially for legal or insurance purposes:
evidence of/for sth Despite the claims, his insurance adjuster found no evidence of flood damage to his property.
evidence against sb The defendant was released after the prosecutor failed to produce enough evidence against him.
evidence that sth Is there any evidence that the employer has difficulty retaining staff?
give/provide/present evidence Contractors must provide evidence of valid permits before they may begin any work.
consider/examine/hear the evidence A jury has heard all the evidence in this case and rendered its decision.
false/circumstantial/conflicting evidence
growing/mounting/increasing evidence
Overkill - And understood as long as ‘we’ are aware…
It is not generally skeptics who use these words dripping with the trappings of all or nothing thinking but rather, theists. What the theists read may not be what is intended. The word “proof” stands out to me as I have made and continue to make a concerted effort to eliminate it from usage when I mean ‘evidence.’ It is also one of the most misconceived utterances of theists who have no actual understanding of its relation to reality and most frequently leads to equivocation fallacies.
You obviously understand this… On to the action…
If tRump wins, it will almost certainly be an electoral win, while losing the popular vote by millions. Nationally Biden is up at least 10%. But in key swing states needed to win the electoral vote, the race is a lot closer. I would say very roughly biden is leading by only 3-5% on enough swing states that there is still a very realistic path for tRump. Biden has even said so himself, this race is still “close.”
However I do think there is a greater possibility of Biden winning by a landslide, then tRump winning at all. My speculative answer is:
30% chance Biden wins in a landslide, 50% it will be a close race but Biden wins, and 19% chance tRump manages to win via electoral votes, and <1% tRump wins by a landslide, (at least, w/o cheating.)
To me it comes down to: if the polls are at all accurate, Biden wins, probably by a landslide. If polls are only semi accurate, Biden wins. If the polls are complete garbage or a lot of cheating goes on, tRump pulls out an electoral victory. If tRump wins by a landslide fairly, then the polls are actually a misleading agent.
Polls are however increasingly inaccurate as fewer and fewer people have landlines and actually answer and respond to the polls. (If I get a call from a number that is not recognized, I let them leave a voicemail, 99% of the time these calls do not leave a voice mail or the voicemail is a recording. And I am not alone in my methods on that.
Right. If you threw me in a dungeon and told me to predict who was going to win, and said you would kill me if I’m wrong: I’d guess Biden.
But I’m not confidant enough to volunteer to bet any money on it.
Part of me wonders if there will even be a clear winner…