Do I really have a burden of proof? Does it not follow logically that a limited being (like a human being) is fundamentally unable to demonstrate the existence of a supreme being (like a god or “the” God)?
Then don’t you also have a burden of proof. You “don’t believe a deity exists”. Isn’t it fair to ask “why”? And isn’t it fair also to reaffirm that “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence”?
Would you mind restating the reasons why you feel such a maxim breaks down at some point, logically speaking?
Well, he’s done much more than that - but again you’re incredulous towards any kind of knowledge derived from the five senses. You’ve said as much. You’ve even gone as far to say that scientific empirical observation relies on methods outside of sense input. Implying that the only criteria you accept as “objective” is that divorced from the senses - in some weird realm of “fact” - something that “sense impression” can only imitate (so to speak) with “subjectivity”!
Fair enough. I have a bachelors in biology and have never used it successfully to advance myself financially or socially. My hatred of the scientific method is deep seated. My love of scientific theory has deep roots however. And it is - as you say - neither here nor there. Feel free to ignore.
I don’t really care if they successfully get you to the moon. Our sapien escapades into the realms of knowledge have far outpaced our moral ability not to use it for the sake of evil. I think that says plenty about our motivations in the first place.
More sophisticated ways to start a fire. But I digress. We both do, in fact.
Well. Again the initial “belief” or “hunch” might be an innate instinct which tells us that powers of authority punish misdeeds or moral impropriety with things like imprisonment, torture, or death.
Ultimately, the evidence is which could convince a person of such a place of punishment for immorality like that of “Hell” (where souls go to suffer) would be at the behest of a supreme being. Since “Hell” is a supreme, other worldly kind of “place” you wouldn’t really “know” about it without “meeting your maker”.
Maybe we can work something out. I’m not convinced that ceasing to respond to you entirely is in my best interests. I retract the above statement I made.
Yes, no. And rightly so. This is “home turf” for you, after all.
Oh, I do. You just don’t accept “sense impression” as a credible source of knowledge.
And if it doesn’t, I wouldn’t worry about it too much.
Why not?
Sophisticated methods of building bigger and better fires. But I digress. As do you as well.
I’d rather not get into the history of technology.
Let’s ignore this point for the moment. I apologize. I was the one who made it, after all.
I think I’ve better addrssed that in another post. Let’s see …
You’re right. It is. But the existence of an innate fear of punishment is usually what makes most Christian’s who don’t have direct knowledge of God, “God Fearing” men. The “fear mongering” of the Bible plays to that innate fear. I think that was the point I was making.
The actual proof that such fear mongering is justified in any sense requires another demonstration from a supreme being - when in fact it’s not clear at all that limited beings who are granted such knowledge are supposed to pass that on in any sense.
Yes, all claims carry a burden of proof, especially in a debate. Just take a moment and think of the alternative, anyone could respond to any claim with a contrary claim, if neither have a burden of proof then debate becomes impossible.
The problem is that this assumes a deity exists or can exist, this is an example of something I described earlier, when one tries to support an unevidenced claim with another unevidenced claim, it’s a form of circular reasoning where the second claim used to support the original, is as much in need of evidentiary support as the original claim.
And of course a very simple application of Occam’s razor provides a simpler idea here, namely that no human being is able to demonstrate evidence for that which does not exist. You see this idea is simpler, and we know it is true, whereas we still don’t know (I mean objectively) that a deity can exist.
So firstly disbelieving a claim is not a belief / claim so does not carry a burden of proof, but a contrary claim would carry a burden of proof, but not an equal one, as the claim something exists is the larger claim, especially something supernatural, as we have no objectively verifiable examples of this ever occurring. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
The reason I don’t believe a deity exists is that insufficient and insufficiently objective evidence has been offered to allay my doubts. Over the years even the best arguments are biased (see subjective).
The absence of evidence is evidence of absence, though it may not be sufficient evidence on its own to claim something is absent. Try this, if we invest belief in something we cannot evidence, what then apart from bias (see subjective again) do we use to disbelieve any claims?
No I have not claimed this at all, but using our sense alone is subjective, because outside of your own mind the claim cannot be verified. One could also argue that it is implausible you could objectively verify this voice is external to your mind.
So I have no problem with the senses being involved, only point out that if we rely solely on those senses, then the information is very unreliable as they are easily deceived.
No, I have never claimed this. Only that such methods are far more reliable because unlike using only the senses, they remove as much subjective bias as possible, whereas our sense alone, are easily deceived. You don’t believe in magic I assume, yet when a conjurer performs tricks, your senses are deceived to make it look like you are seeing magic.
No, think of evidence as a scale of how reliable it is, and the bottom of that scale entirely subjective experience, someone claims they saw a mermaid, and all you have is the claim, since they were alone, this then is an entirely subjective claim like yours, but you would not believe it, why? Now imagine the amount of objective verification involved in testing and experimentation in over 160+ years that objectively verifies a scientific theory like species evolution. They are at two opposite ends of a scale of reliable claims.
If an experience or claim for experience relies solely on the senses, then by definition it is subjective. Just Google the defintion:
Subjective
“Subjective describes information based on personal beliefs, feelings, or opinions rather than objective facts.It represents an individual’s internal, biased perspective (e.g., taste in art, beauty) rather than independent, verifiable truth.”
You are confusing two separate points here. So firstly the point was that a micrometer represents a tool that more objectively and accurately provides data than the human senses could alone,
Secondly the motives are not predicated within the scientific method as you claimed, what humans decide to do with the knowledge is down to them, as I said humans have also used knowledge gained from science to eradicate diseases and save countless lives, feed billions etc etc.
Well in this case more reliable ways to verify the veracity of claims.
Well hunches are subjective again, so again if we base beliefs on hunches, what apart from bias would be our criteria for disbelieving all hunches, even ones that contradict each other? Bear in mind you also use the phrase here “it might be” which is stating you don’t know, since it is semantically identical to the phrase it might not be. Fear alone is not a sound reason to believe the fears we imagine, are in fact true.
There is no reliable evidence such a place exists at all right, again we might apply Occam’s razor here, and a simpler idea would be that people imagined such a thing in order to control others using their fear of such an idea, think how potent such an idea might be when levelled at a child’s imagination, and how hard it might be for them to ever overcome this. We know lies exist, we know people manipulate others including children, we have no reliable or objectively verifiable evidence hell or souls exist.
The fear itself is not reliable evidence, and it’s certainly not objective evidence.
I’m glad.
That is a personal experience, you can’t demonstrate this obviously.
We are on the same page here. Life has enough worries without adding any.
Same reason anyone disbelieves anything, I have not seen sufficient evidence to allay my doubts.
Sophisticated methods and tools for more reliably verifying the veracity of claims.
Yes it’s a potent way to control people, but fears are not a reliable indicator that what we fear is real. Again why would I use a less reliable method, if my goal is to believe only what is true then I would use the most reliable method (s) we have.
There are two factors here. One is that acknowledging that sensory information can be misleading is not the same as saying it’s got no value. And the second is that much depends on the consequentiality of the truth-claim. If I wake up and see sunlight coming in my bedroom window it’s reasonable to assume it’s sunny at the moment and likely to be at least a partly sunny day today. If I’m wrong (say, a storm blows in five minutes later) it’s of little consequence. I’m just making a casual, tentative observation.
But if I wake up to see a giant eye peering in through the window, while it might be prudent to succumb to my gut response (run for my life) and ask questions later, it is also highly likely that I am hallucinating. The experience is real, but may not reflect reality or at least may fail to inform me that I’m having, say, a stroke, or an unaccustomed psychotic break.
We can trust our five senses for everyday purposes or we wouldn’t be able to function for those same purposes. But when someone tells me there’s a Sky Wizard who wants my fealty on pain of eternal perdition, then even if I “feel” its presence or if I ask it for something I need and that thing comes to me, yes, I’m going to need more evidence than a bare assertion plus some “feels” or some experiences that are likely selectively chosen over less confirmatory experiences.
A few hundred thousand years have led humans to evolve into mostly cooperating beings to ensure mutual survival. Things like lying, cheating, stealing and killing tend to defeat this survival model, so the need to regulate it becomes necessary.
Morality with or without religion is still a human construct. The only difference is where either side draws its agency from.
I feel only a slight burden … the kind that would beseech another to cast down proof. I, myself, can provide no proof. And yet I know such proof is a possible given.
I’d say it’s far more than an assumption. It’s an absolute certainty on my part. As an axiomatic proposition, I hold that a supreme being can enable a supreme demonstration. I don’t see why you would disagree, even in principle.
A “black swan” fallacy. All you would require is the demonstration for Supreme Power from a Supreme Being. Even if you say there is no evidence to suggest that such a demonstration is possible, you cannot rule it out. Thus you remain agnostic, not atheist.
I’ve alluded to the fact that this goes far beyond a mere voice in my head. And again, I would allude to you that it is solely on the part of the five senses that I’ve comprehended the existence of God. And yet you again dismiss the five senses as being “easily deceived”. Can you imagine the extent to which God would have to manipulate the five senses in order to be “perceived”?
and here I’ll draw a line. I do not have the time or patience to draw out this argument line by line or point by point. I’m sure we could expend an infinity of time on just the above points alone.
You really think that if God Himself opened the gates of Hell to you, showing you the path in - that you would have some “appeal”? The funny thing is that we can all admit to imagining “God”. We can all admit to imagining “Hell”. And we can all admit to dismissing these imaginary devices as “illusion”. But we do not imagine “leprechauns” or “unicorns” in the same way - precisely because they do not hold any bearing on the fate of our souls.
Forget proving your claim, you have been unable to offer anything beyond the bare subjective claim itself.
That’s all you have presented, how you feel about your claim is irrelevant to how others will view it. If someone claimed to be absolutely certain your deity didn’t exist as they are absolutely certain only theirs was real, we have two opposing claims, only bias could lead to believing either claim.
I don’t need to disagree, simply disbelieve your claim, as it offers no supporting evidence of any kind, let alone sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, which as you know is the threshold I set for belief.
No it’s not a black swan fallacy, as I never claimed no deity exists.
I require sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, please don’t tell what my threshold for credulity is.
I have ruled out nothing, only disbelieved a bare subjective claim.
I don’t believe any deity exists, thus I am by definition an atheist, I am also an agnostic when the claims made are unfalsifiable. They are not mutually exclusive one can be both an agnostic and an atheist. Again please don’t tell me what I am.
I dismiss nothing, I merely point to an objectively verifiable fact.
What I can and cannot imagine has no bearing on whether a claim can be objectively evidenced sufficiently for me to believe it.
That’s your choice, I can only respond to what is posted.
Not even remotely what he said now is it.
I can imagine a unicorn. no one here is suggesting deities don’t exist in the human imagination.
You miss the point, no one is saying they are identical ideas, only that they are similar in that while they can be imagined, there is no objective evidence they are real.
The claimed bearing on the fate of my soul is an unevidenced assertion and its only influence is to raise the claim to a consequential / extraordinary one that requires proportionally more proof than a claim about a leprechaun. But TBH in practice I do imagine all these things in the same way. All it took was some time and distance from the culture of guilt and fear I was raised in.
I don’t think god would need to manipulate our senses so much as just actually present himself to them for evaluation in the same way that a lot of things present themselves and convince us they are real or at least most likely real.
The principle that governs here IMO is intersubjectivity. I’m always reminded of John Nash, who suffered from schizophrenia, occasionally asking people in a gathering if there was really a person standing over in the corner of the room. If he was the only one seeing the person, he accepted that he was hallucinating and could disregard it. That does not technically rule out there was someone there that only he could see somehow, but since he knew he hallucinated regularly he had to control for it and figure out what to pay attention to, or not. By all accounts he got quite good at it.
The problem with gods is that there’s no intersubjective rabbit trail to follow. People have vague impressions, they superimpose their own religious or cultural assumptions on what those mean, often coming to conflicting conclusions (hence, e.g., the countless Protestant denominations, some with mutually exclusive base assumptions about things like how literally true or inerrant scripture is). There is nothing with the commonality of experience like what language means, which way is up, what color a cloudless unpolluted sky is at noon, etc. It is just hopes and fears and needs projected onto the vague templates of scripture and personal emotional responses. Most importantly there is nothing that can be measured or falsified. The color of a clear sky has certain wavelengths of light predominant and you can describe how that works such that you can predict the color based on the involved variables and that agrees with what is casually observed and even accounts for edge cases. It’s also measurable with the appropriate instruments which also agree with intersubjective observations.
I do not see pure sensory experience as “subjective”. Nor do I see your inability to relate to my experience as a failure on my part to “prove” it (to you).
This may seem inappropriate in a debate forum … but I don’t “need” you to view my claim as true. Nor do I expect you to believe a delivered demonstration of God by a supreme power to me as any indication that you (who have not experienced a supremely delivered demonstration) should take my word for it. The point being that demonstrations of supreme beings should come from supreme beings (and I dont see arguments against that. Moreover, you yourself have told me that I’ll be the first to know when a demonstration to you has been conducted).
The demonstration to me of a supreme beings should does not outrule the demonstration of other “divine” of “supernatural” beings to others. So, beyond the scope of the point you’re trying to make is the complexity of the problem entailing that the “supreme” demonstration of a “supreme” being would overrule the existence of my “supreme” being. I appreciate that you have tried to make this point, but you have not detailed how one demonstration would overrule the demonstration of another. You seem to be imagining things.
However, even you have acknowledged that you would be the first to report if and when a supreme beings demonstrated itself to you. You said even as much with sarcasm. And yet you do not know that just as much is possible. Thus I would accuse you of being agnostic and not, as you claim “atheist”. Moreover, the supporting evidence is my word and my honour. Inasmuch as I respect your word and honour, it should suffice. If not, I can completely dismiss your character as irrelevant to the discussion.
You claim not to believe in a deity. You claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. This is the black swan fallacy. Unless you have any other reason for not believing in a deity, you fall victim to this fallacy.
And I suggest that evidence based on your five senses should be enough. You may perhaps require some other metric of “evidence” - but I don’t see the supreme being providing “peer reviewed studies” to the people It chooses to reveal itself to.
On the basis of an absence of evidence, which is far from being a justification to outrule the possibility. Unless you have another basis for ruling out the possibility of a Supreme Being?
Yeah. I don’t like being told how to classify my beliefs either, Shelly. And you have been guilty of assuming as much out of me, more times than I can count.
In any event. You do not believe in the existence of a deity and you have provided an absence of evidence as your justification.
as we have seen this is a faulty basis. For years it was assumed that no black swans existed due to an overwhelming lack of evidence. And then ONE was found. Just one.
Those who could have avoided this fallacy would have admitted to the possibility of a black swan. Which for you, means admitting to the possibiltiy of a Supreme Being. Can you make such an admission?
It would appeal to your five senses. Would that suffice?
I don’t claim to know the true “form” of God - so I can’t attest to whether there is even a singular “form” that he could present himself in. I would venture that whatever form he did take would sufficiently “fit the bill” - the burning bush of Moses for example. A burning bush which talks seems to me at least to be more than enough to convince me of his power.
I also find it strange to put myself in the shoes of a believer who is motivated by external influences. My mother is a Christian. She has no direct connection to God. She has no assurances that she will go to heaven in the afterlife. It’s all hearsay. I see very little alternatives for such people to merely “pretend” that they belong to the collective. When it is no longer socially imperative to belong to the collective, there is very little reason for regular folk to go along with the narrative.
Unless you experience it first hand. But no, there’s really no metric by which anyone should stake their life on the claim that God exists. Just look at the Quran and the extent to which is brain-washes it believers.
As someone who has experienced the Supreme Being first hand, I can appreciate the message to the Quran to a certain extent. When I put myself in the shoes of the average Muslim I see nothing but a lingering fear of condemnation motivating all of their belief and behaviour.
It’s not an inability it is a choice, based on the complete lack of anything being presented beyond a bare claim, and this has been explained to you exhaustively, so why you’d misrepresent it is bizarre?
It has also been explained that if one accepted such a bare subjective claim as this, then one would have no criteria beyond closed minded bias, for disbelieving all other such claims, even contradictory ones.
I have never claimed you do.
Good, but your first response above suggests you do, by describing my detailed choice about what I accept as a threshold for personal credulity, as an “inability”?
Since no evidence has been presented any such entity exists, only a bare claim, it would be irrational to suggest anyone need present any such argument. Nothing can be logically asserted as true because we lack an alternative explanation or evidence.
I don’t believe I have made any such claim, it certainly doesn’t sound like something I’d say, given it is pure speculation.
In my hypothetical example of a claim that is entirely subjective like yours, they do, from your rationale I’d have two claims that were unevidenced and subjective, they could not both be right, but don’t fixate on this one hypothetical example, any contradictory claims will do if they are bare subjective claims, rather try and understand how the rationale fo accepting one such claim, must lead either to bias or irrationality.
They wouldn’t without bias, that was precisely my point, so all one need do is imagine two bare subjective claims like yours, that are contradictory, the only choices are to accept both which would violate the law of non- contradiction, or use closed minded bias to accept some and not others, or accept none, ipso facto the latter is the only choice I can therefore make, as I don’t care to base belief on irrationality or bias.
If I have they are explained carefully as hypotheticals.
I don’t believe I made any such claim, as I say it doesn’t sound like me, as I consistently express my criteria for credulity as what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence. I should prefer you do not paraphrase this, or assign different claims.
Pretty sure I have not said this, you may be confusing me with another poster, again I should prefer you quote what I say, and not paraphrase it. Though the sarcasm does at least sound like me on occasion.
I aleady addressed this error so I have no idea why you’re repeating it? I am an atheist as I don’t believe in any deity or deities, when the concept of the countless deities humans have imagined is unfalsifiable I am also agnostic, since they are not mutually exclusive. Once again, please have the courtesy not to tell me what or how I believe, as well as ignoring my objections.
I don’t base belief on people’s word, I base it on sufficient supporting objective evidence, that is my choice, as i care to believe only true things and as many true things as possible, so this criteria best achieves that. If it helps I am convinced you believe the claim you’re making.
No it isn’t, as atheism / disbelief is not a claim no deity exists, nor have I expressed such a belief, on the contrary I have gone to great lengths to carefully explain why I as an atheist stop short of that claim, and other such absolute claims.
No I don’t, since disbelief is not a claim, atheism is disbelief, and not a claim no deity exists, absence of evidence is more than sufficient reason to disbelieve a claim, it is not on it’s own sufficient to justify a contrary claim, the latter is a black swan fallacy, the former (atheism, my position) is not a black swan fallacy.
And I have explained as have others why believing a bare subjective claim leads either to bias or irrationality, and thus I cannot base belief on them. If someone claims they have seen a mermaid, would you believe them? If not why not?
Since I don’t believe any such deity exists, I am inclined to share your doubt.
Since I have never claimed to have “ruled anything out”, only to disbelieve a claim you are misrepresenting my position. However before I’d accept any deity is possible, beyond epistemic possibility, the person claiming this would need to demonstrate sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence for objective / nomological possibility, can you do this with anything beyond a bare subjective claim?
I have made no such claim, please stop assigning claims to me that I have not made.
I have never ever told you or anyone what to believe, or what threshold for credulity to set, only pointed out why I cannot accept those standards.
No this is inaccurate, a complete absence of any objective evidence would be more accurate, only bare subjective claims in this instance, and in a wider context irrational arguments. Though I don’t believe you can argue something into existence.
No we have seen no such thing, this is your claim, I think a complete absence of any objective evidence is a very good reason to withhold belief.
Atheism is not a belief no deity exists, and I have never expressed a belief that no deity exists, so this remains a false equivalence.
You are again confusing not believing a deity is possible until it is demonstrated, with a claim deities are impossible, this is not a claim I have ever made. Possibility also has distinct definitions, like epistemic, nomological and objective, which are you claiming applies to any deity and why?
When someone demonstrate a deity, or anything else is possible with sufficient objective evidence I will accept the claim, as I would all other claims evidenced to that standard. until then I cannot believe the claim, or any other. NB this is not a claim anything is impossible.
Answered already a gazillion times, you’re presenting a hypothetical about a concept for which no objective evidence exists, my answer will always be the same, when sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence is demonstrated then it meets my threshold for credulity.
You’re crazy. Atheism has driven you over the edge.
Ridiculous. We don’t need a wide sweeping category of “criteria” to judge claims.
What’s your point? Care to elaborate?
Take me at my word. “Inability” is a word used to describe the limitations of language.
Of course it would be to your advantage if you did or could, since it would make you a “strong atheist”. At this point you espouse “weak atheism” - likely because you cannot produce such a counter argument (not, as you would like me to believe, that you are in no way obliged to).
This sentence is ill formed and could mean several different things at the same time. I’m not going to interpret it for you just so that you can accuse me of “strawmanning” you. This is a demonstration of the limits of language.
No. You in fact made it in jest. I asked you if you would believe in God if He manifested Himself to you and you told me that I would be “the first to hear about it”. If you meant it in jest that’s fine. Then you didn’t mean it and not even a personal revelation from God would convince you.
I don’t accept any of your arguments. I’ll tell you why. You don’t accept direct experience of the world as evidence that the “world exists”. Everytime you assert that my claims are “Unevidenced” you are guilty of epistemic nihilism and radical skepticism - so what’s the point of even engaging with you? You do not accept first hand experience as a valid way of knowing anything? You would not accept the existence of God even if He demonstrated Himself to you personally. We could imagine the most elaborate sequence of sensual inputs - the most outrageous and unwordly sequence of events that could happen to you - and you would not believe. Because it would be “bare” - not “objective”. I don’t believe that a man who cannot believe or trust his own senses is qualified to define the meaning of the word “objective”! Ha!
Sure. When you tell me why I shouldn’t believe my eyes, ears, tongue, nose, and hands - then I’ll concede to you that first hand experience is not a valid form of acquiring knowledge.
They’re not “bare”. That seems to be your major hang up.
They’re not contradictory. The possibility of one supreme being does not contradict the possibility of another.
You admitted as much in jest. It does not matter. You would not believe in the existence of God even if He present Himself to you personally. In fact you refuse to believe in the existence of God. Not unusual - but most often the underlying cause is that we think we are morally superior to the animals.
Well, then I’ll ask you again. If a Supreme Being manifested itself to you would you accept its existence? Don’t even bother to answer. I know your answer.
Don’t like it do you? Shoes on the other foot?. I’m doing exactly to you what you do to me when you assert that my subjective claims are “bare” and “Unevidenced”.
Let’s say you buy a cabinet from ikea? You try to put it together yourself and you fail. Would you perhaps read the instructions in order to properly erect the furniture? That is the same as taking someone’s word for it. Forming a belief at the accounting of another person.
“Objective” meaning what? Derived from the scientific procedure? And you expect me to believe that you don’t acquire your beliefs from your senses? If you didn’t you’d be walking into traffic every day!
So, you must conclude that we have different criteria for forming beliefs, perhaps? How can my belief be “true” if you have your convictions about me and remain an atheist? You accept that I believe the claim I’m making. You don’t accept that’s it’s true. Nor do you accept that I’ve formed my belief in any justified manner?
You have cited that you do not believe a deity exists because there is no objective evidence for one. This indicates that you have justified your non-belief. That’s fine. I get it.
You’re right. It’s ignorance.
Sure. It allows you to remain ignorant. But you would believe (in God) if “objective” evidence was presented? You would’nt believe, however, if that evidence was in the form of a revelation from God which appealed to your senses?
Why don’t you strive for “strong atheism”. Why do you muddle in the wallows of “weak atheism”? Are you afraid of something?
Again. Explain to me why you’re not waking into traffic every day. What stops you from doing so?
What is the foundation of your belief that the traffic in the roadway is capable of running you over?
How much of your failure to believe is also a refusal to believe? Does the notion of a God who will judge you not also fill you will moral repugnance?
That’s not a fair request. A limited being cannot demonstrate the existence of a supreme being. Except perhaps by miracle and we all know what you think about miracles - you’re radically skeptical toward them and epistemologically nihilistic when it comes to their justifying power. You would need a direct demonstration from God Himself and even then, if the demonstration appealed to your five senses, you would count that out as “bare” … there is no way to convince you. You absolutely refuse to believe in God.
“Weak atheism”. No desire to be a “strong atheist” I presume? Then there’s no point in arguing with you and there’s no point in you arguing with me. You refuse to believe. You’re only skin in the game is undermining my belief by accusing me of “bare Unevidenced subjectivity”. I think it helps you to undermine me. It helps you live with your choice.
And you have sheltered yourself even from the possibility of believing - by establishing criteria for knowledge which rule out demonstrations of the Divine by appeal to the senses.
You absolutely refuse to believe. My only inquiry would be to see if you find the belief to also be morally repugnant - in which case you carry your own bias. Not only do you refuse to believe on your own subjectively defined categories of knowledge - you also refuse to believe out of your own image of moral superiority.
You tell me in each and every post that the things I see with my eyes, hear, taste, touch, smell and cognize are “bare” “Unevidenced” “biased” “not-objective” forms of unjustified knowledge - “not true” in other words.
. Whereas your criteria for knowledge are “true”. And you take pride in “being right”. And you take pride in me “being wrong”.
You are not merely arguing that you have no reason to believe in an Unevidenced Supreme Being, you are arguing that those who do believe are wrong. In other words you are in fact arguing against the existence of a Deity by way of proving wrong those who do believe in that Deity.
You don’t stop at telling people “why” you cannot accept those standards. You use it as a way to chip away and personally demoralize … well, me for one. You take pride in showing theists why they’re wrong. You’ve said to me that you’re convinced I believe in my own claim. You say it smugly and with condescending tone. You don’t believe that my criteria for knowledge are justified. For you to maintain your “non-belief” it is essential that you rule out mine.
case in point. The moment a theist arrives on the site and makes some claim - your first order of business is to ask:
what objective evidence do you have for the existence of such a deity?
Hard baked into your question are your underlying assumptions of what “objective” means. Ie. your radically skeptical and epistemologically nihilistic criteria for “knowledge” as you like to call it.
Again. I think you would need a personal demonstration for your self in order to believe. I’ll pray for you.
For the time being, perhaps.
“Weak” atheism is a belief no deity exists. You are a “weak” atheist - your atheism is “weak”. It does not challenge anyone. Nonetheless - you use it to frustrate theists, indicating that you want to be a strong atheist but you’re afraid. And you hide behind the “lack of objective evidence” pretending that you don’t positively believe that there is no God - as if these two statements were different:
I don’t believe that God exists
I believe that God does not exist
Ha! They are one and the same! Because you believe that my statement:
I believe that God exists
is in fact a false belief.
You’d have to expand on the meaning of those terms. As I understand it, my claim that God is possible is an epistemic and ontological assertion. I don’t really know what you mean by nomological. And why? I mean. I don’t need anyone to believe in God. I’m an imperfect human who needs salvation. I think all humans are imperfect, fundamentally immoral and in need of salvation. I think that all beings are under the threat of eternal damnation. If you find that position morally repugnant - that is your problem, not mine. I have come to terms with the “clause” in our existence package. Ha ha!
So no? Even a demonstration from a supreme being who appealed to your senses would not qualify as “sufficiently objective”?
You’re dodging the question by hiding your criteria for knowledge in the word “objective”. What is your standard for believing that the vehicles in the road will run you over if you walk into traffic?
In this instance, the same as yours - Quod gratis asseritur, gratis negatur.
However as anyone can see. I have quoted the dictionary definition of subjective many times, and offered explanations of how subjective and objective differ, you just keep ignoring the facts to make a bare claim that is demonstrably erroneous, that something you claim to have experienced in only your mind, and cannot objectively evidence or verified, is not subjective, when it demonstrably is.
You don’t get to decide what others require before they invest belief in a claim, you may accept entirely subjective claims of course, if you want to, but I cannot as this will inevitably lead to either bias or irrationality, and I don’t care to base beliefs on either.
I am of course always careful not to make claims I cannot properly support by the evidentiary standard I set for my own credulity, since to do otherwise would again represent bias, and I try to keep an open mind.
No counter argument is needed for disbelieving any claim, and it would of course be irrational to argue that any claim gains credence through the lack of an alternative explanation or evidence, this is how an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy is defined.
You even touched on this yourself with the black swan fallacy, which uses a form of the argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, but you wrongly claimed I had used it, even though I have never claimed no deity exists, only to disbelieve the claims that a deity exists.
You don’t have to accept them, though it would be nice if you addressed them accurately, for example I have never claimed I “do accept that direct experience of the world is evidence it exists”, only that I don’t accept that subjective experience alone is as reliable as objectively verifiable evidence.
What evidence have you presented for your claim that your subjective experience - the voice you hear in your head, is a deity? I have seen none?
I will accept what can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, I treat all claims the same and set them to the same evidentiary standard, without bias or favour. if any deity ever attempts to demonstrate its existence I will have something to examine, nut since they have not this hypothetical is pretty meaningless, it just sounds like you’re insisting I accept the same standard you have.
If something exists only in the imagination, then it is subjective and unevidenced by definition.
I have never claimed that I can’t believe or trust my own senses, nor have I personally defined the word objective (merely quoted the dictionary).
Objective (adjective)
An objective statement or decision is free from personal bias, prejudice, or emotion. It deals with reality and things that can be proven or verified independently of the observer.
Subjective
Something is subjective if it is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, opinions, or biases. It originates within an individual’s mindrather than being rooted in external, verifiable facts or independent reality.
Quod erat demonstrandum
I have never claimed anyone should not believe their own senses, only that our senses alone are less reliable than objective evidence.
I’ve never said first hand experience can’t acquire knowledge either.
You failed to actually address what I said: about believing entirely subjective claims leading either to bias or irrationality?
What evidence have you demonstrated to support your claim that the voice you hear in your head (subjective), is a deity?
I don’t have enough information to comment on this hypothetical, but I can say that after 6 decades no deity has ever made its existence known to me. Since no evidence has been presented any such entity exists, only a bare claim, it would be irrational to suggest anyone need present any such argument.
How would it be advantageous to me in a debate, to make a claim that can’t meet my own evidentiary standards for credulity?
I think you are confusing which is cause and which is effect, I don’t express beliefs that I myself would not accept the evidentiary standard for, as I have been at pains to explain this is bias, and I don’t care to base beliefs on bias.
Who can say, it is a vague unevidenced hypothetical, I can only examine what is presented, and no deity has made its existence known to me, and all the theistic claims are unsupported by any objective evidence.
Yes I do, I also accept that my subjective experience of reality ALONE, is less reliable than objectively verifiable evidence. I think most people do if they’ve got any sense, that’s why people generally seek medical help when they’re ill, and take their car to a mechanic when it has a problem and not a witch doctor, and don’t board planes designed and built based on unevidenced subjective beliefs.
I have never claimed that I cannot believe my sense, only that on their own, they’re less reliable than objectively verifiable evidence.
I have not defined the word objective, merely offered the dictionary definition.
I have never told you this, nor have I ever claimed first hand experience is not a valid form of acquiring knowledge. Only that subjective experience is not as reliable as objectively verifiable evidence, and personal experience is not knowledge if it can’t be shared in any objective way. How many times are you going to misrepresent me on this?
No, I just don’t want to make claims that cannot meet my own evidentiary standard, and no I am not afraid of anything, just careful when making claims.
No, withholding belief from a subjective claim, that is unsupported by any objective evidence is not ignorance, rather it is refusing to base belief on ignorance, obviously.
Objectively verifiable evidence of the result, obviously.
Sufficient objectively verifiable evidence of potential results obviously.
It is not a failure, I have explained the rationale exhaustively.
I base my subjective moral worldview on the objective consequences of actions, not on hypothetical claims about hypothetical deities.
I think you mean rationally not radically, and miracles by definition are an example of argumentum ad ignorantiam, namely that divine causation is assigned to an event solely because it can’t be explained in any natural or scientific way, but that it can’t be explained, does not mean there is no explanation, hence the fallacy.
No, I would need claims to be supported by sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence, I don’t treat god claims any differently.
That is simply a lie, I invite anyone see that I have explained carefully my criteria for credulity.
You presume wrongly.
You are free to do as you wish of course.
I am also free to post as and when I choose.
My posts are for anyone who wishes to read, not just you, if they sway anyone towards belief or disbelief that is for them to decide.
Your claim that a deity speaks to you in your head is demonstrably both subjective, and unless corroborated with any evidence beyond the claim, is demonstrably a bare claim. Why you would argue against this is unclear, perhaps you could explain?
I deal with claims and arguments, not the people who make them, if those arguments and claims are undermined, that is for others to decide for themselves.
Nope, all I have done is point out the unreliable limits of subjective experience , I have not told you or anybody else what to believe, you can believe in mermaids if it makes you happy, but when you present claims here, they are subject to debate and critical scrutiny.
Oh do stop being butt hurt ratty, surely we’re past such nonsense. What the fuck is it you want, to make religious claims with impunity, well find a pulpit or a soap box and fill your boots, but when you bring them here they’re going to be challenged and subjected to critical scrutiny.
this is just another attempt to reverse the burden of proof from your claims, I don’t believe your claim for a deity, I can’t know you’re wrong, and thus don’t claim it.
If you don’t want claims and beliefs for a deity challenged, then a public debate forum is the wrong place to bring them, let alone an atheist debate forum.
Get a fucking grip man, I was doing you the courtesy of accepting your initial claim prima facie, for the purpose of debate.
No it isn’t.
I make no such assumptions, those look like your claims not mine, and the word objective is in any dictionary, as is the word subjective.
No it is not, again a cursory read of any dictionary refutes this claim. I have also stated repeatedly and unequivocally that I hold no such belief, even if other atheists do.
Now that’s rather childish, and pointless, I thought better of you.
They demonstrably are not.
No, I don’t believe that, it seems my many patient attempts to explain agnosticism, atheism and the nature of unfalsifiable contrary claims have been wasted, otherwise I’d have to imagine you just made up a rather childish lie to misrepresent me, and I do hope that is not the case.
To claim that something is epistemically possible is nothing more than to say we (currently) do not know it is impossible.
Something is objectively possible if it does not violate the fundamental laws of reality, such as logic, physics, and mathematics. I would add that placing an idea outside of those is tantamount to a violation of them.
Nomologically possible means an event, state, or proposition does not violate the actual laws of nature. Again you can’t claim that something doesn’t do this, but then place it outside of nature, and methods (like science) that can objectively examine the natural physical world and universe.
You may want a yes or no answer, but anyone can see it’s the typical vague and loaded hypothetical apologists trot out to beg the question, and that it doesn’t justify a yes or no answer.
So you’ve also lied, since anyone can read my post and see clearly I didn’t say no. I have stated as clearly as anyone can what I require in order to believe anything. I have also explained that I don’t base belief on not knowing if something is true, and obviously that agnosticism and atheism are not mutually exclusive.
Now one last time (I’ll be referencing this answer from now on), all claims, regardless the source, will be believed if and only if they are supported by sufficient and sufficiently objective evidence.
I am hiding nothing, nor have I dodged anything, as anyone can see in my post, since I have explained carefully that objective is a vital aspect for evidence that I choose to set for credulity, and I have also carefully explained why, over and over.
Sufficient objective evidence, we have countless examples of the consequences, every single day, throughout the world. Nor do I see any relevance to your subjective unevidenced claim a deity exists?
You know I don’t speak Latin, Sheldon. Come on. That’s not fair.
This line of argument is about as reliable as stating that the tree I saw fall in the forest was a figment of my imagination because I was the only one there to see it.
You accept them everyday. It is the primary reason you don’t walk into traffic (assuming you care about living).
Accept my apologies in that case.
Is it “sufficient”?
I’ll preface this by saying that it isn’t the voice in my head alone which justifies my belief. But regarding the voice in my head I’ve offered to you the fact that it demonstrates intelligence, has an agenda, holds me to various ethical standards, tests my moral and ethical constitutions in an intentional manner, and other things of this bent. Moreover, unlike a hallucination, it is not random or fragmented or demonstrative of a repeating pattern - Shania Twain - does that give you Déjà vu, Sheldon? Like seriously? Anyway. That should suffice.
No. That’s fine. I just think it’s reasonable to conclude that a belief is justified under sufficient amounts of sense data. I don’t think that’s unreasonable in any way. Nor do I require any metric of “objective data” - to, for example, convince me that the traffic in the road will kill me if I walk into it.
I think you misread me. But that’s fine. God will only be offering “subjective” sensory input (so far as I know) - this is apparently not sufficient grounds for you to form belief. Although I remain skeptical that you do not in fact conduct the majority of your day to day business relying on subjective sensory input for most of your forms of knowledge.
You’re killing me with the Latin, Sheldon.
You can repeat your argument if you wish. I don’t recall any longer what your point was.
Again. I can understand why you’re pointing to the voice in my head as the source of my belief in a deity - I’ll say as much - if you had the same voice in your head, I am close to certain that you would come to the same conclusion.
Fair enough. No argument here.
Well, some times you’ve got to lube up the pistons if you want the engine to run at full speed. you know what I mean.
Fair enough. No argument here. I concede the point (was there a point? im really at a loss here. Oops. There goes my hearing again - we’re not supposed to talk about the ghosts in public. Slap on the wrist!).
As they should be. Though I’ve had a revelation of my own, there’s no indication that I’m in should in anyway be motivated to “spread the good news”. Which is why I stop at claiming that the mere possibility of a demonstration from a supreme being would require the power of a supreme being. Sounds tautological, no?
Shucks! Sheldon with another “truth nuke”. No argument here, good chap!
Ahhh. So we agree!
Aha. Another minor victory for me!
This was the last point of this particular topic. I’ve glossed over many, many other points which are essentially repetitions of things we’ve already disagreed on. I’m not saying that you’re wrong. Just that this has ceased to be enjoyable for me. Not “fruitful”. I find this back and forth fruitful. It is just very time consuming and I can see that you would be willing to continue for as long as it would take, and I concede victory to you. “Death by a thousand pin pricks” - in this case you are the pin and I am the prick! yeah. I don’t think this marathon is fair to anyone. So, I’m going to bow out of the larger discussion and try to stick to what my bandwidth can handle (my mental bandwidth). Thank you as always for your clarity and intellectual honesty during these debates.
No it isn’t, since traffic is objectively real, unlike claiming to hear a voice in our mind, which is entirely subjective. The claim assigning this voice to a deity cannot be objectively evidenced in the way the existence of traffic, and the result of wandering into it can, this is the difference between an entirely unevidenced subjective claim, and one that can be supported by sufficient objective evidence, that our sense are involved in both is neither the point or in dispute.
None of that is objective evidence the voice comes from a deity, and humans have all those characteristics anyway, Occam’s razor applies. Hallucinations by definition can be sufficiently convincing to be confused with objective reality, auditory hallucinations are the most common occurring at around 13% in the population, if one suffers from a condition like schizophrenia they are both more common, and harder to separate from reality.
This claim is oddly incongruous, given you then offer an example of something we can objectively evidence is real? Now while anyone is free to believe whatever they wish, accepting this claim once means only bias can be used to disbelieve it elsewhere, even where we might have two clais that negate each other. Lets try an example:
Someone claims a deity speaks to them, someone else says they’re wrong as a deity speaks to them and tells them that deity must be false.
Any observer has no reason outside of bias to believe one claim over the other, one cannot rationally believe both, but one can avoid irrationality and bias by believing neither. Of course no one is obliged to be rational, or unbiased, that is a personal choice we all make.
Sensory input can be objectively verified, such as the existence of traffic, and the consequences of getting hit by it. This then is the point you are missing, since I am not saying we can’t use our senses, only that they are less reliable when that is all we have. The claim to have experienced a deity is entirely subjective, other claims for our sensory experience need not be.
Very unlikely, as I have experienced auditory hallucinations, and gave them no credence. They are not uncommon, if what my senses feed me is at odds with objective reality, then I would be unlikely to trust it without supporting objective evidence.
Well it is begging the question, so circular really.
I haven’t responded to all the points, as they overlap in another thread, the objective evidence for traffic, as opposed to the dearth of it for deities for example.
Is it though? At the most fundamental level physicists do not know what matter consists of. In fact there is no good reason for reality to be here at all. If you think about it - it would be far less complicated for there to be nothing. So, I find the idea that we will eventually reduce matter to something irreducible a little far-fetched - unless that irreducible substance happens to be consciousness.
Why would the fact that humans are capable of organized intelligent thought lend credit to the idea that my voices are hallucinations. You’re just agreeing with me that my voices are capable of organized intelligent thought - ie. the very opposite of what you allege them to be (hallucinations).
At some point “sufficiently convincing” becomes “convincingly sufficient”. lol.
Is this a real world example? I can appreciate how this works hypothetically, I don’t see it applying in any practicable manner.
Uh well … what if they’re the same deity and one is just fucking with the other? They love to do that!
Well, I would cite the existence of psychedelic substances like DMT which produce “entirety subjective” experiences inside the brain - and have yet been confirmed across large samples of users to produce the same types of entities and environments. The experience need not be “objective” by the metric you ascribe to in order to meet the criteria of “repeatable”, “reliable”. In other words, subjective experiences across multiple people are sufficient grounds for forming beliefs about experiences. Why do you think 2.3 billion people believe in Jesus Christ?
You wouldn’t have a choice, but to believe. You think dismissing a random whisper in your head on a Monday once or twice in your life is anything similar to hearing such things at all hours of the day? As I said, you wouldn’t have a choice in the matter. You may think you’re self “objective” and “unbiased” but really, Sheldon - that’s just pride speaking.
Good. Excellent. I think we should both try to “trim the fat” on some of these back and forths.
Yes, we can objectively verify traffic exists, and the consequences of being hit by it. We can’t objectively evidence deities.
I have no more reason to believe objective reality is an illusion, than I do to believe deities are real, cars are objectively real.
You are making a different point of course, and not one I have asserted, but hallucinations by definition do not reflect objective reality.
Now, objective reality can be supported by objective evidence, a voice only in someone’s head can’t, as it is an entirely subjective experience. The claim that this voice originates from outside your head or independently of it, also cannot be supported by any objective evidence, so there is no justification for believing it to be part of objective reality.
No, I am pointing out that a human that possesses intelligence, perceiving a voice they hear in their head as intelligent, is not evidence that the voice is from an externa source.
If what we perceive is at odds with objective reality then the more reliable idea is that our perception has been deceived. We’ve covered this exhaustively, and deeming this sufficient here, would mean all such claims would have to be sufficient, even contradictory ones, the alternative would be bias.
You’re missing the point, they are contradictory claims that are both based on unevidenced subjective personal experience, to believe one over the other is just bias, to believe both irrational, to withhold belief however retains doubt and an open mind.
Since this is also a subjective unevidenced claim, and we cannot evidence which one is the alleged false experience, then we’d still have no reason outside of bias to believe one claim over the other, with the same problems of bias or irrationality applying, so nothing has changed.
Argumentum ad populum. The existence of cars is objectively verifiable, the existence of deities is not. That drugs alter the way our minds work doesn’t change this, quite the opposite in fact, it is more evidence if any were needed that our senses alone can be deceived.
You can’t ask me a question the ignore my answer completely for one you favour. You are also demonstrably wrong since I already explained that I have experienced auditory hallucinations, and did not believe them to be real as they were at odds with objective reality.
You mean if I had schizophrenia I would also be far more likely to experience hallucinations, and it would be much harder to differentiate between them and objective reality. Well yes, I know this as I explained this already, this doesn’t mean they would be real, obviously.
I’m assuming the same metrics you use to objectively verify the existence of traffic would work on a deity which took on a corporeal form?
I would point out the results of the measurement effect on particles of matter at this juncture.
You’re arguing in circles. “Your voices do not reflect objective reality because hallucinations do not reflect objective reality. Therefore your voices are hallucinations.” Prove that my voices are hallucinations.
Doesn’t make it a hallucination
I don’t claim that it is outside of me. The more accurate description is that it is everywhere. As such I also do not claim that it is independent of me. If you need objective evidence there are some strong arguments made by panpsychists that consciousness is the fundamental principle of all matter and exists everywhere.
What if the voice is hyper intelligent? Do humans display omniscience, for example? Would my brain be possible of creating an omniscient state?
It’s a convenient hypothetical.
Is the persons first hand experience of the claim not a form of evidence? I would argue that it is subjective and evidenced by observation - like most of our daily experiences. Who really cares if you can put a ruler up against it and claim it has “depth”? That isn’t what humans rely on for truth.
Quantum mechanics demonstrates that when an object is not observed or measured it does not exist in any one particular place or time. What exactly do you mean when you say “the existence of” …?
My rebuttal which you conveniently ignore is that the seldom and random occurrence of an unaccounted for voice or sound in your head doesn’t amount to what I experience on a daily basis. If you’d like to describe your “hallucination” in more detail I’d be interested to hear. For now you are falsely equating your level of experience with mine.
That’s an appeal to authority fallacy. Just because a man with a medical degree from Harvard finds it hard to accept that I receive messages from the divine doesn’t mean he’s any more qualified to dismiss the phenomenon I experience as a hallucination, especially when there are countless features of the phenomenon which don’t fit the definition of a hallucination. Especially when his area of expertise is a fairly new and unsophisticated branch of cognitive science. I remain dubious as to the category “schizophrenic”. Sounds like a convenient label. Of course it is also an invention. Physicians certainly love to make categories and try to fit people into them.
When this happens and it is objectively verified I will take a look.
We are heading for the false equivalence you’ve used before, that all beliefs are subjective does not mean they are equally subjective, the more objective evidence we have the more reliably true the idea becomes. No one has suggested any human method is infallible, but entirely subjective claims, unsupported by any objective evidence are the lowest evidentiary bar.
There is a distinct difference you keep ignoring, they can be part of objective reality, if they are supported by objective evidence, you already admitted you cannot do this for any deity.
No indeed, it can simply be something one imagines, just as one can imagine a mermaid say, or a unicorn, but to assert these are real without any objective evidence is not something I can believe, nor can anyone else without using bias.
There is no objective evidence for panpsychism, it is untestable, unfalsifiable and entirely unsupported by any objective evidence. It is the very definition of pseudoscience.
If you claim the voice you hear is omniscient, then support this bare subjective claim, with some objective evidence. However I already know that an omniscient entity with any autonomy leads to a violation of the law of non contradiction.
Obviously, that’s why I used it, as it conveniently illustrates my point about subjective beliefs involving bias or leading to logical contradictions.
Not offered 2nd hand, if it is unsupported by any objective evidence, as for first hand, I would not believe my own sensory experience if it were not part of - or at odds with objective reality.
Yet you don’t always believe it from others, or from yourself say when your senses are deceived during a “magic” show, so it’s no more than bias is it?
One can of course set any standard for belief one wishes, even a woefully unreliable one, I am not responsible for what others believe.
What has this to do with your fallacious appeal to numbers? And no, quantum mechanics does not say things do not exist, merely that an unobserved object’s properties (like its exact position or momentum) are undefined, not completely non-existent.
I never equated them, and I have had a few, ranging from the voice of a dead relative to music or other sounds, I did not believe they were real, as they either were unsupported by objective evidence or at odds with objective reality or both. So again you were wrong when you asserted I would have no choice but to believe if I experienced a deity as you claim to. Without sufficient objective evidence I would remain dubious.
You’ve lost, I made no appeal to anyone, let alone a “ man with a medical degree from Harvard”? Nor have I claimed the voice you hear is an hallucination, though the probability of an auditory hallucination as we know is 13% in the general population, and higher when one suffers from a condition like schizophrenia. However even were it not an hallucination there remains no objective evidence it is a deity, or that any deity exists.
We have no objective evidence a deity is possible, beyond epistemic possibility, which is only to say we can’t prove it is impossible, I could say as much for invisible mermaids.
im really at a loss here. Oops. There goes my hearing again - we’re not supposed to talk about the ghosts in public. Slap on the wrist!).
yeah. I don’t think this marathon is fair to anyone. So, I’m going to bow out of the larger discussion and try to stick to what my bandwidth can handle (my mental bandwidth). Thank you as always for your clarity and intellectual honesty during these debates.