(December 22, 2016 at 3:34 pm)SteveII Wrote:

(December 22, 2016 at 2:05 pm)robvalue Wrote: What is the natural universe? Since universe generally means everything that exists, there's a language problem already. Our observable framework? I assume you must be referring to our attempts to model the framework; here is the equivocation. Our models are not the framework. We don't have access to the rules of the framework, so we cannot know if something isn't constrained by it. We can just have the as-yet unexplained.

I explain in the video why it can be ignored. If it makes no discernible difference to anything, then things are the same whether the thing is real or not. It only exists by assumption, because there can be no evidence for or against it.

If God is "doing something", then no one can differentiate it from him not doing anything. I'm doing pretty well so far ignoring all unfalsifiable phenomenon.

No, the word 'universe' has never meant everything that exists. When I said 'framework', I was distinguishing between a natural set of laws not binding the supernatural as a further way to define the word 'supernatural'. 

The supernatural may be meaningless to us until there are supernatural causes in the natural world. I would argue there is evidence of supernatural causation--certainly enough evidence to have a discussion about it where we understand each other and therefore containing 'meaning'. 

You seem to equate 'Unfalsifiable' with 'not meaningful'. Is that the case?

What evidence of supernatural causation? Since we don't know what the "natural laws" are, we can't possibly know what is breaking them. You just seem to be arbitrarily drawing a line between different things and calling some supernatural. We already expect "laws" to apply differently to different things. Where are you getting your information in what "natural laws" are? You're just using the results of scientific models, aren't you? And assuming that anything that doesn't yet fit is breaking the thing they are trying to model. What happens if we find an explanation for it tomorrow? Suddenly, it's natural again? Should we take your word that it could never be explained?

What method, if not science, do you propose to use to tackle the supernatural?

Unfalsifiable is, in practice, not meaningful, yes. It's a discussion of things that make no difference, or cannot be known. Until such time as it can be demonstrated that they do make a difference, why should I care?

I don't deny the existence of other things going on that are beyond our detection. I simply accept they are beyond our detection, and as such I can't say anything meaningful about them.

The fact that there's even any debate over whether "the supernatural" is a real thing shows how utterly unimportant the concept is at the moment. And if you compare the so-called results of different people, you'll see no convergence and no proper methodology. This is what happens when you try and go "beyond science". I don't think there's a great understanding of what science is among some people. If you could demonstrate a method which dealt with the supernatural in a rigorous way, that too would be science.

(December 22, 2016 at 11:57 am)SteveII Wrote: You can assume all you want. "God does not exist" cannot be the null hypothesis.

You are unwilling to.provide evidence for god, you are unwilling to provide even a hypothesis fo how god can exist totally outside reality (the definition of supernatural being) and control every aspect of reality, hell, your god grows and shrinks with the needs of your argumentation, one minute he's an all powerful being who controls everything, the next he a weak and stupid old man who cannot properly create humanity nor control his own creation.

And you're wrong on about the null hypothesis. Asserting a lack of god isn't a positive claim, asserting god is. Therefore the burden of evidence is with those like you who demand that we accept god is real (this despite the sum total of our current knowledge indicating that god is not neccessary and quite a lot of it suggesting there is no god).

I don't think there are invisible space ducks with a knack for Elvis impersonations, is not an unusual stance given the lack of evidence for impossible to see,hip swinging poultry orbiting the earth.

There may be these things somewhere in the endless cosmos but at the moment my position is I am not waiting for the quack of old shep to come over the VLA speakers.

This is almost my position on god. In fact I find it less likely that there is a god than space faring feathered crooners.
Invisibility is something that has been tested in labs, there are ducks and people have been in space but there is no evidence for any part of anything that resembles a god.

(December 22, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Theists dismiss the existence of other gods, leprichauns, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus without ever troubling themselves over such questions as to whether it's rational to do so without absolute, certain evidence.   The theist treats the skepticism of the atheist in special terms.  To my mind, negative claims do not carry the same burden of proof as positive existential claims.  That's being consistent and rational.  All that I require is that there be a reasonably plausible explanation for what 'evidence' the theist is capable of presenting.  So far I have that, and so I am satisfied with the nonexistence of God in the same measure that the theist is persuaded of the non-existence of the aforementioned mythical creatures.

There seems to have always been a near universal belief in some sort of supernatural--it seems we are hardwired for it. We look for purpose and meaning. This common trait opens most up to consider various religions and their answers to such questions. This trait, generally speaking, does not open people up to consider "leprichauns, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus" and other gods (like the greek or roman roster) so it is a category mistake to lump them into a discussion on religion. 

I don't think an atheist's lack of belief in God is irrational, I just object to the opinion of many atheists that belief in God is irrational. While you may find "reasonably plausible explanation for what 'evidence' the theist is capable of presenting" that is subjective and is a far cry from the positive claim "there is no God".

---

(December 22, 2016 at 6:48 pm)Tonus Wrote:

(December 22, 2016 at 3:48 pm)SteveII Wrote: Because there are multiple and conflicting truth claims does not mean that one of them is true to the exclusion of the others. You say there is no way to determine which claims are correct--perhaps, but we can examine the overall theological framework of each religion and see which one is internally consistent, which one best matches claims against reality, which one makes more sense of more observations, and which one has the best predictive value when examining issues of xyz.

Yeah, but if one of them was the God's honest truth, wouldn't we expect an overwhelming number of people to follow it?  The assumption is that only one religion would fulfill the criteria you described.  After centuries of study and experience, not only do we still have many different major religions but each of them is fragmented into thousands of denominations with varied interpretations of almost every major tenet of their faith.

It is only in the last generation that people world-wide had the exposure to the complete body of knowledge of each religion. While popularity is not an indication of truth, I think we will see in the next generation which religion is more compelling by looking at countries where there is not a dominating religion to skew the acceptance rate. 

Protestant denominations are formed around theological differences, cultural differences, and emphasis differences. There is an agreed upon core, so other disagreements are really not a reason to dismiss the whole.

(December 23, 2016 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote:

(December 22, 2016 at 9:20 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: Theists dismiss the existence of other gods, leprichauns, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus without ever troubling themselves over such questions as to whether it's rational to do so without absolute, certain evidence.   The theist treats the skepticism of the atheist in special terms.  To my mind, negative claims do not carry the same burden of proof as positive existential claims.  That's being consistent and rational.  All that I require is that there be a reasonably plausible explanation for what 'evidence' the theist is capable of presenting.  So far I have that, and so I am satisfied with the nonexistence of God in the same measure that the theist is persuaded of the non-existence of the aforementioned mythical creatures.

There seems to have always been a near universal belief in some sort of supernatural--it seems we are hardwired for it. We look for purpose and meaning. This common trait opens most up to consider various religions and their answers to such questions. This trait, generally speaking, does not open people up to consider "leprichauns, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus" and other gods (like the greek or roman roster) so it is a category mistake to lump them into a discussion on religion.

It is not a category mistake for 'other gods'. You may want to minimize the similarity between Christian gods and Hindu gods and Roman gods and Chinese gods to neuter the comparison, the fact is they are or were worshipped in much the same fashion as your Christian God. As long as that remains true, my point about the disparity between your treatment of atheists' skepticism and the dismissal of these other gods will remain firm. And whether unicorns and gods belong in the same category logically speaking, when it comes to epistemic procedures they are treated the same, so for those purposes they belong to the same category. Category errors have to do with relevant differences, not just any old difference. If the latter were true, then everything would be in a category of one. 

(December 23, 2016 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote: While you may find "reasonably plausible explanation for what 'evidence' the theist is capable of presenting" that is subjective and is a far cry from the positive claim "there is no God".

That is only true if you are treating negative claims the same as positive existential claims. As noted, I do not and I have good reason for the disparity, as negative claims are generally impossible to prove beyond the reach of any ad hoc adjustments to the positive claim. It's a loaded game, and I feel we can have certainty in the negative claim at a far cheaper price. As noted, there is a hypocrisy in the way that many theists treat negative claims about their gods and negative claims about other gods. Whenever a Christian is asked why they don't believe in Hindu gods, the reply is usually not an iron clad argument against the existence of those gods. Why should I feel obliged to provide what the theist is himself unwilling to provide to justify his skepticism? If my stance on relative burdens of proof is irrational, then so is the theists' stance on other gods. That can't be brushed aside by calling it a category mistake.

Furthermore, burden of proof is about what it takes, subjectively, to convince another that a proposition is true. I hold no great hopes that my discourses on the logic of disbelief will persuade many theists to abandon their belief. So the burden of proof is relevant only to what I find subjectively convincing. As noted, I've met that burden of proof for the claim that there is no god or gods. If my mind is to be changed it will have to come from substantial evidence for the proposition that there is a god. And so far, with people holding out things like the supposed historicity of the bible as evidence, I'm not overly concerned.

(December 23, 2016 at 3:55 am)robvalue Wrote: What evidence of supernatural causation? [1] Since we don't know what the "natural laws" are, we can't possibly know what is breaking them. You just seem to be arbitrarily drawing a line between different things and calling some supernatural. We already expect "laws" to apply differently to different things. Where are you getting your information in what "natural laws" are? You're just using the results of scientific models, aren't you? And assuming that anything that doesn't yet fit is breaking the thing they are trying to model. What happens if we find an explanation for it tomorrow? Suddenly, it's natural again? Should we take your word that it could never be explained? [2]

What method, if not science, do you propose to use to tackle the supernatural? [3]

Unfalsifiable is, in practice, not meaningful, yes. It's a discussion of things that make no difference, or cannot be known. Until such time as it can be demonstrated that they do make a difference, why should I care? [4]

I don't deny the existence of other things going on that are beyond our detection. I simply accept they are beyond our detection, and as such I can't say anything meaningful about them. [5]

The fact that there's even any debate over whether "the supernatural" is a real thing shows how utterly unimportant the concept is at the moment. And if you compare the so-called results of different people, you'll see no convergence and no proper methodology. This is what happens when you try and go "beyond science". I don't think there's a great understanding of what science is among some people. If you could demonstrate a method which dealt with the supernatural in a rigorous way, that too would be science. [6]

[1] As I said a few pages back: We have the events of the NT as evidence, we have personal experiences of billions of people as evidence, we have all the formal natural theology arguments which articulate an inference to the existence of God based on natural evidence. While you might not like the evidence or think it is compelling, that is your subjective opinion and does not equate to "no evidence".

[2] Your hyper skepticism of what we know about the universe seems manufactured to deny the supernatural. You invoke "science" at every turn as the measure of all things and then make a philosophical statement that we can't trust what we have learned. 

[3] None. How could science, the study of natural things, be proposed as the measure of supernatural things?

[4] Vast stretches of human knowledge is unfalsifiable. Logic, mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, language, art, etc. Is all this "meaningless"?

[5] Yes, the supernatural is beyond our detection--up until the point it interacts with the natural world (see #1). We cannot investigate it since it is causally one direction. 

[6] Except over 6.5 billion people alive right this minute think that the supernatural exist and so the question is therefore important. Scientism is very limiting view of reality. 

---

(December 23, 2016 at 1:27 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(December 23, 2016 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote: There seems to have always been a near universal belief in some sort of supernatural--it seems we are hardwired for it. We look for purpose and meaning. This common trait opens most up to consider various religions and their answers to such questions. This trait, generally speaking, does not open people up to consider "leprichauns, fairies, unicorns and Santa Claus" and other gods (like the greek or roman roster) so it is a category mistake to lump them into a discussion on religion.

It is not a category mistake for 'other gods'.  You may want to minimize the similarity between Christian gods and Hindu gods and Roman gods and Chinese gods to neuter the comparison, the fact is they are or were worshipped in much the same fashion as your Christian God.  As long as that remains true, my point about the disparity between your treatment of atheists' skepticism and the dismissal of these other gods will remain firm.  And whether unicorns and gods belong in the same category logically speaking, when it comes to epistemic procedures they are treated the same, so for those purposes they belong to the same category.  Category errors have to do with relevant differences, not just any old difference.  If the latter were true, then everything would be in a category of one. 

(December 23, 2016 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote: While you may find "reasonably plausible explanation for what 'evidence' the theist is capable of presenting" that is subjective and is a far cry from the positive claim "there is no God".

That is only true if you are treating negative claims the same as positive existential claims.  As noted, I do not and I have good reason for the disparity, as negative claims are generally impossible to prove beyond the reach of any ad hoc adjustments to the positive claim.  It's a loaded game, and I feel we can have certainty in the negative claim at a far cheaper price.  As noted, there is a hypocrisy in the way that many theists treat negative claims about their gods and negative claims about other gods.  Whenever a Christian is asked why they don't believe in Hindu gods, the reply is usually not an iron clad argument against the existence of those gods.  Why should I feel obliged to provide what the theist is himself unwilling to provide to justify his skepticism?  If my stance on relative burdens of proof is irrational, then so is the theists' stance on other gods.  That can't be brushed aside by calling it a category mistake.

Furthermore, burden of proof is about what it takes, subjectively, to convince another that a proposition is true.  I hold no great hopes that my discourses on the logic of disbelief will persuade many theists to abandon their belief.  So the burden of proof is relevant only to what I find subjectively convincing.  As noted, I've met that burden of proof for the claim that there is no god or gods.  If my mind is to be changed it will have to come from substantial evidence for the proposition that there is a god.  And so far, with people holding out things like the supposed historicity of the bible as evidence, I'm not overly concerned.

You make excellent points. Thank you for the thoughtful responses.

(December 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: [1] As I said a few pages back: We have the events of the NT as evidence, we have personal experiences of billions of people as evidence, we have all the formal natural theology arguments which articulate an inference to the existence of God based on natural evidence. While you might not like the evidence or think it is compelling, that is your subjective opinion and does not equate to "no evidence".

You are presenting anecdotes and opinions as evidence. It isn't. It's not that the evidence isn't enough to convince us is that it doesn't even count as evidence.

"My left big toe can hold an independent conversation in greek and my left testicle has an honours degree from Princeton" According to the weak standards of evidence you are willing to accept, this counts as evidence. It may not be "good" evidence but you cant say there is no evidence! that is what you are basically saying. "Be more guilible and then we can talk".

(December 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: [2] Your hyper skepticism of what we know about the universe seems manufactured to deny the supernatural. You invoke "science" at every turn as the measure of all things and then make a philosophical statement that we can't trust what we have learned. 

Supernatural is not a thing as far as I know. It is just a word people use when they want to not have to really have an idea of what they are talking about.

(December 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: [3] None. How could science, the study of natural things, be proposed as the measure of supernatural things?

I don't know the how do we test for mugbloods or orcs either?

(December 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: [4] Vast stretches of human knowledge is unfalsifiable. Logic, mathematics, ethics, aesthetics, language, art, etc. Is all this "meaningless"?

No but supernatural only makes sense where it comes to stories.

(December 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: [5] Yes, the supernatural is beyond our detection--up until the point it interacts with the natural world (see #1). We cannot investigate it since it is causally one direction. 

Prove that such a thing as supernatural exists. The I'll listen.

(December 23, 2016 at 1:36 pm)SteveII Wrote: [6] Except over 6.5 billion people alive right this minute think that the supernatural exist and so the question is therefore important. Scientism is very limiting view of reality. 

Those people are all wrong. The truth is not a popularity contest.

(December 23, 2016 at 10:06 am)SteveII Wrote: It is only in the last generation that people world-wide had the exposure to the complete body of knowledge of each religion. While popularity is not an indication of truth, I think we will see in the next generation which religion is more compelling by looking at countries where there is not a dominating religion to skew the acceptance rate.

This is because every religion originates in a specific region of the planet. The scattered and differing forms of religion that exist is not a problem if we view religion as a form of tribalism mixed with the desire to explain things even when we lack sufficient information. It is a problem when we consider that this world is a tiny speck in the vast universe created by a being who decided to announce his existence only to those small regions and isolated populations within them, and allowed all of those false religions to exist and thrive in such a way as to be indistinguishable from the true religion that he personally established.

Quote:Protestant denominations are formed around theological differences, cultural differences, and emphasis differences. There is an agreed upon core, so other disagreements are really not a reason to dismiss the whole.

My point was that it's difficult to accept that we can arrive at the truth via an examination of "the overall theological framework of each religion and see which one is internally consistent, which one best matches claims against reality, which one makes more sense of more observations, and which one has the best predictive value when examining issues of xyz." There are literally thousands of denominations of Christianity and they differ on almost every detail. Aside from "God exists" and "Jesus sacrificed himself for our sins" there are very few matters that are not subject to differing interpretations. If Christians cannot come together and figure out what the Bible means and what God wants, then I don't see how Christianity fulfills the criteria you mentioned.

This is the internet age, and as you note we now have a great deal more information within reach than we ever did. The Bible isn't just available online, it's available in almost every single language and translation ever produced and there is an endless well of information and interpretation from dozens --if not hundreds, or thousands-- of denominations. Are we coming closer to mending those gaps and coming to a unified revelation that all Christians have to admit is spirit-driven? The books and beliefs of the other major --and countless minor-- religions are also available. Have any of them made notable headway in proving to be the truth in such a way that is undeniable?

Each Christian denomination is not a different religion; but variations within the Christian faith. I fail to see how minor disagreements over things like believer versus infant baptism undermine nearly universal acceptance of major doctrines. It's not a serious objection.

Steve: I might come back and tackle the rest of it, but... none? No method? You don't have any method for tackling the supernatural? So where does that leave us?