Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Theism and Atheism => Topic started by: Walt Zingmatilder on December 10, 2018, 07:33:37 AM
-
Show reasoning and statistical working out.......thank you.
-
How unlikely are God and/or other "supernatural" things?
Show reasoning and statistical working out.......thank you.
As an exercise, why not take some myth you don't believe in, say vampires, leprechauns ;), or a god or two (http://www.godchecker.com/) you don't believe in, then tell us how unlikely you think it is. Remember to show your reasoning and statistical working out.
-
Nonsensical question - probability is a methodological naturalistic concept.
-
As an exercise, why not take some myth you don't believe in, say vampires, leprechauns ;), or a god or two (http://www.godchecker.com/) you don't believe in, then tell us how unlikely you think it is. Remember to show your reasoning and statistical working out.
Don't ask for the impossible. ;D
-
Nonsensical question - probability is a methodological naturalistic concept.
Would you agree then that it is a nonsensical statement to say God is very unlikely?
If so when was the last time you responded to it being made on this forum?
-
Don't ask for the impossible. ;D
You are one of those who said God was unlikely.
-
Would you agree then that it is a nonsensical statement to say God is very unlikely?
If so when was the last time you responded to it being made on this forum?
Yep. Can't remember but have done so frequently.
Here is an example of me writing about why saying supernatural events are unlikely isn't valid
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15053.msg724625#msg724625
-
As an exercise, why not take some myth you don't believe in, say vampires, leprechauns ;), or a god or two (http://www.godchecker.com/) you don't believe in, then tell us how unlikely you think it is. Remember to show your reasoning and statistical working out.
Vampires and Leprechauns have apparently a physical phase which carries therefore a probability and have not yet been spotted scientifically....therefore probability low.
God checker sounds like this kind of web site. Full of atheists with "ball all" theological skill or expertise to which one can usually throw in a "fail" in philosophy.
-
Yep. Can't remember but have done so frequently.
Here is an example of me writing about why saying supernatural events are unlikely isn't valid
http://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=15053.msg724625#msg724625
You seemed strangely silent when Floo recently said it and whenI questioned Hillside on it this morning.
-
As an exercise, why not take some myth you don't believe in, say vampires, leprechauns ;), or a god or two (http://www.godchecker.com/) you don't believe in, then tell us how unlikely you think it is. Remember to show your reasoning and statistical working out.
As an exercise for you would you say that being uncreated or maybe just popping into existence were observable and natural?
Might you not say that they were attributes of a God you don't believe in because of being supernatural?
-
You seemed strangely silent when Floo recently said it and whenI questioned Hillside on it this morning.
And? I've provided you with an example of me doing it. That I don't pick up everyone every time they might say it is irrelevant. Even if I had never done so, it doesn't change the point.
-
Vampires and Leprechauns have apparently a physical phase which carries therefore a probability and have not yet been spotted scientifically....therefore probability low.
Same would apply to any gods that are supposed to do anything in the physical world.
God checker sounds like this kind of web site. Full of atheists with "ball all" theological skill or expertise to which one can usually throw in a "fail" in philosophy.
What has that got to do with anything? Are you denying that there are multiple gods that humans believe in, or have believed in, and that you don't believe in most of them? So why do you think them unlikely?
-
As an exercise for you would you say that being uncreated or maybe just popping into existence were observable and natural?
Popping into existence is natural and happens all the time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation). You'll have to be more specific about "uncreated". Do you mean not deliberately created by an intelligent being? If so, most things seem uncreated.
Might you not say that they were attributes of a God you don't believe in because of being supernatural?
No.
-
Would you agree then that it is a nonsensical statement to say God is very unlikely?
If so when was the last time you responded to it being made on this forum?
Whilst it is possible a god could just possibly exist, I think the existence of the Biblical god is unlikely as it seems to have all the worst of human characteristics, and therefore is in all probability a human construction.
-
Same would apply to any gods that are supposed to do anything in the physical world.
Not really, you have to contend with the physicality of vampires and Leprechauns and the non physicality of God.
In other words With your examples you have the physical interacting with the physical. Not so in the case of God.
-
Not really, you have to contend with the physicality of vampires and Leprechauns and the non physicality of God.
In other words With your examples you have the physical interacting with the physical. Not so in the case of God.
Jesus was not physical?
-
Whilst it is possible a god could just possibly exist, I think the existence of the Biblical god is unlikely as it seems to have all the worst of human characteristics, and therefore is in all probability a human construction.
Just to keep Vlad happy, the use here of unlikely is meaningless, as it's a methodologically naturalistic concept.
-
Popping into existence is natural and happens all the time (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation). You'll have to be more specific about "uncreated". Do you mean not deliberately created by an intelligent being? If so, most things seem uncreated.
No.
When last I checked only particles could do that.......not universes.
Secondly Hume famously pointed out that we can envisage a stone popping out of nowhere and I suppose he is right. The problem is he could not guarantee that it didn't come from somewhere else....and this, I understand is also a problem for anything you are suggesting that pops out of nothing.
So we have covered one possible way of being created without mentioning God, let's try the other way and propose that there is never a time when the universe hasn't been in some shape or form. No mention of God there either.
And yet we have two things that are supernatural. Appearance of everything out of nothing or the eternal.
And still no mention of God.
And then to cap it all, if you accept either or both of these capabilities. You cannot logically withhold them from other entities.......thus making the likelihood of the supernatural vanishly close to a probability of 1.
Having demolished naturalism, Vlad went and made himself a cup of tea.....
Big smiley everyone!
-
Whilst it is possible a god could just possibly exist, I think the existence of the Biblical god is unlikely as it seems to have all the worst of human characteristics, and therefore is in all probability a human construction.
"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
"And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
"Love God, and your neighbour as yourself"
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
-
Jesus was not physical?
Yes. Are you saying Jesus didn't exist?
-
"What doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
"And God spake all these words, saying,
I am the Lord thy God, which have brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.
Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; for the Lord will not hold him guiltless that taketh his name in vain.
Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy.
Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work:
But the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates:
For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
Honour thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee.
Thou shalt not kill.
Thou shalt not commit adultery.
Thou shalt not steal.
Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's."
"Love God, and your neighbour as yourself"
“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 Blessed are those who mourn,
for they will be comforted.
5 Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth.
6 Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
for they will be filled.
7 Blessed are the merciful,
for they will be shown mercy.
8 Blessed are the pure in heart,
for they will see God.
9 Blessed are the peacemakers,
for they will be called children of God.
10 Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 “Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12 Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.
Which says nothing good about that entity.
-
Seb,
Jesus was not physical?
Ouch!
-
Seb,
Ouch!
Ouch?
Are you comparing the probability of Jesus existing with that of Leprechauns?
-
I think Jesus existed, but much of what was claimed for him was either untrue or greatly exaggerated.
-
I think Jesus existed, but much of what was claimed for him was either untrue or greatly exaggerated.
Why do you think that?
-
Moderator Please note a post has been removed for discussion across Mod team
-
Why do you think that?
Igave my own answer to that, but the mods appear to have deleted it. I can't say I blame them: it was rather rude. I'm not apologising, though.
[Edit] I see that NS confirms that it was removed.
-
I think Jesus existed, but much of what was claimed for him was either untrue or greatly exaggerated.
Which has nothing to do with the idea that a god being unlikely is a meaningless idea.
-
When last I checked only particles could do that.......not universes.
You didn't mention the universe - but actually, it's the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle and the energy of the universe may well be zero. However, I digress.
The theist nonsense about people having to explain the existence of universe is both silly and hypocritical. A god that then creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe by itself. Postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain anything.
And yet we have two things that are supernatural. Appearance of everything out of nothing or the eternal.
Even if they were the only possibilities, why would you class either as "supernatural"? What do you even mean by it? For that matter, even if there was a god, surely it would be the most natural thing in existence?
-
Which has nothing to do with the idea that a god being unlikely is a meaningless idea.
I was replying to a post in which Jesus was mentioned, which has now been removed! ::)
-
I was replying to a post in which Jesus was mentioned, which has now been removed! ::)
No, The post removed was nothing about Jesus
-
You didn't mention the universe - but actually, it's the energy-time version of the uncertainty principle and the energy of the universe may well be zero. However, I digress.
The theist nonsense about people having to explain the existence of universe is both silly and hypocritical. A god that then creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe by itself. Postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain anything.
Even if they were the only possibilities, why would you class either as "supernatural"? What do you even mean by it? For that matter, even if there was a god, surely it would be the most natural thing in existence?
The universe, even described without recourse to involving God is doing one of two supernatural things since both cannot be explained in natural terms namely universes are not seen popping out of nothing something which could not be demonstrated anyway.....see previous criticism of Hume and there is no way to stand outside an eternal universe to check that is true.
Looks like game over for you.
-
The universe, even described without recourse to involving God is doing one of two supernatural things since both cannot be explained in natural terms namely universes are not seen popping out of nothing something which could not be demonstrated anyway.....see previous criticism of Hume and there is no way to stand outside an eternal universe to check that is true.
Since when has not being able to observe or demonstrate something, somehow made it "supernatural" or not explainable in natural terms?
Looks like game over for you.
::)
-
Just because science can't explain it all at present, it may be able to do so in the future. Things that we take for granted today would have seemed 'supernatural' to people living a few hundred years ago.
-
No doubt others have spotted it already, but Vlad has just jumped from "no naturalistic explanation available" to "supernatural" with no connecting argument of any kind, just as Norse people did for Thor.
It's a stunt he's tried before too.
-
Since when has not being able to observe or demonstrate something, somehow made it "supernatural" or not explainable in natural terms?
::)
Again what is natural about a universe popping out of nothing.?
What is investigatable or observable about a universe existing for ever?
In other words what is repeatable about either?
You are just expressing a faith position that somewhere, over the rainbow a scientific solution will be found. Even if you had the apparatus for it when and where could you make the observation?
-
Just because science can't explain it all at present, it may be able to do so in the future. Things that we take for granted today would have seemed 'supernatural' to people living a few hundred years ago.
But this concerns the universe of which we are part. What you say merely covers parts of the universe.
-
No doubt others have spotted it already, but Vlad has just jumped from "no naturalistic explanation available" to "supernatural" with no connecting argument of any kind, just as Norse people did for Thor.
It's a stunt he's tried before too.
Unfortunately the Norse people were trying to explain parts of the universe which in a discussion about the whole universe is, I'm afraid, non secateur.
-
She's a cruel mistress the burden of proof, and shifting it will break even the sturdiest of backs.
Ah well.
-
...as indeed is the straw man.
-
She's a cruel mistress the burden of proof, and shifting it will break even the sturdiest of backs.
Ah well.
This morning you described God as very unlikely.......how unlikely? Show your working out please.
-
The theist nonsense about people having to explain the existence of universe is both silly and hypocritical. A god that then creates a universe is no less mysterious and unexplained than just a universe by itself. Postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain anything.
Apparently both Russell the Godfather of New atheism and Dawkins take the same tack as you concerning the impertinence of being asked about how or whether the universe had an origin.
I'm thinking this is because the universe in either case has to do something pretty unnatural. Hence their big fat neon"Don't go there"
-
Again what is natural about a universe popping out of nothing.?
What is investigatable or observable about a universe existing for ever?
In other words what is repeatable about either?
And again, what has any of this to do with the distinction between natural and "supernatural" (whatever you think that is)?
You are just expressing a faith position that somewhere, over the rainbow a scientific solution will be found.
No, I'm not, I don't know if a scientific explanation will emerge or not.
-
But this concerns the universe of which we are part. What you say merely covers parts of the universe.
Ehhhhhhhhhhh?
-
Apparently both Russell the Godfather of New atheism and Dawkins take the same tack as you concerning the impertinence of being asked about how or whether the universe had an origin.
I'm thinking this is because the universe in either case has to do something pretty unnatural. Hence their big fat neon"Don't go there"
We don't know what we don't know. Making shit up because we don't know something is irrational. Not knowing something doesn't mean that it is either unknowable or magic.
And as I said, postulating a god just moves the basic unknown around a bit, it doesn't explain it. In your view, why does your god exist? Why not another god, or no god at all?
-
We don't know what we don't know.
Not arguing with that.....what we do know that the universe either came out of nothing or it has always been here......and having accepted that we can no longer bails at anything having those abilities.
-
Not arguing with that.....what we do know that the universe either came out of nothing or it has always been here......and having accepted that we can no longer bails at anything having those abilities.
No we don't know that either of those are possible nevermind that they are the only 2 possibilities.
-
No we don't know that either of those are possible nevermind that they are the only 2 possibilities.
Show your working out.
-
Not arguing with that.....what we do know that the universe either came out of nothing or it has always been here...
We don't know that, and even if we did, it has bugger all to do with the "supernatural" or the likelihood of any god(s).
...and having accepted that we can no longer bails at anything having those abilities.
Eh?
-
We don't know that, and even if we did, it has bugger all to do with the "supernatural" or the likelihood of any god(s).
Eh?
Sorry I meant to say that if we accept that the universe popped into existence or that it has been around forever in some form we can no longer BAULK at those capabilities assigned to anything else.
-
Show your working out.
My working out is that it your claim that they are possible and that they are the only 2 possibilities, and there is no working out from you so how can you assert we know that?
Oh I will add that you agree with me and in posting
'Sorry I meant to say that if we accept that the universe popped into existence or that it has been around forever in some form we can no longer BAULK at those capabilities assigned to anything else.'
You do your own acceptance that asking me for my "working out" was specious.
-
Sorry I meant to say that if we accept that the universe popped into existence or that it has been around forever in some form we can no longer BAULK at those capabilities assigned to anything else.
And if we don't accept those are necessarily possible as you claimed, or that they are the only 2 possibilities as you claimed?
-
And if we don't accept those are necessarily possible as you claimed, or that they are the only 2 possibilities as you claimed?
Ok why not?why are you not accepting them?
Would one of your options be God......or the famous "we don't know but it isn't God"?
-
Ok why not?why are you not accepting them?
Would one of your options be God......or the famous "we don't know but it isn't God"?
Because they haven't bern demonstrated. Your claim, your burden of proof.
-
Would you agree then that it is a nonsensical statement to say God is very unlikely?
If so when was the last time you responded to it being made on this forum?
I would agree it is impossible to determine the probability of an arbitrary god. However, the probability of an interventionist god must be very low since we see no evidence of it intervening. The Christian god is a logical impossibility, so its probability is 0.
-
Vampires and Leprechauns have apparently a physical phase which carries therefore a probability
Did Jesus have a physical phase?
-
I would agree it is impossible to determine the probability of an arbitrary god. However, the probability of an interventionist god must be very low since we see no evidence of it intervening. The Christian god is a logical impossibility, so its probability is 0.
How would you see evidence of an interventionist god when evidence is defined by your methodology, and the only current methodology that defines evidence is naturalistic?
-
Did Jesus have a physical phase?
As a human, yes....are you comparing the probability of Jesus with the probability of Leprechauns?
-
Because they haven't bern demonstrated. Your claim, your burden of proof.
If we have evidence of something like say the universe we would be justified in saying it either came into being or it has been around for ever.
You seem to be saying we don't know.....therefore naturalism.
-
How would you see evidence of an interventionist god when evidence is defined by your methodology, and the only current methodology that defines evidence is naturalistic?
Well surely the definition of an interventionist god is one that can make things happen that wouldn't have happened if the laws of physics were followed. All you have to do then is find some event that is contrary to the laws of physics. There's no verifiable evidence that this has ver happened.
-
As a human, yes
And Jesus is God. Therefore God has a physical phase.
Back of the net! The crowd is on its feet. Vlad is as sick as the proverbial parrot.
-
Well surely the definition of an interventionist god is one that can make things happen that wouldn't have happened if the laws of physics were followed. All you have to do then is find some event that is contrary to the laws of physics. There's no verifiable evidence that this has ver happened.
How would you tell something wasn't in line with the 'laws of physics' given that they are just descriptions of what we observe?
-
If we have evidence of something like say the universe we would be justified in saying it either came into being or it has been around for ever.
You seem to be saying we don't know.....therefore naturalism.
I am not making the claim about what the possibilities are, you are. You haven't met the burden of proof.
And I didn't make any claim about naturalism. I presume you mean philosophical naturalism? If so I've told you that I am not a philosophical naturalist on multiple occasions.
-
Jeremy,
Well surely the definition of an interventionist god is one that can make things happen that wouldn't have happened if the laws of physics were followed. All you have to do then is find some event that is contrary to the laws of physics. There's no verifiable evidence that this has ver happened.
But the problem with that in epistemological terms is that not only would we have to have a complete understanding of all the laws of physics, but we'd have to find a way to be certain that we did have a complete understanding of all the laws of physics. Just now, something contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them could just be more physics, only with laws we haven't found yet.
That incidentally is why Vlad falls into a hole when he asserts that the absence a a naturalistic explanation must imply a supernatural one. It implies no such thing.
-
How would you tell something wasn't in line with the 'laws of physics' given that they are just descriptions of what we observe?
They also make predictions about how physical systems will evolve.
-
And Jesus is God. Therefore God has a physical phase.
Christianity certainly belief that Jesus was fully human and fully God so in his humanity he is certainly in his physical phase however in Jesus interactions many were able to also spot God.
Were these instances physical interaction or is there more to the universe than the physical?
I believe the latter but I'm open to discussion of the first.
-
Jeremy,
But the problem with that in epistemological terms is that not only would we have to have a complete understanding of all the laws of physics, but we'd have to find a way to be certain that we did have a complete understanding of all the laws of physics. Just now, something contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them could just be more physics, only with laws we haven't found yet.
That incidentally is why Vlad falls into a hole when he asserts that the absence a a naturalistic explanation must imply a supernatural one. It implies no such thing.
But fortunately we are talking about probabilities. Everything we observe seems to follow physical law, but there is a finite probability that we have made a mistake in our observations or that our understanding of physical law is incorrect, or even that we just missed something.
There seems to be no interventionist god, but we might just have missed the interventions. The probability of that, is, I think, very small.
-
They also make predictions about how physical systems will evolve.
And when something happens that we don't predict we look for methodologically naturalistic explanations abd adjust the 'laws'. You have no non naturalistic methodology so you are not ever able to make any statement about stating there is no evidence. Indeed in that absence the concept of such evidence is meaningless.
-
Christianity certainly belief that Jesus was fully human and fully God so in his humanity he is certainly in his physical phase however in Jesus interactions many were able to also spot God.
But the point is, it renders your usual response to the leprechaun analogy completely null and void.
-
But fortunately we are talking about probabilities. Everything we observe seems to follow physical law, but there is a finite probability that we have made a mistake in our observations or that our understanding of physical law is incorrect, or even that we just missed something.
There seems to be no interventionist god, but we might just have missed the interventions. The probability of that, is, I think, very small.
Probability is a methodoligical naturalistic concept. Using it to talk about supernatural 'evidence' is a category error and 'not even wrong'.
-
Jeremy,
But the problem with that in epistemological terms is that not only would we have to have a complete understanding of all the laws of physics, but we'd have to find a way to be certain that we did have a complete understanding of all the laws of physics. Just now, something contrary to the laws of physics as we understand them could just be more physics, only with laws we haven't found yet.
That incidentally is why Vlad falls into a hole when he asserts that the absence a a naturalistic explanation must imply a supernatural one. It implies no such thing.
I think you missed the questioning of how, where, and when, in the instance of the universe coming into being or existing forever, the methodological naturalism could be applied to make the necessary naturalistic observations. This issue of course does not apply to parts of the universe.
I think you also look suspiciously like you might be hinting at the laws of nature being separate from the universe.
-
But the point is, it renders your usual response to the leprechaun analogy completely null and void.
Remind me what you think my usual response is?
-
Jeremy,
But fortunately we are talking about probabilities. Everything we observe seems to follow physical law, but there is a finite probability that we have made a mistake in our observations or that our understanding of physical law is incorrect, or even that we just missed something.
Or that our understanding of physics is incomplete. To take a fairly obvious example, pre-Einstein Newtonian physics was fine (and in many cases still is). When it broke down at the scales of the very small and the vary large though that didn’t imply supernaturalism.
As for probability, we’re talking here about the everyday use of language vs epistemological usage. For the most part “there’s no evidence for god/leprechauns” is ok because it reflects a commonplace reality of the speaker. It’s still though overstating when expressed as a fact rather than as an opinion, unless the speaker is omniscient.
There seems to be no interventionist god, but we might just have missed the interventions. The probability of that, is, I think, very small.
So do I, not least because you’d have to extend the same principle to leprechauns, to pixies, and to anything else that popped into anyone’s head. You might also point to the reasoning of asking why a god who wanted you to know he was there would cover his intervening tracks so thoroughly that the universe looks exactly as you’d expect it to look if he wasn’t there at all, and as Mr Occam tells us….
As Nearly will remind us though, probability is itself a naturalistic concept so applying it to claims about the supernatural is necessarily problematic.
-
Jeremy,
But the point is, it renders your usual response to the leprechaun analogy completely null and void.
Quite so.
-
There seems to be no interventionist god, but we might just have missed the interventions. The probability of that, is, I think, very small.
Presumably you are claiming that expected results have not materialised.
What results then were you expecting?
-
NS,
Probability is a methodoligical naturalistic concept. Using it to talk about supernatural 'evidence' is a category error and 'not even wrong'.
I agree with the logic, but isn’t there a practical problem here – namely that in the real world we must apply probability values to claims of the supernatural? When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?
It’s not much use him saying, “Ah, but you’re making a category error there”. We have to make our minds up using the only tools we have don’t we?
I suppose the answer to that would be that making our minds up tells you nothing about the truth of the claim, just about whether or not to believe it. Absent any other method to assess the claim though, what else is there but ignosticism (or igleprechaunism)?
-
Jeremy,
Quite so.
Unfortunately Jeremy and Hillside Leprechauns and vampires are defined by their physical phase....and God is well, as you keep insisting, not defined (Hillsides claim).
Bad luck.
Are you saying that the probability of Jesus existing is the same as Leprechauns and vampires.
-
NS,
I agree with the logic, but isn’t there a practical problem here – namely that in the real world we must apply probability values to claims of the supernatural? When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?
It’s not much use him saying, “Ah, but you’re making a category error there”. We have to make our minds up using the only tools we have don’t we?
I suppose the answer to that would be that making our minds up tells you nothing about the truth of the claim, just about whether or not to believe it. Absent any other method to assess the claim though, what else is there but ignosticism (or igleprechaunism)?
It's just the default position. You don't believe a claim until it is evidenced. So it isn 't a lack of belief based in any sense in probability. It is a lack of belief based on no methodology to investigate the claim.
-
NS,
It's just the default position. You don't believe a claim until it is evidenced. So it isn 't a lack of belief based in any sense in probability. It is a lack of belief based on no methodology to investigate the claim.
Isn't it a lack of belief based on the probability that there is no method to investigate the claim?
-
NS,
Isn't it a lack of belief based on the probability that there is no method to investigate the claim?
Nope. How can it be since probability is based on the existing naturalistic methodology? And the naturalistic methodology doesn't claim to evaluate the probability of non naturalistic methodologies.
-
NS,
Nope. How can it be since probability is based on the existing naturalistic methodology? And the naturalistic methodology doesn't claim to evaluate the probability of non naturalistic methodologies.
Because when the televangelist type makes me the offer but provides no method to investigate it, I must take a probabilistic view - that there is no method, or that there is (even though neither of us know what it is). How should I do that?
-
Probability is a methodoligical naturalistic concept. Using it to talk about supernatural 'evidence' is a category error and 'not even wrong'.
Probability is a mathematical concept. It is the ratio of the number of ways something would be the case to the total number of possibilities. If you remove the constraints of what we know of the natural world, that vastly increases the number of possibilities and hence, in the absence of any positive reason to consider a claim likely, vastly reduces the probability of it being true.
-
Probability is a mathematical concept. It is the ratio of the number of ways something would be the case to the total number of possibilities. If you remove the constraints of what we know of the natural world, that vastly increases the number of possibilities and hence, in the absence of any positive reason to consider a claim likely, vastly reduces the probability of it being true.
And given the evaluation of any reason to make a claim outside the naturalistic methodology is impossible because of the constraints of the metholigy, your point is specious.
-
And given the evaluation of any reason to make a claim outside the naturalistic methodology is impossible because of the constraints of the metholigy, your point is specious.
The whole point of probability is to deal with unknowns. If we have no means to evaluate the reasons to make a claim, then it must be considered just as (un)likely as any other possibility.
-
The whole point of probability is to deal with unknowns. If we have no means to evaluate the reasons to make a claim, then it must be considered just as (un)likely as any other possibility.
And again in a methodologically naturalistic process, possibility is assumed to be naturalistic. Any calculation of supernatural causes is as ever not even wrong.
-
And again in a methodologically naturalistic process, possibility is assumed to be naturalistic. Any calculation of supernatural causes is as ever not even wrong.
Nonsense. Sticking the largely meaningless label "supernatural" on a claim makes no practical difference and certainly isn't a get out of jail free card for estimating its likelihood.
If somebody made up a naturalistic story that purported to explain the origin of the universe but couldn't justify it either from existing science or using evidence or logic, and somebody else claimed their (supernatural) god did it, you appear to be suggesting that we could dismiss the first as being unlikely but not the second.
-
As Yoda would say.....much confusion between how things come about in nature and how nature came about there is.
-
If you think that there is a natural explanation for the universe then you must assent to nature being eternal and independent of the universe.
-
Nonsense. Sticking the largely meaningless label "supernatural" on a claim makes no practical difference and certainly isn't a get out of jail free card for estimating its likelihood.
If somebody made up a naturalistic story that purported to explain the origin of the universe but couldn't justify it either from existing science or using evidence or logic, and somebody else claimed their (supernatural) god did it, you appear to be suggesting that we could dismiss the first as being unlikely but not the second.
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not arguing that it's a get out of jail free card, rather it's hurling the claim in the bottomless pit of logically incoherent claims. That something is considered likely or even possible indicates that it is in the methodology at least coherent and can be examined. Supernatural claims cannot be examined so don't get to the standard of being a possibility within the methodology. We don't even need to take the effort to evaluate their likelihood as they are essentially meaningless
-
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not arguing that it's a get out of jail free card, rather it's hurling the claim in the bottomless pit of logically incoherent claims. That something is considered likely or even possible indicates that it is in the methodology at least coherent and can be examined. Supernatural claims cannot be examined so don't get to the standard of being a possibility within the methodology. We don't even need to take the effort to evaluate their likelihood as they are essentially meaningless
What is your methodology for establishing your morality, its priorities and the consequent hypocrisy and humbug that ensues?
That's not just to you, that's to everyone.
It seems to me you want to passionately hold it and chide people for not doing so and....how did you put it?..... chuck it down the well of logical incoherence?
-
What is your methodology for establishing your morality, its priorities and the consequent hypocrisy and humbug that ensues?
That's not just to you, that's to everyone.
It seems to me you want to passionately hold it and chide people for not doing so and....how did you put it?..... chuck it down the well of logical incoherence?
What has morality got to with whether supernatural claims are coherent or valid in any sense?
-
What has morality got to with whether supernatural claims are coherent or valid in any sense?
Your objections to the supernatural...seem to be on the grounds of methodology. So given that you so reject the supernatural....what is your methodology for morality....or falling in love....or disliking or liking marmite?
-
Your objections to the supernatural...seem to be on the grounds of methodology. So given that you so reject the supernatural....what is your methodology for morality....or falling in love....or disliking or liking marmite?
You are confused. The issue with claims that are claimed to be objectively true need a clear methodology. Morality is imo subjective, and isn't about external truth, same for love and marmite. It's a category error to compare them.
Oh just to add, I don't 'reject the supernatural'. I just don't see any clarity about what is meant by it, or any indication from those who claim there is such a thing or how it would be demonstrated. In that instance, it's not reached a standard for rejection.
-
You seem to be missing the point. I'm not arguing that it's a get out of jail free card, rather it's hurling the claim in the bottomless pit of logically incoherent claims. That something is considered likely or even possible indicates that it is in the methodology at least coherent and can be examined. Supernatural claims cannot be examined so don't get to the standard of being a possibility within the methodology. We don't even need to take the effort to evaluate their likelihood as they are essentially meaningless
If a claim is incoherent then it can be dismissed as impossible (it has a probability of zero). That's a separate thing from whether it comes with the label "supernatural" attached.
The god that created the universe 6000 years ago is supposedly supernatural but the idea that it exists makes a claim about the physical world that can be evaluated (and rejected, due to massive contrary evidence).
-
NS,
You are confused. The issue with claims that are claimed to be objectively true need a clear methodology. Morality is imo subjective, and isn't about external truth, same for love and marmite. It's a category error to compare them.
A category error that, by my reckoning, has been explained to him approximately 14.362 bajillion times.
-
If a claim is incoherent then it can be dismissed as impossible (it has a probability of zero). That's a separate thing from whether it comes with the label "supernatural" attached.
The god that created the universe 6000 years ago is supposedly supernatural but the idea that it exists makes a claim about the physical world that can be evaluated (and rejected, due to massive contrary evidence).
No, impossible is a coherent claim that we can show is impossible. Your example doesn't show that the idea that the world could not be created 6000 years ago, or even last Thursday since the naturalistic methodology doesn't deal in any sense with supernatural claims. The lack of a methodology to do so is what means the claims can be dismissed as incoherent.
-
What is your methodology for establishing your morality, its priorities and the consequent hypocrisy and humbug that ensues?
That's not just to you, that's to everyone.
It seems to me you want to passionately hold it and chide people for not doing so and....how did you put it?..... chuck it down the well of logical incoherence?
It's been done, Vlad. Plenty of us have discussed how we think morality arises, and tried to give our reasonable accounts without resorting to hypocrisy and humbug.
-
No, impossible is a coherent claim that we can show is impossible.
If a claim is not self-consistent, it is impossible.
Your example doesn't show that the idea that the world could not be created 6000 years ago, or even last Thursday since the naturalistic methodology doesn't deal in any sense with supernatural claims. The lack of a methodology to do so is what means the claims can be dismissed as incoherent.
Except it isn't incoherent. The claim that the world was created last Thursday is perfectly self-consistent and contains no contradictions. It provides no way to investigate it, makes no testable predictions, and it has no supporting logical arguments, so it is a guess which is not impossible but is highly unlikely to be true (it is one story amongst all possible stories of how the world came to be here). It might not even be a claim with an attached "supernatural" label.
-
If a claim is not self-consistent, it is impossible.
Except it isn't incoherent. The claim that the world was created last Thursday is perfectly self-consistent and contains no contradictions. It provides no way to investigate it, makes no testable predictions, and it has no supporting logical arguments, so it is a guess which is not impossible but is highly unlikely to be true (it is one story amongst all possible stories of how the world came to be here). It might not even be a claim with an attached "supernatural" label.
But a claim that has the 'supernatural' label attached is immediately outside the methodology's ability to describe it. It isn't even a guess. It was exactly the point that last Thursdayism is self consistent that led me to mention it. It's just not coherent in terms of any approach. Given it's a supernatural claim without any methodology to ven consider it, any idea of it even being possible is invalid.
ETA - the issue with the supernatural claim is not just that it is uninvestigable but that if given any credence within the existing methodology dissolves the assumptions on which the methodology is based. We assign probability on the basis of certain assumptions of naturalism. If you don't make those assumptions, you aren't using the methodology.
-
But a claim that has the 'supernatural' label attached is immediately outside the methodology's ability to describe it. It isn't even a guess. It was exactly the point that last Thursdayism is self consistent that led me to mention it. It's just not coherent in terms of any approach. Given it's a supernatural claim without any methodology to ven consider it, any idea of it even being possible is invalid.
What methodology are you talking about? If somebody claims that the universe was created last Thursday by some unknown technological means and somebody else claims that it was created last Thursday by supernatural means, why is one an improbable guess and the other somehow incoherent even though it's logically self-consistent (which is in itself a contradiction)?
-
What methodology are you talking about? If somebody claims that the universe was created last Thursday by some unknown technological means and somebody else claims that it was created last Thursday by supernatural means, why is one an improbable guess and the other somehow incoherent even though it's logically self-consistent (which is in itself a contradiction)?
Well I'm working with the overall methodology that gives us science as precise, and history as less precise but still based on a methodological assumption of naturalism. In the first case, it may be hard, or indeed impossible(though hard to establish as it's only ever going to be currently that we can state that) to investigate the claim. In the second it means all claims made under the current methodology are meaningless since we base the idea of cause and effect on that MN (methodologically naturalistic) view.
One is a guess that can be evaluated as it works within the same MN, the other can be dismissed in the lack of any methodology. One, in theory, could have evidence, the second throws out the idea of what evidence is.
-
You are confused. The issue with claims that are claimed to be objectively true need a clear methodology. Morality is imo subjective, and isn't about external truth, same for love and marmite. It's a category error to compare them.
Oh just to add, I don't 'reject the supernatural'. I just don't see any clarity about what is meant by it, or any indication from those who claim there is such a thing or how it would be demonstrated. In that instance, it's not reached a standard for rejection.
No I believe the categories were those things which are logically incoherent and that which has methodology, your opinion is that morality is subjective. That is contrary to moral realism.
Subjective morality carries several incoherences and yet few would be without morality.
The first incoherence is that although it is thought subjective it is presented as a "true for you too" in a way that your tastes are not. And to answer Enki that is where humbug and hypocrisy are found.....and not only that...there is inconsistency and incoherence between belief and practice.
I'm afraid it was you who talked about tossing the supernatural into the pit of logical incoherence.
I take that as a "could do without out this thing ofno value". If that is so whither morality?
-
No I believe the categories were those things which are logically incoherent and that which has methodology, your opinion is that morality is subjective. That is contrary to moral realism.
Subjective morality carries several incoherences and yet few would be without morality.
The first incoherence is that although it is thought subjective it is presented as a "true for you too" in a way that your tastes are not. And to answer Enki that is where humbug and hypocrisy are found.....and not only that...there is inconsistency and incoherence between belief and practice.
Your first sentence is an incoherent car crash. So I would ask if you could look at it and try and make it a bit clearer.
-
Your first sentence is an incoherent car crash. So I would ask if you could look at it and try and make it a bit clearer.
What is the methodology for establishing your morality which you present as true for others?
What is logically coherent about a subjective true for you morality?
-
Probability is a methodoligical naturalistic concept.
It's a mathematical concept.
-
No I believe the categories were those things which are logically incoherent and that which has methodology, your opinion is that morality is subjective. That is contrary to moral realism.
Subjective morality carries several incoherences and yet few would be without morality.
The first incoherence is that although it is thought subjective it is presented as a "true for you too" in a way that your tastes are not. And to answer Enki that is where humbug and hypocrisy are found.....and not only that...there is inconsistency and incoherence between belief and practice.
I'm afraid it was you who talked about tossing the supernatural into the pit of logical incoherence.
I take that as a "could do without out this thing ofno value". If that is so whither morality?
1) I see morality as having an evolutionary basis.
2) I see no reason to think that the idea of evolution needs an outside agency such as a god for the process of evolution to work. Hence, I see no reason to think that morality needs any outside agency.
3) I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. However I see this as no different to any other 'potentials' such as the eye, movement, ability to breed, speed, strength, selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right, and, therefore do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.
4) I have a morality which I try to adhere to. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach, for me, superimpose upon those feelings, so that I attempt to give the most constructive outcome which would satisfy my original motivations. I do not see this as some 'distortion' of morality in any way. My morality seems entirely consistent with certain evolutionary motivations rather than reflecting some sort of morality which has an objective existence. Thus my sense of moral wrongness/rightness depends upon my own unique characteristics wedded to group characteristics via evolution.
5) I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions, because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel. That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong. However If it was demonstrated to me that some particular moral thought or action of mine was wrong, then I would try to analyse why it might be wrong, and if then I was convinced of this wrongness, I would try to adjust accordingly.
6) Moral thoughts and decisions can involve deep seated and natural emotions, often in relation to the extreme nature of a situation. Hence, in general terms, I would consider a brutal murder or a savage rape to be much more extreme than a small theft, for instance. Thus I would have a greater sense of condemnation for murder than theft. I find this to be entirely consistent with the evolutionary characteristics I referred to in point 4.
7) Because I am a member of an extremely social species, I see the need for group decisions as well as for valuing my own. Therefore, and especially, when I see social cohesion being threatened or undermined, I also understand the impulse for curtailing antisocial behaviour in myself and others. Conflict often arises from this attempt at balancing social/individual behaviour. I see this as entirely consistent with point 1 and point 4.
8 ) Once I die, my own motivations and feelings are no longer in existence. I might well hope that others may have the same sense of morality that I had, but it would be of no relevance to me as I no longer exist. In other words my sense of morality has died with me.
9) If all human beings died(and leaving aside the evidence for proto-morality in certain other animals) then, as I see it, there would be no such thing as morality actually existing, although the 'potential' for morality would not cease, given that evolution continues and that morality aids survival.
I see no reasons to think that my opinions here are not internally consistent and I fail to see where humbug and hypocrisy appear. I am quite willing to modify my views if this 'humbug and hypocrisy' is pointed out to me such that I agree with the arguments that demonstrate these qualities.
-
1) I see morality as having an evolutionary basis.
2) I see no reason to think that the idea of evolution needs an outside agency such as a god for the process of evolution to work. Hence, I see no reason to think that morality needs any outside agency.
3) I accept that there is a 'potential' for morality, if it aids survival. However I see this as no different to any other 'potentials' such as the eye, movement, ability to breed, speed, strength, selfishness and a myriad of other characteristics of living things. I do not see these 'potentials' as having any outside existence in their own right, and, therefore do not regard them as objective in the sense of having an existence separate from the creatures which exhibit these characteristics.
4) I have a morality which I try to adhere to. For me, this is probably driven by such traits as empathy and natural feelings of co-operation and responsibility towards others. Culture, environment, experience, upbringing, and a rational approach, for me, superimpose upon those feelings, so that I attempt to give the most constructive outcome which would satisfy my original motivations. I do not see this as some 'distortion' of morality in any way. My morality seems entirely consistent with certain evolutionary motivations rather than reflecting some sort of morality which has an objective existence. Thus my sense of moral wrongness/rightness depends upon my own unique characteristics wedded to group characteristics via evolution.
5) I generally think and feel that I am correct in my moral thoughts and decisions, because that is the way in which I have evolved to think and feel. That is not to say that I can't make immoral decisions, but it would be odd, indeed, if I went around thinking that my moral thoughts and decisions were inherently wrong. However If it was demonstrated to me that some particular moral thought or action of mine was wrong, then I would try to analyse why it might be wrong, and if then I was convinced of this wrongness, I would try to adjust accordingly.
6) Moral thoughts and decisions can involve deep seated and natural emotions, often in relation to the extreme nature of a situation. Hence, in general terms, I would consider a brutal murder or a savage rape to be much more extreme than a small theft, for instance. Thus I would have a greater sense of condemnation for murder than theft. I find this to be entirely consistent with the evolutionary characteristics I referred to in point 4.
7) Because I am a member of an extremely social species, I see the need for group decisions as well as for valuing my own. Therefore, and especially, when I see social cohesion being threatened or undermined, I also understand the impulse for curtailing antisocial behaviour in myself and others. Conflict often arises from this attempt at balancing social/individual behaviour. I see this as entirely consistent with point 1 and point 4.
8 ) Once I die, my own motivations and feelings are no longer in existence. I might well hope that others may have the same sense of morality that I had, but it would be of no relevance to me as I no longer exist. In other words my sense of morality has died with me.
9) If all human beings died(and leaving aside the evidence for proto-morality in certain other animals) then, as I see it, there would be no such thing as morality actually existing, although the 'potential' for morality would not cease, given that evolution continues and that morality aids survival.
I see no reasons to think that my opinions here are not internally consistent and I fail to see where humbug and hypocrisy appear. I am quite willing to modify my views if this 'humbug and hypocrisy' is pointed out to me such that I agree with the arguments that demonstrate these qualities.
Science makes zero moral arbitration.It merely observes behaviour.
Not sure about the link between survival and morality though.
-
NS,
...which you present as true for others?
You are of course more than big enough and ugly enough (as my Mum would say) to look after yourself, but you know I'm sure that immolating this straw man would only unleash another hundred to follow.
Your call though.
-
Science makes zero moral arbitration.It merely observes behaviour.
Science not only observes behaviour, it also tries to understand behaviour. At no point have I said that science decides what moral behaviour should be.
Not sure about the link between survival and morality though.
That's up to you.(shrugs shoulders). I am not trying to force my views upon you, but I see no reason at all to suggest inconsistency in what I have said, and even less reason to smear such thoughts as leading to 'humbug and hypocrisy'.
-
It's a mathematical concept.
and in terms of evaluating evidence for anything outside pure maths, naturalistic. And used to evaluate evidence, naturalistically.
-
history as less precise but still based on a methodological assumption of naturalism.
Heath Robinson sentence.
-
Heath Robinson sentence.
That isn't an actual quote of a sentence I wrote.
-
That isn't an actual quote of a sentence I wrote.
It's a cut and paste from one of your posts and you have expressed this before.
Could you please outline again why you think history is methodologically naturalistic.
Since naturalism is but one philosophical position can it be true that history is exclusively naturalistic.
Could you also expand on your suggested similarity between science and history. Thank you.
-
It's a cut and paste from one of your posts and you have expressed this before.
Could you please outline again why you think history is methodologically naturalistic.
Since naturalism is but one philosophical position can it be true that history is exclusively naturalistic.
Could you also expand on your suggested similarity between science and history. Thank you.
It's a quote from a post but it isn't a sentence from it. So calling it a sentence is wrong. Given that you made an incorrect statement of it being a sentence, the rest of your post is irrelevant.
-
and in terms of evaluating evidence for anything outside pure maths, naturalistic. And used to evaluate evidence, naturalistically.
Once again, probability is only the ratio of the number of ways in which something can be the case to the number of ways it can be in total. There need be nothing natural about the situation, it could be applied to an entirely unrealistic, fictional world.
If you have no way to investigate or get evidence, then a claim simply stands as one story amongst all possible stories about the situation. If we take last Thursdayism, there is no evidence and no way to get evidence even if we assume a natural but unknown technological mechanism for the creation event.
We only know what we know, and we don't know how much we don't know. If something falls far enough outside of what we know, for all practical purposes, including assessing probability, it might as well be "supernatural". This is one reason I think the term is all but meaningless; if a god exists, for example, how can it not be the most natural thing that exists?
-
It's a quote from a post but it isn't a sentence from it. So calling it a sentence is wrong. Given that you made an incorrect statement of it being a sentence, the rest of your post is irrelevant.
You have asserted that history is methodologically naturalistic. Make good your claim.
-
You have asserted that history is methodologically naturalistic. Make good your claim.
I've covered this at least four times before with your. Science and history in these terms are about study of both when you talk about it METHODOLOGICALLY. And told you the same amount of times that I am not a philosophical naturalist. Whenever you take that into account get back to me.
-
Once again, probability is only the ratio of the number of ways in which something can be the case to the number of ways it can be in total. There need be nothing natural about the situation, it could be applied to an entirely unrealistic, fictional world.
If you have no way to investigate or get evidence, then a claim simply stands as one story amongst all possible stories about the situation. If we take last Thursdayism, there is no evidence and no way to get evidence even if we assume a natural but unknown technological mechanism for the creation event.
We only know what we know, and we don't know how much we don't know. If something falls far enough outside of what we know, for all practical purposes, including assessing probability, it might as well be "supernatural". This is one reason I think the term is all but meaningless; if a god exists, for example, how can it not be the most natural thing that exists?
You are missing the issue that what supernatural claims mean that the concept of evidence is not agreed then any calculation is empty.
-
Although the calculation of probability is maths, and especially in the context of statistical tests (p=<0.05 etc, as I often did in a previous life), but when applied to phenomena such as claims then to do the maths you need some data (how many, how often etc etc), and to get data you need a method that addresses what constitutes data, how these data are recognised, how data is to be collected, how data is to be measured or categorised, how data is to be analysed etc etc.
If a supernatural claim involves some type of phenomena then to even consider its probability you would need a method that is suited to the collection of relevant supernatural data: and without a suitable method you have no data, no scope for analysis, and therefore no evidence that includes calculations of probability.
-
You are missing the issue that what supernatural claims mean that the concept of evidence is not agreed then any calculation is empty.
As I said: if you have no way to investigate or get evidence, then a claim simply stands as one story amongst all possible stories about the situation.
Some supernatural claims (creationism, for example) attempt (however laughably) to use objective (intersubjective) evidence. On the other hand, a technological last Thursdayism couldn't provide any. The label is simply irrelevant.
-
As I said: if you have no way to investigate or get evidence, then a claim simply stands as one story amongst all possible stories about the situation.
Some supernatural claims (creationism, for example) attempt (however laughably) to use objective (intersubjective) evidence. On the other hand, a technological last Thursdayism couldn't provide any. The label is simply irrelevant.
But if the label denies the methodology then it's irrelevant in the absence of a replacement methodology.
And all claims pitched outside the 'naturalistic' world, absent a method are just not even wrong.
-
Although the calculation of probability is maths, and especially in the context of statistical tests (p=<0.05 etc, as I often did in a previous life), but when applied to phenomena such as claims then to do the maths you need some data...
When you label a wild guess as unlikely, nobody is suggesting that we do an exact calculation, it's simply based on the idea that you could make a vast number of baseless guesses, all of which (in the absence of any supporting evidence or reasoning) are equally (un)likely.
As blue said in #75; "When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?"
-
When you label a wild guess as unlikely, nobody is suggesting that we do an exact calculation, it's simply based on the idea that you could make a vast number of baseless guesses, all of which (in the absence of any supporting evidence or reasoning) are equally (un)likely.
As blue said in #75; "When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?"
When you use the term 'wild guess', you are already validating it as possible but absent a methodology that does that, that would be specious.
-
But if the label denies the methodology then it's irrelevant in the absence of a replacement methodology.
And all claims pitched outside the 'naturalistic' world, absent a method are just not even wrong.
You keep repeating these claims but never actually back them up. What methodology?
If something is logically self-consistent and doesn't directly contradict something that is known (that is an actual fact, not a theory that might have exceptions, no matter how well tested), what practical difference does labelling it "supernatural" make to whether you regard it as likely or not?
When you use the term 'wild guess', you are already validating it as possible but absent a methodology that does that, that would be specious.
I wrote the above before I read this, but it's possible if it is logically self-consistent and doesn't directly contradict a known fact. What additional methodology do you think is needed?
-
When you label a wild guess as unlikely, nobody is suggesting that we do an exact calculation, it's simply based on the idea that you could make a vast number of baseless guesses, all of which (in the absence of any supporting evidence or reasoning) are equally (un)likely.
As blue said in #75; "When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?"
If you want to calculate the probability of anything then you need a method (which includes all aspects of data and analysis) that is probability-apt.
You might rightly conclude that the chap in the shiny suit and confident manner is not to be trusted, but that is a subjective judgement based on experience and intuition and is not a calculation of the probability in the statistical sense: he could be scrupulously honest, but with questionable taste in suits and haircuts: the question is how you would test the probability that he was wrong?
If there is no method suited to the nature of the claim being made then probability in the statistical sense isn't calculable.
-
If you want to calculate the probability of anything then you need a method (which includes all aspects of data and analysis) that is probability-apt.
You might rightly conclude that the chap in the shiny suit and confident manner is not to be trusted, but that is a subjective judgement based on experience and intuition and is not a calculation of the probability in the statistical sense: he could be scrupulously honest, but with questionable taste in suits and haircuts: the question is how you would test the probability that he was wrong?
If there is no method suited to the nature of the claim being made then probability in the statistical sense isn't calculable.
As I said, nobody would suggest calculating it, it's just that the number of possibilities (stories you could possibly make up about a situation) must be vastly greater than the number that would render a baseless guess true - the ratio of the two being what probability fundamentally is.
The specific point is that it makes no practical difference if the guess is about something labelled "supernatural" or is just about something totally unknown but supposedly natural.
-
As I said, nobody would suggest calculating it, it's just that the number of possibilities (stories you could possibly make up about a situation) must be vastly greater than the number that would render a baseless guess true - the ratio of the two being what probability fundamentally is.
The specific point is that it makes no practical difference if the guess is about something labelled "supernatural" or is just about something totally unknown but supposedly natural.
Any calculation that makes no difference, with 'practical', shows my understanding of the methodology. If it makes no sense within the methodology, it isn't a calculation.
-
You keep repeating these claims but never actually back them up. What methodology?
If something is logically self-consistent and doesn't directly contradict something that is known (that is an actual fact, not a theory that might have exceptions, no matter how well tested), what practical difference does labelling it "supernatural" make to whether you regard it as likely or not?
I wrote the above before I read this, but it's possible if it is logically self-consistent and doesn't directly contradict a known fact. What additional methodology do you think is needed?
This has already been covered. You are working within an assumption, harder or softer, of naturalism.
-
You have asserted that history is methodologically naturalistic. Make good your claim.
To explain, once again, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Might help if you didn't ignore what is said, or minequote! Can I have an apology for you saying a part sentence was a sentence?
-
As blue said in #75; "When someone with a $5,000 suit and an ambitious haircut says, “Give me all your money and I will give you the keys to heaven” we have no choice but to work out whether or not to believe him. Is he more probably right or more probably wrong?"
It seems to me this example is more about the probability of being ripped of by men in sharp suits wanting your money than the supernatural.
He has just taken the question "would you buy a used car from this man" and substituted car with heaven.
-
To explain, once again, the study of history is methodologically naturalistic. Might help if you didn't ignore what is said, or minequote! Can I have an apology for you saying a part sentence was a sentence?
I'm not arguing that history is not studied in that way or that there isn't a naturalistic school of history or even a naturalistic history.
What I am saying is that there are forms of history which show no bias for or against any philosophical position and many histories have been written thus.
History is not science chiefly because science deals with repeatability and history is frequently about the unique.
We can also end up with Marxist and great men schools of history but I believe this sort of distinction is frowned on in science.
-
Can I have an apology for you saying a part sentence was a sentence?
Yes, but in a grudging kind of Father Jack way.
As you seem the sort of chap who needs to be apologised to regularly and I have recently neglected to indulge that.....
.......and may I apologise ahead for anything that might have upset you in this post?
-
Any calculation that makes no difference, with 'practical', shows my understanding of the methodology. If it makes no sense within the methodology, it isn't a calculation.
What is the methodology you keep on about? I've outlined several times now how you can know that the probability is low for baseless stories and why the label "supernatural" makes no difference to it. Any time you want to actually address that, get back to me.
-
Yes. Are you saying Jesus didn't exist?
I am .
-
I am .
Why?
-
Why?
evidence, evidence, evidence ???? or do you mean Jesus was a popular name in them days ?
-
evidence, evidence, evidence ???? or do you mean Jesus was a popular name in them days ?
If you say Jesus was absent from history then you must have an even more reliable history. Present it or shut up.
-
If you say Jesus was absent from history then you must have an even more reliable history. Present it or shut up.
I think a guy called Jesus existed and possibly stood out from the crowd, but I very much doubt the less than credible things the gospel writers attributed to him were true.
-
I think a guy called Jesus existed and possibly stood out from the crowd, but I very much doubt the less than credible things the gospel writers attributed to him were true.
Those objections are based on what one believes possible rather than history though unless you have a more reliable history although I can see you do not share Walters position.
-
Those objections are based on what one believes possible rather than history though unless you have a more reliable history although I can see you do not share Walters position.
The Bible cannot be classified as a history book, imo.
-
If you say Jesus was absent from history then you must have an even more reliable history. Present it or shut up.
nope! just a more reliable set of reasoning skills .
present your evidence or shut up . Do you know what , it's the same old same old . heads and brick walls .
-
I have asked this question many times, but never had a satisfactory answer. If Jesus was everything claimed for him, why did he disappear up to heaven, instead of remaining here on earth and putting his miracles to good use?