Stephen Laws' Going nuclear

[Walt Zingmatilder]

What do I think?

Laws is saying that God is not logical.

However the vehicle he uses to get us to this....an article called going nuclear doesn't actually reach the destination....which is really a vaguer point with mock station signs put up.

There you go Hillside....derail that.

[jeremyp]

Actually, isn't the idea more about people with irrational beliefs and their only debating weapon? After all the first example he gives is of a new-ager, and they don't necessarily believe in gods - just lots of other nonsense.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Actually, isn't the idea more about people with irrational beliefs and their only debating weapon? After all the first example he gives is of a new-ager, and they don't necessarily believe in gods - just lots of other nonsense.

Such a setting up of straw men and begging of questions, a bit of a boullabaise piss take don't you think though?

[SqueakyVoice]

Actually, isn't the idea more about people with irrational beliefs and their only debating weapon? After all the first example he gives is of a new-ager, and they don't necessarily believe in gods - just lots of other nonsense.

Yep. That's the conclusion you, I and every other person who has ever read SL's article came to.

But Chunsty? Like the Ship's Captain Blackadder hires who insists that his ships don't need a crew by stating, "Opinion is divided on the matter. All the others say you do, I say you don't. "
Chunsty knows better.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

What do I think?

Laws is saying that God is not logical.

However the vehicle he uses to get us to this....an article called going nuclear doesn't actually reach the destination....which is really a vaguer point with mock station signs put up.

There you go Hillside....derail that.

Actually I'll just correct rather than derail it if that's OK.

Stephen Law does no such thing. What he actually does is to take just one argument - ie "going nuclear" - and dismantle it. There may or may not be perfectly good but different arguments for "God", but all the essay is about is an argument that faith believers of various stripes sometimes attempt: "OK, I may be guessing but so are you so we're evens". It fails for the same reason that jumping out of the 20th floor window and taking the lift do not have equal value in probabilisitic truth terms.

Why you felt the need to throw so much incomprehension and/or dishonesty at it is your business, but it stands perfectly well nonetheless in achieving what it set out to achieve - the rebuttal of an argument and of that argument alone.

[jeremyp]

Such a setting up of straw men and begging of questions, a bit of a boullabaise piss take don't you think though?

Yes how dare Steven Laws write an article about a different subject to the one you wanted.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Yes how dare Steven Laws write an article about a different subject to the one you wanted.

I think Steven Laws wrote an article about a different subject to the one HE wanted.

[wigginhall]

I think David Hume made a joke about this, well, sort of a joke, when he said that although he was fairly skeptical, he would still leave a room by the door, not the window.   I suppose he is saying that 100% skepticism may be interesting in theory, but in actuality, is useless.   But this is only one type of going nuclear, I think.   Of course, you might leave a room by the window in certain conditions, e.g. fire, or your girl-friend's husband is coming in the front door. 

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I think Steven Laws wrote an article about a different subject to the one HE wanted.

Then, as so often, you think wrongly. He set out to address the "going nuclear" argument and he did so effectively. The preamble to it and the various (wrong by the way) accusations you made about that preamble are entirely irrelevant. Either he falsified "going nuclear" or he did not: absent a counter-argument from you or from anyone else about that, then he did.

[jeremyp]

I think David Hume made a joke about this, well, sort of a joke, when he said that although he was fairly skeptical, he would still leave a room by the door, not the window.

Scepticism  - at least as applied to me by me - does not entail dogmatically refusing to believe anything. If there's evidence for a hypothesis then it's OK to accept the hypothesis. The evidence is that it is easier to leave a building by the door, there is no need to climb over the sill and there is more likely to be a floor, rather than a drop on the other side. Therefore I accept the "door is the best way to live the room" hypothesis.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Wiigs,

I think David Hume made a joke about this, well, sort of a joke, when he said that although he was fairly skeptical, he would still leave a room by the door, not the window.   I suppose he is saying that 100% skepticism may be interesting in theory, but in actuality, is useless.   But this is only one type of going nuclear, I think.   Of course, you might leave a room by the window in certain conditions, e.g. fire, or your girl-friend's husband is coming in the front door.

You might, but probably not from a window on the 20th floor. The two truth propositions here are:

1. Taking the lift will get you to the street safely

2. Jumping out of the window will get you to the street safely

Both propositions rely on axioms of various descriptions, but probabilistically they do not have equal truth value and we know that from intersubjective experience. That's not to say that either proposition is categorically true - once in a while the lift cable may snap; once in a while some quantum event may cause you to float gently to the ground – but it is to enable us to apply the labels "true (enough)" and "not true (enough)" and thereby to have a model to function in the world.

What Vlad's attempted on various threads is going nuclear - i.e., "OK, my beliefs are based on axioms but so are yours so we're both guessing, therefore we're evens" which is plainly nonsense once you realise that "truth" is about probables, not absolutes.

 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Wiigs,

You might, but probably not from a window on the 20th floor. The two truth propositions here are:

1. Taking the lift will get you to the street safely

2. Jumping out of the window will get you to the street safely

Both propositions rely on axioms of various descriptions, but probabilistically they do not have equal truth value and we know that from intersubjective experience. That's not to say that either proposition is categorically true - once in a while the lift cable may snap; once in a while some quantum event may cause you to float gently to the ground – but it is to enable us to apply the labels "true (enough)" and "not true (enough)" and thereby to have a model to function in the world.

What Vlad's attempted on various threads is going nuclear - i.e., "OK, my beliefs are based on axioms but so are yours so we're both guessing, therefore we're evens" which is plainly nonsense once you realise that "truth" is about probables, not absolutes.

 

No, No, No all I do is to draw your attention to the leap of faith required to declare the universe probably God free. Yes folks naturalism requires a step of faith.

Mind you if you also think a probably God free universe is more logical.....i'd like to see that demonstrated.

What is the probability of a God free universe Blue. Show your working out.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

No, No, No all I do is to draw your attention to the leap of faith required to declare the universe probably God free. Yes folks naturalism requires a step of faith.

Mind you if you also think a probably God free universe is more logical.....i'd like to see that demonstrated.

What is the probability of a God free universe Blue. Show your working out.

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear.

All that was being shown is that we can assess the probability of either jumping out of a window or taking a lift, and can put a confidence interval on it. So we might be wrong in our assessment, BUT we have at least made an assessment of the probabilities (to be revised when further data is available).

Theists on the other hand offer no means/methodology to assign a probability that God exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, No, No all I do is to draw your attention to the leap of faith required to declare the universe probably God free. Yes folks naturalism requires a step of faith.

Oh dear. Look, it's simple enough: for epistemological purposes either you treat all un-defined, un-argued, un-evidenced conjectures the same way or you collapse into special pleading for the one you happen to prefer over the rest. And if you do treat them the same way, then the universe probably is god-free for just the same reason that it's probably pixie-free, or probably tap-dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri-free, or... etc.

You can't have it both ways - either you think that all of them are more probably true than not, or that none of them are.

Mind you if you also think a probably God free universe is more logical.....i'd like to see that demonstrated.

You just did.

What is the probability of a God free universe Blue. Show your working out.

It's logic, not a mathematical equation. There's enough intersubjective experience of, say, gravity for it to be "true (enough)"; there's not enough intersubjective experience of "God" (or of pixies, or of unicorns) for it to be "true (enough)", so it's "not true (enough)".

That the arguments theists attempt to demonstrate "God" are logically hopeless doesn't help them much either by the way, though that of itself is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for the "probably god-free" position.   

Oh, and none of this by the way has anything to do with why you crashed and burned so badly re the Stephen Law argument - i.e., the topic of this thread you started - and your attempts at the going nuclear argument.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Just to pick up on Stephen's post and your faux naive "what's a methodology then?" thread, that's your problem. I can use a method to test the lift vs defenestration conjectures and, after sufficient attempts at each, I can assign probabilistic truth values to each one. And then I can say with reasonable confidence that "the lift is safer than the window" is probabilistically true (enough), whereas the "window is safer than the lift" is probabilistically not true (enough).

What method then would you propose to test your conjecture "God"?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Vlad,

Just to pick up on Stephen's post and your faux naive "what's a methodology then?" thread, that's your problem. I can use a method to test the lift vs defenestration conjectures and, after sufficient attempts at each, I can assign probabilistic truth values to each one. And then I can say with reasonable confidence that "the lift is safer than the window" is probabilistically true (enough), whereas the "window is safer than the lift" is probabilistically not true (enough).

What method then would you propose to test your conjecture "God"?

I think it is something along the lines of. I had an experience, it was an unpleasant experience that challenged my ego. It fit with the narrative of the Christian God. Therefore, the Christian God exists.

Well if that doesn't prove it what does?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Stephen,

I think it is something along the lines of. I had an experience, it was an unpleasant experience that challenged my ego. It fit with the narrative of the Christian God. Therefore, the Christian God exists.

Well if that doesn't prove it what does?

While I agree with the sentiment, my sense is rather that his "experience" played straight into his ego: "A universe-creating god took time out to visit little old me? How special must I be then - unlike the rest of you schmucks!" type of thing.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Oh dear. Look, it's simple enough: for epistemological purposes either you treat all un-defined, un-argued, un-evidenced conjectures the same way or you collapse into special pleading for the one you happen to prefer over the rest. And if you do treat them the same way, then the universe probably is god-free for just the same reason that it's probably pixie-free, or probably tap-dancing unicorns on Alpha Centauri-free, or... etc.

Yes and what is/are that/those probability/probabilities.....show your working out.

I wouldn't like to take odds that the universe is pixie free...it's a big place.
Unicorns and tap dancing on alpha centuari? The probability of equines and tap dancing within a few light years of earth is low due to the proximity of alpha centauri.

What though is the probability of God. Show your working out.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Stephen,

While I agree with the sentiment, my sense is rather that his "experience" played straight into his ego: "A universe-creating god took time out to visit little old me? How special must I be then - unlike the rest of you schmucks!" type of thing.

What a peculiar post. I don't recognise that experience and it contradicts your previous complaints that I am trying to say that God is true for you too Blue.

A basic atheist mistake accusing religious people of exclusivity AND trying to share God with you.

My sense is that you have made a faux up.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

What though is the probability of God. Show your working out.

It's probability can't be calculated (well I am yet to see such a method for doing so) so it doesn't get consideration. A very low probability of something beats that of one for which a probability can't be computed i.e. it doesn't even merit consideration unless you can propose a different method to asses it's likely truth value.

You are the one that claims a God. What is your p value and how did you determine it?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think it is something along the lines of. I had an experience, it was an unpleasant experience that challenged my ego. It fit with the narrative of the Christian God. Therefore, the Christian God exists.

Well if that doesn't prove it what does?

I am sure there are perfectly genuine Christians who might be as secure in that probability as Bluehillside is in the one he believes in.

Bluehillside is extremely vague though in his beliefs and his probabilities whereas Christians often have been more convinced that their conversion is as opposed to atheist wooliness, a crowning experience.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Just to pick up on Stephen's post and your faux naive "what's a methodology then?" thread, that's your problem. I can use a method to test the lift vs defenestration conjectures and, after sufficient attempts at each, I can assign probabilistic truth values to each one. And then I can say with reasonable confidence that "the lift is safer than the window" is probabilistically true (enough), whereas the "window is safer than the lift" is probabilistically not true (enough).

What method then would you propose to test your conjecture "God"?

I have no problem with the probability of material things within limits.......But there is a difference between the probability of stuff doing stuff and the probability of,say, Godfree.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I am sure there are perfectly genuine Christians who might be as secure in that probability as Bluehillside is in the one he believes in.

Bluehillside is extremely vague though in his beliefs and his probabilities whereas Christians often have been more convinced that their conversion is as opposed to atheist wooliness, a crowning experience.

And the probability is?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I have no problem with the probability of material things within limits.......But there is a difference between the probability of stuff doing stuff and the probability of,say, Godfree.

And the probability of God doing stuff is?

Godfree isi the default by the way. Have you ever heard of a null hypothesis?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It's probability can't be calculated (well I am yet to see such a method for doing so) so it doesn't get consideration. A very low probability of something beats that of one for which a probability can't be computed i.e. it doesn't even merit consideration unless you can propose a different method to asses it's likely truth value.

You are the one that claims a God. What is your p value and how did you determine it?

But like the unconscious universe manages to act as observer you unconsciously claim Godfree.......What is YOUR p value and how do you determine it.