AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[Alan Burns]

Yes, we are all ultimately made of dead stuff.  Conscious experience is essentially patterns in information flow and there is nothing special about the organic materials that make up you or me in terms of their ability to host information.  If we can swap our carbon compounds for more durable silicon compounds in the same arrangement then they should also be able to host the same forms of information flow.

But the property which we describe as "information" only exists in the eye of a perceiver.  Outside perception, there is no information - just material particles. 

[Nearly Sane]

I must put it to you that nothing can be perceived outside the human soul, because I would define the human soul as "that which perceives".

circular argument and begging the question. Not as tight as SotS' earlier performance though

[Alan Burns]

Multimodal sensory experience is amalgamated and synchronised into an apparent single stream of experience by subliminal preconscious perception processing

Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?

No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.

[wigginhall]

Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?

No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'simply' there.   Are you arguing that molecules and combinations of molecules in compounds don't exist?   Check out some salt, NaCl, with an ionic bond, if you're interested.

[torridon]

All higher animals have cognitive perception, not just humans. When an antelope sees a lion creeping up on it and recognises it as something to fear, that is cognitive perception, exactly the same as would happen in me.  Recognising the meaning in written words is just a more advanced form of cognitive perception.

But in these examples, you still fail to recognise the difference between perception and reaction.

I do understand that difference.  Reaction is what happens at the levels of physics and chemistry.  Perception is a modal sensory phenomenology such as vision or hearing that emerges at the level of biology derived from billions of underlying neurobiological chain reactions. Cognitive perception you can think of as being affective perception; thus when an emperor penguin sees a thousand near identical baby penguins on the beach the internal visual sensory image created in cortex is perception.  When the penguin somehow recognises its own baby from among the thousand and warms to it, that is cognitive perception.  All vertebrates, not just humans, do cognitive perception, not just reaction.

[wigginhall]

But humans are speshul. 

[Dicky Underpants]

I must put it to you that nothing can be perceived outside the human soul, because I would define the human soul as "that which perceives".

Perhaps Brahman is the only perceiver, just as (so it is asserted) it is the only re-incarnator, and the only conscious entity.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Suggest you learn about fallacies first and then re-read your own posts: the ones I mentioned are quite obvious.

Ha Ha Ha Gordon caught out. If it wasn't absolutely hilarious it would be funny.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

But humans are speshul.

Exactly.....what about tap dancing Bonobos for instance?

[torridon]

Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?

No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.

Yes it is amazing isn't it. Were you fascinated by chemistry as a schoolboy ? Our universe is like the mother of all chemistry experiments.  The early universe was simple, almost completely homogenous in every direction with near zero temperature differences. It took 400,000 years for atomic matter to form, then a further 200 million years for stars to ignite allowing for increasingly complex chemistry, and when the first stars died they created heavier elements still allowing primitive organics to form in interstellar space. We don't know how long it takes to get from organic chemistry to biology, all we have is the one example of this planet, judging by that example it took 11 billion years from conception for the first biology to occur, then another billion years eventually yielded multicellular life diversifying rapidly into many forms leading to the present day.  Given sufficient time its amazing what the laws of nature produce.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

No- people are free to believe what they wish and to justify their belief in any terms that suit them: they may be right or they may be wrong. However, if they attempt to justify their beliefs via a fallacy: any of them, then they commit a reasoning error. So, in relation to the NPF when used in relation to unfalsifiable claims involving divine agency then when someone says along the lines of 'and you can't show I'm wrong' then, in effect, they are clearly implying that their position is correct, since they are saying they can't be shown to be wrong - neither they nor their interlocutors is implying any 'guessing' is involved.

That was the point I made in my previous post - I disagreed with your assertion that they were attempting to justify their belief by stating 'And you can't show me I'm wrong'.

I think a theist justifies their belief based on their personal experience of what they perceive as the net benefits of their particular belief.

I think that  when they say you can't disprove whatever their belief is they are just pointing that out to you. Whatever you think they are implying by that statement is just you guessing unless they confirm that that was what they were implying.

You can of course still assert that they are implying whatever you think they are implying but assertions don't count for much without evidence. Maybe a theist such as Hope or Alan or someone will come by and provide the evidence by confirming that they agree with your assertion.

On a personal note, I can confirm that I am NOT implying that I am justifying my belief by stating you can't disprove my belief, even if you want to believe as a true for you belief that I am implying that. I am just pointing out the obvious. I use personal experience to justify my belief.

No, as noted above, the NPF involves a statement along the lines of 'you can't show that I'm wrong' and doesn't get as far as either 'so we are both guessing' or 'true for me and true for you too' - the argument fails due to the NPF with the 'you can't show I'm wrong' element, although it may be that other fallacies are then deployed.

I disagree with your definition of the NPF because your definition doesn't seem logical. I don't think the NPF consists of just the statement. It can only be a fallacy if the person making that statement is justifying their belief with that statement rather than merely pointing out the obvious - that you can't disprove their belief - meanwhile their beliefs are justified by personal experience.

[Gordon]

I disagree with your definition of the NPF because your definition doesn't seem logical. I don't think the NPF consists of just the statement. It can only be a fallacy if the person making that statement is justifying their belief with that statement rather than merely pointing out the obvious - that you can't disprove their belief - meanwhile their beliefs are justified by personal experience.

The 'you can't show I'm wrong' surely acts to reinforce their conviction that they are correct in believing as they do - else why do they bother making this challenge at all and not just stick to 'this is my personal belief' if that is the only justification they require?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Gabriella,

I think that  when they say you can't disprove whatever their belief is they are just pointing that out to you.

No when they say it in reply to the question, "what evidence do you have for "God?" they're not. Moreover, why else would they feel the need to "point out" that axiomatically any unfalsifiable conjecture cannot be falsified?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella,

Glad you've having a great time (though I wouldn't generally recommend actually stopping when you're flagged down there...)

Hi BHS

Yes I was wondering if we would get car-jacked or worse but what can I say - taking controlled risks is exciting. I'm a bit reckless that way. We were close to Knysna, it's a small town and crime is low in that area.

I'm just passing through here, but briefly:
 

No, it's stronger than that. The NPF is sometimes used to answer the question, "what's your evidence for "God"?". That is, in these cases the person saying, "you can't disprove it" is so far as they're concerned providing evidence for their god.

As a separate matter, even if no-one had done that the NPF would still be a bad argument and so shouldn't be attempted regardless of the intent of the person essaying it.

From what I've read, the statement is made after first providing personal experience of benefits of belief as justification for them holding their particular belief . So i read it not as an attempt at justification but as just a statement. As I said to Gordon a theist needs to confirm why they are making that statement.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Got to go for dinner - will respond later.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Gabriella,

From what I've read, the statement is made after first providing personal experience of benefits of belief as justification for them holding their particular belief . So i read it not as an attempt at justification but as just a statement. As I said to Gordon a theist needs to confirm why they are making that statement.

The benefits (or disbenefits) of a belief have nothing to do with its truthfulness or otherwise. As pretty much every occasion the NPF is deployed is in a discussion about whether or not the belief is true though, it's hard to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The 'you can't show I'm wrong' surely acts to reinforce their conviction that they are correct in believing as they do - else why do they bother making this challenge at all and not just stick to 'this is my personal belief' if that is the only justification they require?

Firstly you can't show that they are wrong.
I'm not sure that anybodies conviction is reinforced because of it...That is a straw man concocted out your fear and willingness to believe the worst but, if you think about it, it's a pretty daft fear on your part.
''This is my personal belief'' doesn't cover that it might be true for everybody. When people like you state that ''True for me'' is acceptable that it is because it allows you to pigeonhole these people as ''quaint eccentrics''. Worse it is hypocrisy since you think your take on a God free universe is true for everyone and thus you are not averse to a bit of the very thing you are condemning.

[Gordon]

Firstly you can't show that they are wrong.

Erm - we are talking unfalsifiable here, Vlad: think about it.

I'm not sure that anybodies conviction is reinforced because of it...That is a straw man concocted out your fear and willingness to believe the worst but, if you think about it, it's a pretty daft fear on your part.

It isn't a straw man, Vlad - simply an observation of mine to which you have added you own straw man.

''This is my personal belief'' doesn't cover that it might be true for everybody.

I didn't say it did.

When people like you state that ''True for me'' is acceptable that it is because it allows you to pigeonhole these people as ''quaint eccentrics''. Worse it is hypocrisy since you think your take on a God free universe is true for everyone and thus you are not averse to a bit of the very thing you are condemning.

Which is part straw man and part ad hom - well done you!.

[Maeght]

Is it not amazing what the crude process of natural selection has achieved?

No matter how complex a description we come up with, is still comprises atoms simply reacting to their immediate environment.

Yes it is an amazing process.

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

As pretty much every occasion the NPF is deployed is in a discussion about whether or not the belief is true though, it's hard to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.

In which bluehillside does not try hard enough to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.

How about the constant implications that people are wrong to have a religious belief e.g. books like The God Delusion? There are probably some who have concluded that if some atheists seem to be so sure that religious believers are wrong, then they should be able to back it up, rather than hiding behind excuses such as burden of proof. That works both ways, something you are not prepared to accept because you do not appear to understand how truth works, or properties of truth.

[Gordon]

In which bluehillside does not try hard enough to see why anyone would use it except to validate their belief as true.

That they do, as you suggest, is utterly perplexing since to justify belief via a reasoning error seems, well, unreasonable.

How about the constant implications that people are wrong to have a religious belief e.g. books like The God Delusion?

Since you've just advocated justifying your beliefs by deploying a logical fallacy then thinking you are likely to be wrong is a reasonable position to hold - and iirc RD doesn't adopt the 100% atheist position anyway: he seems more nuanced than that.

There are probably some who have concluded that if some atheists seem to be so sure that religious believers are wrong, then they should be able to back it up, rather than hiding behind excuses such as burden of proof.

Now you are being silly: the burden of proof remains yours whether you like it or not, and if you are happy to defend your position via fallacies, as you've just done, then that other dismiss your arguments as being so much white noise is reasonable. Surely, assuming you've posted your arguments on other fora, others have noted your dependence on fallacies before now.

That works both ways, something you are not prepared to accept because you do not appear to understand how truth works, or properties of truth.

It doesn't actually, and there you go using terms like 'truth' again without seemingly being aware of the problems this causes you: the 'properties of truth' are what exactly?

[Alan Burns]

Yes it is an amazing process.

But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.

[Sebastian Toe]

But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.

And the truth will not alter your personal incredulity!

[torridon]

But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.
Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.

Since when was personal incredulity truth ? News to me.

OK, we could say that highly improbable things are beyond human comprehension.  But then we could also say in the same sense that 14 billion years is beyond human comprehension.  Can you conceive of that amount of time when we normally arrange our affairs on a scale of minutes, days, years and decades ?  We recently estimated that there are two trillion galaxies in the universe.  Can anyone conceive of such a number,  and what it would imply for the probable number of rocky planets  ?

Given a long enough span of time and a large enough amount of space, anything that can happen, will happen.

[Maeght]

But the true probability of it all happening by chance random events is way beyond human comprehension.

So what?

Yes, you can label this as personal incredulity, but it will not alter the truth.

It is personal incredulity, and that certainly doesn't alter the truth, you're right.