AN opportunity for the religious to provide their evidence

[torridon]

My mind is not closed.  Every day I open it up to allow God into my life.  I just wish that more people would open up the door to allow God in.

Maybe opening up to God, to use your phrase, is simultaneously closing the door to new insights gathered through other means.  I get the impression that your understanding of science belongs to somewhere around 1980, as if God came in and you lost interest at that point.  Seems a shame that.  Keeping an open mind, means always being open to new insights, and being open to the probability that you have been wrong about things in the past including god. None of us have all the answers.

[Gonnagle]

Dear Torridon,

that complexity derives from origins that are simpler, not more complex.

Yes! Science is like a jigsaw, we think some of the pieces are missing but they are there, right in front of us, once we grasp how simple it is the complexity will fall away, God/ the Universe is simple, we need to look at the simple then we will understand the complex.

I think it is the way we study the Universe, we need a new science, your only goal is to see the beauty, Einstein see's a Library, I see a dance, choreographed, set to the most beautiful music.

Carl Sagan,

“The beauty of a living thing is not the atoms that go into it, but the way those atoms are put together.”

Or to put it another way, the way they all dance together

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0aEHw3vKLg

"They cut me down but I leaped up high I am the life that will never ever die, i'll live in you if you live in me for I am the Lord of the dance said he"

We are all part of the dance

Gonnagle.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Hi Gabriella,

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.

Hi BHS

Sorry - got too busy to respond. Am leaving for airport today so will probably respond further once I get back to London.

I did a search on NPF and looked at some of the posts in the results and cannot find one where it is used as an answer to justify the truth of the belief. From what I saw a theist uses personal experience as justification for their belief and there is currently no answer to the question as to what methodology exists for identifying something as supernatural in order to establish or falsify the supernatural. I did not see any answers to the question of why a theist belief is different from a guess.

[Walter]

Well hello everyone
I'm back after about seven days of no internet and have been reading your posts to catch up
I'm very disappointed in you religious people , NOTHING. NO EVIDENCE. You should take a look at how the non religious put forward an argument or a rebuttal and learn from them if you want to be taken seriously. Thank you to them, some very clever posts.
Anyway I knew it would be futile and now its confirmed ,thanks to all.

[BeRational]

My mind is not closed.  Every day I open it up to allow God into my life.  I just wish that more people would open up the door to allow God in.

Could you be wrong about the existence of your god.

If you do not say yes, then you ARE closed minded.

[Owlswing]

Could you be wrong about the existence of your god.

If you do not say yes, then you ARE closed minded.

"Do not" or "Cannot"? I think his religious beliefs make it that, much as he might want to say it, his beliefs will not allow him to do so!

[BeRational]

"Do not" or "Cannot"? I think his religious beliefs make it that, much as he might want to say it, his beliefs will not allow him to do so!

Quite!

But being unable to consider being wrong means he is in fact closed minded.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Well hello everyone
I'm back after about seven days of no internet and have been reading your posts to catch up
I'm very disappointed in you religious people , NOTHING. NO EVIDENCE. You should take a look at how the non religious put forward an argument or a rebuttal and learn from them if you want to be taken seriously. Thank you to them, some very clever posts.
Anyway I knew it would be futile and now its confirmed ,thanks to all.

That's why it's called faith. It's a personal interpretation of experiences.

On the issue of faith being taken seriously, personally speaking I can't think of how it would make a difference to me if my religious, ethical, moral or political views are taken seriously any more than it would matter to an atheist if their lack of belief in religion or their political views or morals etc are taken seriously. We can only put our opinions forward and seek to persuade and then leave it up to individuals to decide whatever they are persuaded by, within the limits of a changing legal framework.

If someone claims they are persuaded by any or all of my opinions on all kinds of issues or views, I would still think that they would have to go through their own individual investigation, exploration, experience and interpretation.

Happy to work together with other people to form a society on the basis of mutual respect though. I am unable to provide a single definition of mutual respect - i imagine the definition would change over time and it would be defined as we went along depending on the particular circumstances, competing interests, some kind of consensus, and lots of testing of definitions through case law.

[Brownie]

I agree with what Gabriella says above except I wouldn't seek to persuade.

We cannot produce any evidence.  We can speak amongst ourselves about what is evident to us but cannot expect anyone who does not have faith to believe it.

[Walter]

That's why it's called faith. It's a personal interpretation of experiences.

On the issue of faith being taken seriously, personally speaking I can't think of how it would make a difference to me if my religious, ethical, moral or political views are taken seriously any more than it would matter to an atheist if their lack of belief in religion or their political views or morals etc are taken seriously. We can only put our opinions forward and seek to persuade and then leave it up to individuals to decide whatever they are persuaded by, within the limits of a changing legal framework.

If someone claims they are persuaded by any or all of my opinions on all kinds of issues or views, I would still think that they would have to go through their own individual investigation, exploration, experience and interpretation.

Happy to work together with other people to form a society on the basis of mutual respect though. I am unable to provide a single definition of mutual respect - i imagine the definition would change over time and it would be defined as we went along depending on the particular circumstances, competing interests, some kind of consensus, and lots of testing of definitions through case law.

you sound like a nice person Gabriella if a bit long winded, however I have no interest in peoples opinions especially those who appear to have no understanding of reality.

call me I think we could have a good time together

[SwordOfTheSpirit]

#366

Do human beings design and make things? Yes.

Is the truth that human beings design and make things dependent on knowing the origin of human beings first? No.

Can comparisons be made between the attributes of things designed and made by human beings and what can be observed in nature? Yes. Example: DNA as the blueprint for living organisms.

Therefore, is a conclusion that life was created by an intelligent cause affected by knowing what the intelligent cause is?

Then you just haven't grasped the extent of the problem you are creating.  There is nothing in the above that attempts to explain the origins or the nature of god.  Complexity has it origins in simpler constituents; atoms are complex arrangements of subatomic particles, likewise molecules are complex arrangements of atoms, likewise up we go until we get to galaxies and photosynthesis and insurance salesmen.  Large numbers are made up of lots of little numbers, not the reverse.  If your principle to explain something complex is to posit an even more complex creator then you are committing yourself to an infinite regress of ever increasingly complex creators.

But surely this fails as soon as you apply it to anything human beings design and create?

Because we know that human beings design and create things, one does not need to explain the origin of human beings in order to conclude that computers, cars, aircraft, bridges, etc., are designed and created.

Your approach leads to nonsense. Better to try to understand things the right way round - that complexity derives from origins that are simpler, not more complex.

Which, in my opinion creates a bigger problem because you have a reverse regression, which inevitably means something coming from nothing.

[Walter]

NOTHING

FFS
read some SCIENCE books
NOTHING Jeez!

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

because it could be a range. Again got any figures?

A range requires more than one figure for its upper and lower boundaries, so it can’t be “a” figure.

It’ll be otiose to go around this again though as the more substantive issue is whether it’s necessary to have numbers of any kind reasonably to call “unlikely” a supernatural causal claim for an observed phenomenon.

I’m still not sure that it is. As I understand it, those who assert the supernatural think they’ve used their (naturalistic) reasoning to reach that conclusion, and moreover that if only the rest of us could grasp their thinking we’d agree with them. They don’t so far as I’m aware claim to have magic antennae or some such that enable them to discern these supposed supernatural entities in ways we can’t.

That is, to make their “argument” they play on naturalism’s turf – “if only you could reason it my way, you’d reach the same conclusions that I have”. As that’s where they are, it seems to me reasonable to note that none of that coheres with the lived experience, and nor for that matter does it cohere with any test we might like to set up (“testing” being a naturalistic concept in any case).   

If your thinking here is that conjectures about the supernatural are just white noise and so are not probability apt I have sympathy for that, but when some insert those conjectures into the naturalistic world then I’m content to respond with, “but the naturalistic world I appear to inhabit tells me that, within its own paradigm, your claim is unlikely to be true”.

[Walter]

NS,

A range requires more than one figure for its upper and lower boundaries, so it can’t be “a” figure.

It’ll be otiose to go around this again though as the more substantive issue is whether it’s necessary to have numbers of any kind reasonably to call “unlikely” a supernatural causal claim for an observed phenomenon.

I’m still not sure that it is. As I understand it, those who assert the supernatural think they’ve used their (naturalistic) reasoning to reach that conclusion, and moreover that if only the rest of us could grasp their thinking we’d agree with them. They don’t so far as I’m aware claim to have magic antenna or some such that enable them to discern these supposed supernatural entities in ways we can’t.

That is, to make their “argument” they play on naturalism’s turf – “if only you could reason it my way, you’d reach the same conclusions that I have”. As that’s where they are, it seems to me reasonable to note that none of that coheres with the lived experience, and nor for that matter does it cohere with any test we might like to set up (“testing” being a naturalistic concept in any case).   

If your thinking here is that conjectures about the supernatural are just white noise and so are not probability apt I have sympathy for that, but when some insert those conjectures into the naturalistic world then I’m content to respond with, “but the naturalistic world I appear to inhabit tells me that, within its own paradigm, your claim is unlikely to be true”.

if I were a Typhoon pilot you could be my wing man. Id be straight in there, you could tell me why I did it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

A range requires more than one figure for its upper and lower boundaries, so it can’t be “a” figure.

It’ll be otiose to go around this again though as the more substantive issue is whether it’s necessary to have numbers of any kind reasonably to call “unlikely” a supernatural causal claim for an observed phenomenon.

I’m still not sure that it is. As I understand it, those who assert the supernatural think they’ve used their (naturalistic) reasoning to reach that conclusion, and moreover that if only the rest of us could grasp their thinking we’d agree with them. They don’t so far as I’m aware claim to have magic antenna or some such that enable them to discern these supposed supernatural entities in ways we can’t.

That is, to make their “argument” they play on naturalism’s turf – “if only you could reason it my way, you’d reach the same conclusions that I have”. As that’s where they are, it seems to me reasonable to note that none of that coheres with the lived experience, and nor for that matter does it cohere with any test we might like to set up (“testing” being a naturalistic concept in any case).   

If your thinking here is that conjectures about the supernatural are just white noise and so are not probability apt I have sympathy for that, but when some insert those conjectures into the naturalistic world then I’m content to respond with, “but the naturalistic world I appear to inhabit tells me that, within its own paradigm, your claim is unlikely to be true”.

My thinking here is that if someone uses naturalistic terms to state that supernaturalistic claims are 'unlikely' as Maeght did then they are just as much in need of producing a supernaturalistic method as any supernaturalists out there. And that when you don't expect them to do that, you are indulging in a double standard where you don't hold people's  statements on such as needing to be held to that standard. In the absence of a method any statement of likelihood is entirely vacuous.

[Walter]

My thinking here is that if someone uses naturalistic terms to state that supernaturalistic claims are 'unlikely' as Maeght did then they are just as much in need of producing a supernaturalistic method as any supernaturalists out there. And that when you don't expect them to do that, you are indulging in a double standard where you don't hold people's  statements on such as needing to be held to that standard. In the absence of a method any statement of likelihood is entirely vacuous.

NS

I've read that 5 times now . I know I'm stupid but do me favour and rewrite it just for me, thanks

[Nearly Sane]

NS

I've read that 5 times now . I know I'm stupid but do me favour and rewrite it just for me, thanks

If someone thinks a supernatural claim is 'unlikely' then they have to show their working, just as someone who claims that it is 'likely'

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

My thinking here is that if someone uses naturalistic terms to state that supernaturalistic claims are 'unlikely' as Maeght did then they are just as much in need of producing a supernaturalistic method as any supernaturalists out there. And that when you don't expect them to do that, you are indulging in a double standard where you don't hold people's  statements on such as needing to be held to that standard. In the absence of a method any statement of likelihood is entirely vacuous.

I think that’s wrong. If someone asserted the supernatural but also made no claims to its interacting with the natural then I’d agree with you: it’s just noise, and so cannot be (im)probability apt.

That’s not what happens though. What happens is that those who assert the supernatural also assert it to be connected to or even causal of the natural – causing compassion for example to use the earlier suggestion. The moment they do that, then we’re on naturalism’s turf and it’s reasonable to respond with a, “but nothing in those points of supposed interaction indicates a supernatural component and so there’s no more reason to think your claim to be likely to be true than any other guess is likely to be true.”
 
And as guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong to be right, “unlikely” seems to me reasonable conceptually without the need for numbers.   

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

I think that’s wrong. If someone asserted the supernatural but also made no claims to its interacting with the natural then I’d agree with you: it’s just noise, and so cannot be (im)probability apt.

That’s not what happens though. What happens is that those who assert the supernatural also assert it to be connected to or even causal of the natural – causing compassion for example to use the earlier suggestion. The moment they do that, then we’re on naturalism’s turf and it’s reasonable to respond with a, “but nothing in those points of supposed interaction indicates a supernatural component and so there’s no more reason to think your claim to be likely to be true than any other guess is likely to be true.”
 
And as guesses are by magnitudes more likely to be wrong to be right, “unlikely” seems to me reasonable conceptually without the need for numbers.

You seem again to be missing the point here. I am happy to challenge any supernaturalist about their method to determine 'likelihood' but that very challenge appies equally to someone stating that the supernatural as unlikely. So given 'unlikely' is a calculation about figures, and the supernatural has no figures, how do you make the statement 'unlikely' in the absence of a methodology?

[Walter]

If someone thinks a supernatural claim is 'unlikely' then they have to show their working, just as someone who claims that it is 'likely'

are you being serious? No they don't . The word supernatural has no meaning to any right thinking person. If someone thinks it likely , they must  show why , if they cant ,then I will laugh all day long at them trying to prove it

[Nearly Sane]

are you being serious? No they don't . The word supernatural has no meaning to any right thinking person. If someone thinks it likely , they must  show why , if they cant ,then I will laugh all day long at them trying to prove it

perfectly serious. If you decide something is unlikely you need to show your work. It's the same claim as 'likely'

[Walter]

BTW
There is a direct coloration between the amount of morphine and my ability to appear intelligent on this thread so please forgive me if I  offend anyone . you complete set of TWATS


I THANK YOU

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

You seem again to be missing the point here. I am happy to challenge any supernaturalist about their method to determine 'likelihood' but that very challenge appies equally to someone stating that the supernatural as unlikely. So given 'unlikely' is a calculation about figures, and the supernatural has no figures, how do you make the statement 'unlikely' in the absence of a methodology?

I think you're missing mine. It's not about whether the claim "supernatural" can be called likely or unlikely without a method to establish either; rather it's about what happens when folks hitch their claims of the supernatural to the naturalistic wagon. Thus "Thor" for example is just white noise, not (im)probability apt. "Thor causes thunder" on the other hand opens a line of reasoning that leads to "unlikely" with no numbers required.

So far as I'm aware those who do assert the supernatural always tie those claims to the natural - causing compassion for example - rather than just claim them in the abstract, so the response "unlikely" seems to me reasonable when they do it.   

[Walter]

perfectly serious. If you decide something is unlikely you need to show your work. It's the same claim as 'likely'

ok . now you said that
is this example valid?
because of what we know of the history of the surface of planet mars it is unlikely we will find life there but it does not say yet that life existed there.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

I agree with what Gabriella says above except I wouldn't seek to persuade.

We cannot produce any evidence.  We can speak amongst ourselves about what is evident to us but cannot expect anyone who does not have faith to believe it.

I would seek to persuade someone to a particular POV but not in a heavy-handed way. For example I met a Trump supporter from Texas when I was on my way to Robben island, where Mandela had been held prisoner. He was trying to travel to 100 countries. He supported Trump's view that you don't want the wrong sort of immigrants coming into the US.

While helping him find the place from where the boat to Robben Island left and showing him where to buy his ticket, I also asked him if he would be ok with countries refusing him entry purely on the basis that he was from a country that had been involved in dropping bombs on and invading other countries, had a huge nuclear arsenal, and spent such a large proportion of its GDP on arms. I pointed out that this would be similar to Trump's proposed ban on Muslims from certain war-torn regions entering the US.

That's my idea of seeking to persuade other people to considering another POV - because I think there is a benefit to have people see things from various points of view.