How unlikely are God and/or other "supernatural" things?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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)?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?     

[Stranger]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

As Yoda would say.....much confusion between how things come about in nature and how nature came about there is.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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?

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Stranger]

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).

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Enki]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[Stranger]

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)?