Eyewitness reliability examined in a real-life setting

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

No, I’m afraid even if you assent to simulated universe you cannot say that the creator is necessarily material or immaterial or that it is forbidden from intervention. Or that it is a contingent or the necessary being or that it is in base reality or not.

Regards burden of proof, I have no more burden than you.

Look at me, trying to educate the uneducable. What am I like eh?

The burden of proof for a claim rests with the claimant. Try to understand this much at least:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

 

[ProfessorDavey]

Thor is effectively a folk tale ...

Why is Thor a folk tale and your god not a folk tale - there is no more or less evidence for the existence of either. Seems to me your argument is simply based on whether people continue to believe in a god - once they don't that god becomes a folk tale. That seems to be a very poor argument ad populum - your god, or Thor either exists or doesn't exist, whether people believe they exist has no relevance to the question of their actual existence.

If you aren't equating existence with belief then both are equally folk tales as the existence or otherwise of neither is based on evidence of their existence.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Look at me, trying to educate the uneducable. What am I like eh?

The burden of proof for a claim rests with the claimant. Try to understand this much at least:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)

I merely make the claim that once you accept SU and you have accepted it as rational, as I do, you don’t get from that to say what it necessarily is like and all we can say of it is that it’s existence is independent of any thing in our universe. It is not contingent on our universe but necessary for it. As I say, no more burden than you

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Look at me, trying to educate the uneducable. What am I like eh?

I’m sorry. That doesn’t even come near a definition of gaslighting.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Why is Thor a folk tale and your god not a folk tale - there is no more or less evidence for the existence of either. Seems to me your argument is simply based on whether people continue to believe in a god - once they don't that god becomes a folk tale. That seems to be a very poor argument ad populum - your god, or Thor either exists or doesn't exist, whether people believe they exist has no relevance to the question of their actual existence.

If you aren't equating existence with belief then both are equally folk tales as the existence or otherwise of neither is based on evidence of their existence.

No it is a folk tale about the divine. That is different from any old folk tale. You cut out the salient feature and made a straw man.

What I am saying is that if  Paul says Christianity is seeing through the glass darkly at the divine then Thor is seeing it even more darkly.

[Stranger]

I merely make the claim that once you accept SU and you have accepted it as rational, as I do, you don’t get from that to say what it necessarily is like...

You do actually. The extent to which it is 'reasonable' (which is highly questionable) depends on the argument proposed for it, which is explicitly based on an extrapolation of our own universe and our own abilities. That is to say, any 'reasonable' idea of simulators would be mortal and be using computing technology.

It is also the case that every time you compare universe simulators to god, you make a fool of yourself and make any discussion of the existence of god with you utterly pointless because your view of what constitutes 'god' is clearly not fixed.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I merely make the claim that once you accept SU and you have accepted it as rational, as I do,…

Depends whether you mean "rational" as a possibility or that it's more likely the case than not.

I agree with the former, and have no idea about the latter. Nor have you.   

…you don’t get from that to say what it necessarily is like and all we can say of it is that it’s existence is independent of any thing in our universe.

Yes you do get to say that – what you get to say in fact is what would be necessary for the basic premise (universe creation) to stand but no more. Anything else that wouldn’t be necessary for the premise to stand is a different matter entirely. Even if for the sake of argument we agree the premise “universe creators” that doesn’t imply that we also agree all the extra characteristics you think to be present on your god (immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc).

Basically you’re saying here, “if you agree with my premise “horses” then you’re also agreeing with my claim “unicorns”". Even you should be able to see what’s wrong with that.   
 

It is not contingent on our universe but necessary for it. As I say, no more burden than you

And as you’ve been corrected several times now, yes it is. Even if the sake of discussion we agree the initial premise (universe creators/horses) the burden of proof remains to get from there to the non-necessary claims of the extras  (immateriality/wings etc).

I gave you a link to the Wiki page on burden of proof. You should have read it.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You do actually. The extent to which it is 'reasonable' (which is highly questionable) depends on the argument proposed for it, which is explicitly based on an extrapolation of our own universe and our own abilities. That is to say, any 'reasonable' idea of simulators would be mortal and be using computing technology.

It is also the case that every time you compare universe simulators to god, you make a fool of yourself and make any discussion of the existence of god with you utterly pointless because your view of what constitutes 'god' is clearly not fixed.

I be told you all we can possibly and reasonably say.

You are now embarked on a journey of special pleading for a universe not contingent on this one following naturalism. Hell we don’t know if this universe is completely naturalistic. The only one making a fool of themselves is you.

I’m afraid this is the idea on which your world view crumbles.

[Stranger]

You are now embarked on a journey of special pleading for a universe not contingent on this one following naturalism. Hell we don’t know if this universe is completely naturalistic. The only one making a fool of themselves is you.

So we can add 'special pleading' to the list of things you are totally ignorant about. Yet again for the hard-of-thinking: to the questionable extent that SU is reasonable, it is based on the argument for it - which is based on naturalism and technology.

I’m afraid this is the idea on which your world view crumbles.

Says the comedian who claims to believe in god but can't make up his mind what the word means...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Depends whether you mean "rational" as a possibility or that it's more likely the case than not.

I agree with the former, and have no idea about the latter. Nor have you.   

Yes you do get to say that – what you get to say in fact is what would be necessary for the basic premise (universe creation) to stand but no more. Anything else that wouldn’t be necessary for the premise to stand is a different matter entirely. Even if for the sake of argument we agree the premise “universe creators” that doesn’t imply that we also agree all the extra characteristics you think to be present on your god (immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc).

Basically you’re saying here, “if you agree with my premise “horses” then you’re also agreeing with my claim “unicorns”". Even you should be able to see what’s wrong with that.   
 
And as you’ve been corrected several times now, yes it is. Even if the sake of discussion we agree the initial premise (universe creators/horses) the burden of proof remains to get from there to the non-necessary claims of the extras  (immateriality/wings etc).

I gave you a link to the Wiki page on burden of proof. You should have read it.   

You are specially pleading the universe of the creator. Being like ours. You don’t have that luxury.
You are on territory where the necessities of nature are not necessary.

You could argue that the universe of the creator is an extension of ours, the same universe. But that isn’t simulated universe in the sense de Grasse Tyson is talking about. Or that PZ Myers is talking about.  The BBC bitesize on this should explain this to you.

It changes naught then since the universe is still a contingent whole dependent on a necessary being.

As for the likelihood of the creator being in base reality or not. hHow would


 would you know?

[jeremyp]

I don’t assume God doesn’t exist?

I didn't say that. 0/10 for reading comprehension.

The black Swan business means we cannot assume Leprechauns don’t exist.

Yes we can. There's a small chance our assumption might be wrong but I'll take those odds.

God is in the same category as universal simulators. So why not abandon Leprechauns and use universal simulators instead............answer is...They aren’t funny.

You don't want to replace God in the argument with another version of God, you want to replace him with something that everybody is comfortable with assuming does not exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are specially pleading the universe of the creator. Being like ours. You don’t have that luxury.

Nope – no idea. What are you trying to say here?

You are on territory where the necessities of nature are not necessary.

Swahili perhaps? Mandarin Chinese? Your inability to construct a coherent thought is letting you down again here.

You could argue that the universe of the creator is an extension of ours, the same universe. But that isn’t simulated universe in the sense de Grasse Tyson is talking about. Or that PZ Myers is talking about.  The BBC bitesize on this should explain this to you.

I’ll leave you to knock down the straw man of your own invention here I think.

It changes naught then since the universe is still a contingent whole dependent on a necessary being.

No, there’s no “is” about it. It’s a “could be”, albeit that that then gives you the problem of infinite regress.

In any case, neither this nor the gibberish above has anything to do with the post you thought you were replying to. If we agree the (highly dubious) speculation “universe creators” just to see where that takes us all we’ll have agreed is that which is necessary for universe creators. That does not though imply the necessity for the other characteristics you think “matter” for your belief “god” – immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. We can agree in principle “universe creators” without needing to agree any of these additional characteristics, so even if we did agree that you’d have a huge burden of proof to layer on all the other stuff of your claim "god". 

Short version: you’re still lost in “if horses, then unicorns” territory here.   

As for the likelihood of the creator being in base reality or not. hHow would


 would you know?

You’re the one claiming a “base reality” creator remember, not me. And yes – how would you know? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I didn't say that. 0/10 for reading comprehension.
Yes we can. There's a small chance our assumption might be wrong but I'll take those odds.
You don't want to replace God in the argument with another version of God, you want to replace him with something that everybody is comfortable with assuming does not exist.

If something that is absurd in an reductio ad absurdum. isn’t it bound to be logically impossible/ self contradictory. Is it alright to use it just because you’ve taken a bet on odds of probability?

I would take odds on Leprechauns not existing.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

If something that is absurd in an reductio ad absurdum. isn’t it bound to be logically impossible/ self contradictory. Is it alright to use it just because you’ve taken a bet on odds of probability?

The reality we perceive is itself probability based for reasons that have been explained to you countless times. Within that paradigm though gravity applies, logic functions and the claims leprechauns/gods are, for the same reasons, absurd. 

I would take odds on Leprechauns not existing.

So would I, and on your god not existing too for the same reasons. How would the bookies know when to pay out though?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Nope – no idea. What are you trying to say here?

Swahili perhaps? Mandarin Chinese? Your inability to construct a coherent thought is letting you down again here.

I’ll leave you to knock down the straw man of your own invention here I think.

No, there’s no “is” about it. It’s a “could be”, albeit that that then gives you the problem of infinite regress.

In any case, neither this nor the gibberish above has anything to do with the post you thought you were replying to. If we agree the (highly dubious) speculation “universe creators” just to see where that takes us all we’ll have agreed is that which is necessary for universe creators. That does not though imply the necessity for the other characteristics you think “matter” for your belief “god” – immateriality, intervention in human affairs, singularity etc. We can agree in principle “universe creators” without needing to agree any of these additional characteristics, so even if we did agree that you’d have a huge burden of proof to layer on all the other stuff of your claim "god". 

Short version: you’re still lost in “if horses, then unicorns” territory here.   

You’re the one claiming a “base reality” creator remember, not me. And yes – how would you know?

I’m only claiming that it is a reasonable idea and that you are special pleading that naturalism and contingency must be the state of the creators universe.

I’ve freely acknowledged that there could be a naturalistic creator but that may not matter because it fulfils the position of being the necessity for our universe.

You on the other hand are demonstrating a peculiar yet fascinating inability to acknowledge it’s only maybe and it seems that it is necessary but not contingent on our universe.

This strange mental tango is I would move evidence of an internal conflict going on and is part of your experience of God.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

The reality we perceive is itself probability based for reasons that have been explained to you countless times. Within that paradigm though gravity applies, logic functions and the claims leprechauns/gods are, for the same reasons, absurd. 

So would I, and on your god not existing too for the same reasons. How would the bookies know when to pay out though?

My God is not a hyperdiminutive Irish person, found only in Ireland with a cheeky grin green suit or shillelaghs. What are you thinking of?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I’m only claiming that it is a reasonable idea…

What is – the idea of universe creators? Yes, it’s “reasonable” in the sense that it’s not inherently contradictory. Try to remember thought that “reasonable” and “probable” are not synonyms.

…and that you are special pleading that naturalism and contingency must be the state of the creators universe.

Except of course that I’ve done no such thing. Have you any sense of how wearisome your endless misrepresentations can be?

I’ve freely acknowledged that there could be a naturalistic creator but that may not matter because it fulfils the position of being the necessity for our universe.

Fine, but you still have all your work ahead of you then to show the additional non-naturalistic components your think your “god” to possess are reasonable too when there’s no necessity for them in your premise.   

You on the other hand are demonstrating a peculiar yet fascinating inability to acknowledge it’s only maybe and it seems that it is necessary but not contingent on our universe.

See above re your endless misrepresentations. 

This strange mental tango is I would move evidence of an internal conflict going on and is part of your experience of God.

No, it’s part of my experience of someone who asserts there to be a god but cannot or will not examine openly and honestly the arguments he relies on to justify his claim.
 

My God is not a hyperdiminutive Irish person, found only in Ireland with a cheeky grin green suit or shillelaghs. What are you thinking of?

How many fucking times does this fucking well have to be fucking explained to you before you finally stop fucking straw manning it?

Yet again: what you’re listing here are just the characteristics of the claim “leprechauns”. The claim “god” entails (mostly) different characteristics. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH CLAIM THOUGH HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH IT. WHAT HAS GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT IS THE ARGUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY EACH CLAIM ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY’RE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.

Please, for the love of whatever you think to be holy write this down willya rather than just repeat exactly the same mistake over and over and over again…

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

What is – the idea of universe creators? Yes, it’s “reasonable” in the sense that it’s not inherently contradictory. Try to remember thought that “reasonable” and “probable” are not synonyms.

Except of course that I’ve done no such thing. Have you any sense of how wearisome your endless misrepresentations can be?

Fine, but you still have all your work ahead of you then to show the additional non-naturalistic components your think your “god” to possess are reasonable too when there’s no necessity for them in your premise.   

See above re your endless misrepresentations. 

No, it’s part of my experience of someone who asserts there to be a god but cannot or will not examine openly and honestly the arguments he relies on to justify his claim.
 




How many fucking times does this fucking well have to be fucking explained to you before you finally stop fucking straw manning it?

Yet again: what you’re listing here are just the characteristics of the claim “leprechauns”. The claim “god” entails (mostly) different characteristics. THE CHARACTERISTICS OF EACH CLAIM THOUGH HAVE ABSOLUTELY FUCK ALL TO DO WITH IT. WHAT HAS GOT EVERYTHING TO DO WITH IT IS THE ARGUMENTS USED TO JUSTIFY EACH CLAIM ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY’RE THE SAME ARGUMENTS.

Please, for the love of whatever you think to be holy write this down willya rather than just repeat exactly the same mistake over and over and over again…

I don’t have to go any further to justify a non naturalistic creator being outside and independent of this universe than you do justifying a naturalistic creator. Where on earth are you getting that from?

You are also not facing up that in any case.
The creator/s are not dependent on anything in this universe for their existence but they are the necessary being for our universe. So your appeal that I have to justify any further features is wrong.

[ProfessorDavey]

No it is a folk tale about the divine.

Nope that is unevidenced assertion and opinion. Firstly there is no evidence that the divine is even a thing. But in addition your dismissal of Thor as somehow a little story about something else rather than being a god in of itself is just assertion based on special pleading.

Someone could just as well play the same game - so the christian god is a folk tale about the universe. Except of course, unlike the divine we have ample evidence that the universe exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

I don’t have to go any further to justify a non naturalistic creator being outside and independent of this universe than you do justifying a naturalistic creator. Where on earth are you getting that from?

You have to go very much further as you have no basis to assume that a creator (or creators) of the universe we perceive must also have been “non-naturalistic”. Agreeing that you’d need a horse to compete in the Grand National doesn’t mean we’d thereby have agreed there are unicorns too.     

You are also not facing up that in any case.

For those of us working in English?

The creator/s are not dependent on anything in this universe for their existence…

It’s “might not”, not “would not” but ok…

…but they are the necessary being for our universe.

Again, “could be” – not “are”. You’re overreaching again.

So your appeal that I have to justify any further features is wrong.

And the non sequitur to finish. See my first para above to see where you’ve gone wrong again. 

[jeremyp]

If something that is absurd in an reductio ad absurdum. isn’t it bound to be logically impossible/ self contradictory. Is it alright to use it just because you’ve taken a bet on odds of probability?

I would take odds on Leprechauns not existing.

What do you think the reduction ad absurdum is? What do you think we are trying to tell you when we show that your argument works as well for leprechauns or any entity as it does for God?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you have. If you want to assert your god and universal simulators to be the same, then your burden of proof is to justify all the extra features necessary for your version of god that universe simulators would not require. The burden of proof is yours to bridge that gap, even allowing for its baseless premise.

Hillside, they all ready have the divine elements.

They aren't beholden to anything in this universe.

Bad luck old boy first Leprechauns disqualified and you finding theological attributes reasonable.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside, they all ready have the divine elements.

Horses have unicornal elements too. How does that help you?

They aren't beholden to anything in this universe.

I don’t know what you mean by “beholden” (and nor do you), but you have no basis just to assume that supposed creators of the universe we perceive wouldn't be governed by whatever “nature” means in a different universe we can’t perceive.

Bad luck old boy…

For the love of god look up “irony" willya? You just fell apart again like a cheap suit, then had the front to say “bad luck” to me? Words fails me.

…first Leprechauns disqualified…

It’s the arguments for leprechauns (and gods), and you haven’t "disqualified" anything yet…

…and you finding theological attributes reasonable.

What “theological attributes” do you think I find reasonable exactly? Do you also think unicornal attributes are reasonable because we can agree on the existence of horses?

Why not?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Horses have unicornal elements too. How does that help you?

I don’t know what you mean by “beholden” (and nor do you), but you have no basis just to assume that supposed creators of the universe we perceive wouldn't be governed by whatever “nature” means in a different universe we can’t perceive.

For the love of god look up “irony" willya? You just fell apart again like a cheap suit, then had the front to say “bad luck” to me? Words fails me.

It’s the arguments for leprechauns (and gods), and you haven’t "disqualified" anything yet…

What “theological attributes” do you think I find reasonable exactly? Do you also think unicornal attributes are reasonable because we can agree on the existence of horses?

Why not?

Hillside as I have frequently said Firstly they are not dependent for on our universe for how they are secondly even God has a nature, thirdly by dint of point one they already have the divine attributes. Fourthly this reasonable idea puts a question mark over the natural supernatural divide we cannot say what they are like or whether they are necessary or contingent in their own universe. Fithly, Your definition of natural is therefore stripped of everything in this case apart from god/s or no gods. If these exist, they are gods. And indeed God or Gods of this universe since they are necessary.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Hillside as I have frequently said…

And as I have just as frequently corrected you…

Firstly they are not dependent for on our universe for how they are secondly…

Who’s “they”? If you mean supposed universe creators then that “are” is overreaching again (“need not necessarily be” is as much as you can reasonably speculate), and in any case if you want to conjecture a god flitting between universes then you cannot arbitrarily deny the same option for my conjecture about leprechauns.

…even God has a nature,…

Thank you for that faith claim. My faith claim is that leprechauns “have a nature” too. Why should either faith claim be taken more seriously than the other?

…thirdly by dint of point one they already have the divine attributes.

Depends what you mean by “divine attributes”, but as I keep schooling you even if you want to call creating a universe a “divine attribute” you’re still a long way short of the ones you think to be essential for your belief “god” (supernaturalism for example), so you’re still mired in “horses have unicorn attributes, therefore unicorns” territory. How does that help you?
 

Fourthly this reasonable idea puts a question mark over the natural supernatural divide we cannot say what they are like or whether they are necessary or contingent in their own universe.

Do you want to have another run at that, only this time expressing something coherent? If you’re trying to say here though that universe creators need not be been supernatural (whatever that would mean) then that’s the central pillar of your god claim defenestrated I’d have thought.

Fithly, Your definition of natural is therefore stripped of everything in this case apart from god/s or no gods. If these exist, they are gods.

You’re collapsing into gibberish again. I have no idea what you mean by “supernatural” (and nor have you) but if you’re groping toward something like, “not governed by the laws and forces of the observable universe” then you’re still stuck with the problem of showing that these supposed creators weren’t (or aren’t) entirely subject to the laws and forces of whatever universe they do happen to inhabit – which would be pretty ungodlike I’d have thought if you want to claim a god of the “omnis”. 

And indeed God or Gods of this universe since they are necessary.

A highly dubious proposition but, even if it were to be true, then of course you’d then be stuck with explaining why this god/gods would not itself require its own creator and so on through infinite regress. This remains your basic Fletcher’s tunnel mistake.

So thanks for your dog’s breakfast of an attempt at reasoning here, but it remains utterly hopeless for the reasons I’ve set out.

Again.