If it's okay for Hal then.....? [Archive]

Lothian

6th June 2003, 01:47 AM

Hal is fine. He has beliefs but doesn’t claim he is right. A skeptic is allowed to have beliefs but should be prepared to change their mind on evidence.

Hal believes (I think) that a deity caused the big bang. Taking Fun2bfree’s arguments you could say that someone who believes that the big bang was caused my a chemical reaction can not be a skeptic, because we can not know that it happened that way.

The difference between Hal’s belief and that of mediumship. Is that we have lots of evidence concerning in the latter.

I have no problem with a the theory of believer in mediumship being a true ‘skeptic.’ Although I would question their judgement.

Skepticism is a process not the result. It involves looking at all available evidence and reaching a personal judgement. It is not about being right and wrong.

Two people can apply skepticism to any subject and look at all available evidence and reach different conclusions. One of them will be wrong but it does not mean that they do not taken a skeptical approach, (provided they are prepared to reassess their conclusions on receipt of more evidence.)

However you must question the judgement of someone who looks at all the evidence and reaches a conclusion that defies logic. Someone that looks at all the evidence and concludes that the moon is made of cheese has a problem in the logical processing of evidence.

A believer in mediumship has a similar problem to our moon is made of cheese friend.

With deism there is a lot less evidence so you would expect that the true ‘logical’ result is less clear.

In simpler other words Hal has used a good process but reached a strange conclusion. A believer in mediumship is an idiot.

Would the last two sentences have sufficed ?

Fun2BFree

6th June 2003, 02:19 AM

Originally posted by Lothian
Hal believes (I think) that a deity caused the big bang. Taking Fun2bfree’s arguments you could say that someone who believes that the big bang was caused my a chemical reaction can not be a skeptic, because we can not know that it happened that way.

No. this is not a valid analogy. Chemical reactions can be shown to exist. And there exist proofs showing how those real chemicals could make a big bang like action.... Hal postulates the existence of a thing that has never been shown to exist, does not exist in "our world" cannot ever be tested or shown that such a thing exists. We don't know how the universe was created- but we have no evidence of anything outside the universe, nor need to invent such things. The acceptance of the idea is not compatible with skepticism.. Here is a more accurate analogy --I can say I believe that an invisible elf whispered the words for the Declaration of Independence in Tom Jefferson's ears. I just believe it happened that way. In fact, he also wrote all of Shakespeare's plays, as well. he doesn't write much any more. Just sits back and observes now....

Lothian

6th June 2003, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

No. this is not a valid analogy. Chemical reactions can be shown to exist. And there exist proofs showing how those real chemicals could make a big bang like action.... Hal postulates the existence of a thing that has never been shown to exist, does not exist in "our world" cannot ever be tested or shown that such a thing exists. We don't know how the universe was created- but we have no evidence of anything outside the universe, nor need to invent such things. The acceptance of the idea is not compatible with skepticism.. Here is a more accurate analogy --I can say I believe that an invisible elf whispered the words for the Declaration of Independence in Tom Jefferson's ears. I just believe it happened that way. In fact, he also wrote all of Shakespeare's plays, as well. he doesn't write much any more. Just sits back and observes now.... I don’t think my analogy is too far out. I am unaware of any known chemical reaction violent enough to cause the big bang but am happy to accept yours is much better. I still however, going back to the point of the thread, feel that Hal’s position can be arrived at using sceptical approach.

While most sceptics will not reach the same conclusion as Hal it is not about where you arrive but how you get there.

I therefore conclude that Hal can be a skeptic but, and I imagine you will agree, he reached an illogical conclusion

NoZed Avenger

6th June 2003, 06:03 AM

Originally posted by Clancy
[Standing corrected about Hal and deism, not Christianity, although I know there are professed Christians who successfully post here as "fellow skeptics", too...]

So, impytimpy, to make a parallel (with your position that the difference is "skeptics who are deists only profess belief"...

If someone came here saying, "I'm a skeptic who believes in mediumship, but, just like a deist, I realize I don't have indisputable proof to back up this belief,"

Well, let me step in again. You have again shifted terms in oirder to make your argument.

First, you have introduced "indisputable proof" into the mix. Hal -- and the Deists I am familiar with -- do not say "I don't have indisputable proof"; they say "I have no evidence and may not ever be able to produce evidence because this is something which is (probably, at least) unprovable."

Your attempt to redefine Deism, much like your attempt to throw in Christianity, simply tries to shift the Deists closer to your position so that you can make your argument.

If you want to say "I believe that JE is a really for-true medium, but I have no evidence and may never be able to produce evidence because that is something that is unprovable" you would be much closer to the Deists' position. Of course, since JE's ability or lack thereof appears testable in the real world, I don't think that position is viable.

Almost as importantly, as you can see, Hal does not get a "free ride," as a number of skeptics -- as pointed out above -- have stated that they believe that Deism is not consistent with their opinions regarding skepticism. There were at least two threads after his column saying something along the lines of "Sorry, Hal, I can't agree." Feel free to look those over.

NA

UnrepentantSinner

6th June 2003, 06:16 AM

Clancy, I'm going to take the contrairian view. While I disagree with your conclusions about after death survival and mediumship (and will argue them with you) and futher, concur with the distinction between mediumship, which is testable, and religious belief, which is not, I welcome you into the skeptical fold.

I realize that many of my... er.. our fellow skeptics might insist that you reject everything, I have come to the conclusion that there's a difference between a creduliod and someone who has serious doubts about almost all of the issues that skeptics confront but reserves a little "there might be something to this" for a pet subject or to.

Personally, I think the skeptical movement needs all the allies it can get, and if you think "there might be something to John Edward" while arguing other mediums are bogus and arguing the scant evidence for homeopathy, Young Earth Creationism, Historical Revisionism, Moon Landing Hoaxers and Planet X, then I welcome you as my sister in the fight against the rediculousness that pervades humanity.

We will butt heads over JE, but I refuse to reject you from the chorus of reason against non-sense on all the other issues facing us over that.

Interesting Ian

6th June 2003, 06:23 AM

Originally posted by NoZed Avenger
[B]

Well the first and most obvious problem is that Hal has not declared himself to be a Christian, but instead as a Deist.

Are they mutually exclusive?

NoZed Avenger

6th June 2003, 06:35 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Are they mutually exclusive?

Not relevant to this particular point. Hal has identified himself as a Deist, not a Christian. So criticisms of Hal based on Christianity are mistaken -- whether the terms are mutually exclusive, or not.

Personally, I agree largely with the earmouse (tm) on this issue, but I cannot claim to speak for skepticism because I do not claim to be a skeptic.

Interesting Ian

6th June 2003, 06:39 AM

Originally posted by Clancy
I didn't want to derail the "anti-Bidlack" thread, but it got me wondering

Why would Hal be accepted as a skeptic here although he believes in both God and Christianity, and yet people who think John Edward may be in contact with an afterlife, are repeatedly ridiculed and never accepted as skeptics?

For example, there is easily more "evidence" of spirit communication through mediums--SPR studies; demostrations--perhaps not passing the bar of "scientific testing" some here are looking for, but still a far cry from what is available to support God and Christianity.

Why does consideration of mediumship even as a genuine possibility elicit such ridicule, but a devout Christian can be so easily embraced as a fellow skeptic?

The word "Skepticism" for many people has predominantly come to mean a certain philosophical position about the ultimate nature of reality. That is that materialism/physicalism is correct in its essentials, and that any putative phenomena which clearly appears to contradict the tenets of this philosophical worldview is very likely not to exist. Thus any explanation for any alleged phenomenon, no matter how implausible an explanation this might be and regardless of how much it violates Occams razor, but which is consistent with this materialist philosophical worldview, is vastly to be preferred than to an explanations which clearly appears to volate this philosphical worldview.

Deism just holds that a diety started the Universe off and played no further part. Thus naturalism is upheld and materialists will not feel as antagonistic towards deism as they do for anything appearing to contravene natural laws.

Interesting Ian

6th June 2003, 06:58 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
[B]Clancy, I'm going to take the contrairian view. While I disagree with your conclusions about after death survival and mediumship (and will argue them with you) and futher, concur with the distinction between mediumship, which is testable, and religious belief, which is not, I welcome you into the skeptical fold.

Will you welcome me into the skeptical fold as well since, amongst other things, I reject the idea that UFO's are alien spacecraft, I reject that Geller can really bend spoons using mental "powers" alone, I reject that the Loch Ness monster exists, I reject that all mediums are genuine (indeed I think a large proportion are frauds including JE), I reject that many people writing books about their personal NDE experiences are giving completely honest accounts and either are seriously embellishing their accounts, or are completely fabricated in order to boost sales?

BillHoyt

6th June 2003, 07:19 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Will you welcome me into the skeptical fold as well since, amongst other things, I reject the idea that UFO's are alien spacecraft, I reject that Geller can really bend spoons using mental "powers" alone, I reject that the Loch Ness monster exists, I reject that all mediums are genuine (indeed I think a large proportion are frauds including JE), I reject that many people writing books about their personal NDE experiences are giving completely honest accounts and either are seriously embellishing their accounts, or are completely fabricated in order to boost sales?

There you go again, II. You continue to confuse the issues. Skepticism is not about a positon or point of view. It is about the process of getting there. How you arrive at your conclusions is all-important. You want to turn it on its head and imply there is a litmus test involved. Not so.

The word "Skepticism" for many people has predominantly come to mean a certain philosophical position about the ultimate nature of reality. That is that materialism/physicalism is correct in its essentials, and that any putative phenomena which clearly appears to contradict the tenets of this philosophical worldview is very likely not to exist. Thus any explanation for any alleged phenomenon, no matter how implausible an explanation this might be and regardless of how much it violates Occams razor, but which is consistent with this materialist philosophical worldview, is vastly to be preferred than to an explanations which clearly appears to volate this philosphical worldview.

Deism just holds that a diety started the Universe off and played no further part. Thus naturalism is upheld and materialists will not feel as antagonistic towards deism as they do for anything appearing to contravene natural laws.
And here, again, is the noisy drumbeat of your claim that this is a "worldview", with the implication that it is no better than any other. This is the postmodernist feint at its worst.

Skepticism is based on rationality and science. It does not hold a particular metaphysical positon. The "materialism" of science is a finding, not a metaphysical position. The record of science over the past centuries is quite clear on this. The earlier presumptions of souls and God's interventions have all fallen away with great difficulty.

Regarding religion. The skeptics of today include many religious folk, although they mostly take a Deistic position. That position, again, is a conclusion based on the fact that there is no evidence for miracles or other outside interference that show a deistic fiat at work. Period.

Cheers,

TheERK

6th June 2003, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Are they mutually exclusive?

Yes, by conventional definitions. Deism means you believe in God, but most Deists believe in God as the 'first cause' only; that is, a non-interventionalist God. For a Christian to call him or herself a Deist may be accurate, but it's misleading; how often do you hear "I'm a Christian and a Deist"? It's like saying "I firmly believe God does not and cannot exist, and I'm also an Atheist."

In other words, Christianity is a subset of Deism (because Christianity requires God-belief), and no Christian would bother to explicitly say "I'm a Deist, too."

(Edited for mistake)

Upchurch

6th June 2003, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by TheERK

Yes, by conventional definitions. Deism means you believe in God, but most Deists believe in God as the 'first cause' only; that is, a non-interventionalist God. For a Christian to call him or herself a Deist may be accurate, but it's misleading; how often do you hear "I'm a Christian and a Deist"? It's like saying "I firmly believe God does not and cannot exist, and I'm also an Atheist."

In other words, Deism is a subset of Christianity (because Christianity requires God-belief), and no Christian would bother to explicitly say "I'm a Deist, too." I don't believe this is correct. To say that "Deism is a subset of Christianity" is to say that "all Deists are Christians even though not all Christians are Deists", which simply isn't the case. If anything Christianity is a subset of Deism in the sense that they both believe in God, but Christianity has some extra rules to differentiate it. It's like saying Christianity is a subset of Judaism.

I'm not aware of any group of Deist or Christians that refer to themselves by the other term.

Yahzi

6th June 2003, 12:07 PM

What NoZed said.

TheERK

6th June 2003, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Upchurch
I don't believe this is correct. To say that "Deism is a subset of Christianity" is to say that "all Deists are Christians even though not all Christians are Deists", which simply isn't the case. If anything Christianity is a subset of Deism in the sense that they both believe in God, but Christianity has some extra rules to differentiate it. It's like saying Christianity is a subset of Judaism.

I'm not aware of any group of Deist or Christians that refer to themselves by the other term.

Thanks--that's what I meant to say, that Christianity is a subset of Deism. That is, all Christians are Deists but not the other way around. Thanks for the heads up--I'll edit my post.

Eric

Martin

6th June 2003, 04:09 PM

Thanks--that's what I meant to say, that Christianity is a subset of DeismWell, that's wrong too. Christianity and Deism are both subsets of Theism, but they don't overlap. No Christians are Deists.

Clancie

6th June 2003, 04:14 PM

Unrepentent Sinner,
:). The reason I brought it up is because I don't know why more people here don't seem to agree with you. (And, after all, it's not as if I say I believe JE is real; I have gone from certainty that "dead is dead" to thinking, "well...maybe..." I don't see why so many people at this forum find that position incompatible with skepticism, people who would never call Christians with their many paranormal beliefs "woo woos"....and worse).

Clancie

6th June 2003, 04:18 PM

from Lothian

First, you have introduced "indisputable proof" into the mix
I did? Where? What did I claim to have "indisputable proof" of? :confused:
...the Deists I am familiar with -- do not say "I don't have indisputable proof"; they say "I have no evidence and may not ever be able to produce evidence because this is something which is (probably, at least) unprovable."
My analogy was, if that's acceptable for Deists-as-skeptics, why not for those JE believers (I'm not one, btw, but there are some) who say the exact same thing about mediumship?
Your attempt to redefine Deism, much like your attempt to throw in Christianity, simply tries to shift the Deists closer to your position so that you can make your argument.
Where is all that in anything I posted, Lothian? I'm not redefining anything or "shifting" anything. I'm looking at what appears to me as "inconsistencies" on some people's parts regarding religion and "woo woos".

My argument is simply this:

1. Deists believe in a paranormal entity. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support this belief. And yet, a deist can apparently be accepted at this forum by many (if not all) as a skeptic.

2. I corrected my supposition about Hal and Christianity. However, there are Christians here who are accepted as skeptics. I find that inconsistent with those who say "You believe mediumship could be possible so you're a 'woo woo'"

3. I haven't seen scientific "proof" of mediumship either. However, historically, reputable scientists who have studied mediums of the past have failed to be able to attribute everything to hot/cold/warm reading. A serious look at investigations into this should, at a minimum indicate that not everything has been adequately explained away as deception or delusion. That is a fact.

4. Of course, just because mediumship hasn't all been explained as hot/cold/warm reading so far doesn't mean it isn't. But "skeptics" reveal a certain ignorance of the field if they claim that everything mediums have done has been explained away.

5. There is more "evidence" of spirit communication than there is for the existence of a God (deism). Demonstrations that cannot be explained away as hot/cold/warm reading--and compelling personal readings--are a kind of "evidence", albeit not up to the bar of scientific proof.

6. I do not say, "I believe mediumship is real". I say, "I have looked into this extensively and have not seen it all logically explained away--even though I expected it would be. Therefore, until I see better explanations, I am keeping an open and inquiring mind."

I do not see how people here (like yourself) see that as "woo woo" rather than true skepticism.

NoZed Avenger

6th June 2003, 04:52 PM

That wasn't Lothian, btw - it was me.

Originally posted by Clancy

I did? Where? What did I claim to have "indisputable proof" of? :confused:

I was quoting from your message:

If someone came here saying, "I'm a skeptic who believes in mediumship, but, just like a deist, I realize I don't have indisputable proof to back up this belief,". . .

I think that this materially shifts what Deists claim from inherently unprovable and probably likewise unknowable to something that they have no "incontrovertable proof" for. I did not know if the shift was intentional -- I assume that you are saying that it wasn't and I believe you -- but it is sort of sloppy as reasoning and hurts your analogy.

My analogy was, if that's acceptable for Deists-as-skeptics, why not for those JE believers (I'm not one, btw, but there are some) who say the exact same thing about mediumship?

If they can honesly say the exact same thing -- that mediumship is unprovable and probably always will be -- then they probably should be treated similarly. There is one difference, however, in my opinion -- in that mediumship makes claims about the physical universe that -should- be testable. It has a "real world" effect that should - if it exists - be easy to show.

That would appear to be sufficient justification to distinguish between the two beliefs.

I would also point out once again that there is a vocal part of the skeptics on the board that do -not- give Deists a "pass" on their belief. They agree with you that alkl should be treated the same. Are you positive that the people who won't cut some believers or quasi-believers slack are the same ones saying that they have no problem with Hal's belief? This has been pointed out a number of times; I have no idea how many skeptics fall into either camp, but I suspect no one in the discussion does, either.

4. Of course, just because mediumship hasn't all been explained as hot/cold/warm reading so far doesn't mean it isn't. But "skeptics" reveal a certain ignorance of the field if they claim that everything mediums have done has been explained away.

5. There is more "evidence" of spirit communication than there is for the existence of a God (deism). Demonstrations that cannot be explained away as hot/cold/warm reading--and compelling personal readings--are a kind of "evidence", albeit not up to the bar of scientific proof.

6. I do not say, "I believe mediumship is real". I say, "I have looked into this extensively and have not seen it all logically explained away--even though I expected it would be. Therefore, until I see better explanations, I am keeping an open and inquiring mind."

I do not see 4, 5 and 6 as internally consistent with your analogy to Deism. Either mediumship cannot be shown by evidence, or it can -- it is inconsistent to say that it is unprovable, but there is evidence for it, no matter how open and inquiring your mind is. Iff you assert 4 and 5, then prepare to discuss whether the evidence is any good, because you've just thrown out any analogy to a Deist position.

I do not see how people here (like yourself) see that as "woo woo" rather than true skepticism.

I don't believe I have ever said either -- I will point out -again- that I have not claimed to be a skeptic, much less a "true skeptic."

NA

justsaygnosis

6th June 2003, 05:00 PM

This is not an attempt to hijack the thread.
Based on this:

One entry found for skepticism.

Main Entry: skep·ti·cism
Pronunciation: 'skep-t&-"si-z&m
Function: noun
Date: 1646
1 : an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
3 : doubt concerning basic religious principles (as immortality, providence, and revelation)
synonym see UNCERTAINTY

(Merriam-Webster):
some clarification may be needed to the degree of skepticism. Is it doubt or complete refusal to accept a premise?

Clancie

6th June 2003, 07:02 PM

justsaygnosis,
2 a : the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain b : the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism characteristic of skeptics
A good example of the goals of my posts about mediumship.
That wasn't Lothian, btw - it was me.
Right, NoZed. So much for scrolling quickly backwards :rolleyes:

Clancy: What did I claim to have "indisputable proof" of?

NoZed Avenger: I was quoting from your message....I think that this materially shifts what Deists claim from inherently unprovable and probably likewise unknowable to something that they have no "incontrovertable proof" for.
All I really meant is that they say, imo, "I accept my deism as a belief and do not claim to have 'proof' for it". The "incontrovertable proof" was really a shorthand way of saying, "no evidence to back it up that I'm sure everyone, everywhere would accept."

The comparison was between two people, one saying: "My deism is a belief, but overall consider myself a skeptic"; the other saying "I believe in mediumship and overall consider myself a skeptic." (And, you're right, I personally don't see deist beliefs as being consistent with skepticism. But, like many things, I don't think skepticism is black and white either. In my experience, people can be great critical thinkers in many areas and still cling to opinions and beliefs that really don't hold up to critical analysis and facts. I'm okay with critical thinking being a spectrum and people falling at various parts along it, imo, depending on the particular issue).
If they can honesly say the exact same thing -- that mediumship is unprovable and probably always will be -- then they probably should be treated similarly.
Yes, that was my point. And they're not.
There is one difference, however, in my opinion -- in that mediumship makes claims about the physical universe that -should- be testable. It has a "real world" effect that should - if it exists - be easy to show.
Actually, I'm not sure that's true. Do you know a good test of mediumship? In my experience, it seems quite difficult to do.

Since there is absolutely zero evidence of any kind to support deism, I don't think it somehow should earn more acceptance here just because a deist might say it has no testable impact on the physical universe. (Do they say that, btw?)
That would appear to be sufficient justification to distinguish between the two beliefs.
Interesting point, but as I say, I disagree on both counts.
Are you positive that the people who won't cut some believers or quasi-believers slack are the same ones saying that they have no problem with Hal's belief?
Well, I can only go by my experience. Unrepentent Sinner is the only person here who has even remotely said that he thinks a person can be a skeptic and still hold the opinion that mediumship may be possible. (Well, I think he said that. With all the disclaimers and "we've got to take critical thinkers where we find them, etc." lol, I may be putting a bit too rosy a spin on it. If so, U.S....my apologies!)

Most of the time, posting in support of mediumship in any way (even suggesting it is simply worth looking into further; and that the jury's still out) elicits a lot of ridicule and sarcasm--often from people who, to be quite honest with you, give very little indication of knowing much about the subject themselves.

I don't know if they're the same people who would accept deists, but I certainly haven't found the same level of ridicule directed at people proclaiming paranormal religious beliefs as I do to someone like me who says, "Maybe there's more to this mediumship than we think. Maybe they aren't all frauds after all."

NoZed Avenger

6th June 2003, 07:52 PM

Ok, with youjr clarification, I see where you are coming from. You may be right, though there were a large number of posters that argued similarly to you (i.e., that Deism is as suspect as any other belief system) back after the original announcement from Hal.

The tone of the disagreement may not have been as harsh, however, and you may have a valid point there.

With regard to mediumship, it has proven very difficult to test in practice, but the claims made regarding communication would indicate that testing is quite possible -- if the ones claiming "reliable" or regular communication would step forward and just do so. To say prior efforts were unsuccessful is not to necessarily say testing is impossible -- which it would appear to be with "vanilla" Deism.

While I think that this is a crucial distinction, I do not hold the opinion that anyone holding an open mind on the subject is automatically wrong or "woo woo." Personally, I doubt the phenomenon, especially as regards to those who have spirits regularly "on call." This is partially because of my prior interest in an experience with mentalism and magic in general. I do not go so far as to say the phenomenon is impossible; just that I have seen enough evidence to convince me.

NA

UnrepentantSinner

7th June 2003, 02:15 AM

UnrepentantSinner

7th June 2003, 02:25 AM

Originally posted by Clancy
Well, I can only go by my experience. Unrepentent Sinner is the only person here who has even remotely said that he thinks a person can be a skeptic and still hold the opinion that mediumship may be possible. (Well, I think he said that. With all the disclaimers and "we've got to take critical thinkers where we find them, etc." lol, I may be putting a bit too rosy a spin on it. If so, U.S....my apologies!)

Nope, that's it exactly. My disclaimers were to point out that I see no evidence of mediumship and therefore will argue vociferously against this one "woo woo" idea that you, again, to coin a phrase, think "there might be something to."

That position would never alter me from calling you a fellow skeptic as I have seen, in this forum, you challenge many other woo woo claims and even the claims of mediumship of others (Van Praagh and Browne).

I will also add a personal note. You've taken some crap, as has Hal and Ruby (as just two examples) from members for your positions in general when you were addressing topics totally unconnected from the issue you "think there might be something to." That's horse$h!t as far as I'm concerned. One of my closest friends is Eastern Orthodox who spends his saturday nights kissing Icons. He's one of the most skeptical persons I know. Why the hell would I give him $h!t over kissing Icons when he's such a valuable intellectual ally against all the really dangerous bu!!$h!t that's out there. Harumph! :mad:

Clancie

8th June 2003, 06:06 AM

From Unrepentant Sinner

I see no evidence of mediumship and therefore will argue vociferously against this one "woo woo" idea that you, again, to coin a phrase, think "there might be something to."
Fair enough, of course.
That position would never alter me from calling you a fellow skeptic as I have seen, in this forum, you challenge many other woo woo claims and even the claims of mediumship of others (Van Praagh and Browne).
That's a really important point, imo, and about various other people here, too. I don't know for certain, but your position seems to be a decidedly minority view here (maybe only you....?)
You've taken some crap, as have Hal and Ruby (as just two examples) from members for your positions in general when you were addressing topics totally unconnected from the issue you "think there might be something to." That's horse$h!t as far as I'm concerned.
You've summed up the experience very well, U.S.. My only regret is that I didn't start this thread in "Banter", as I think the broader point you've raised is one that many skeptics here should ponder....

Fun2BFree

8th June 2003, 07:25 AM

What is the point of Deism? What does it do? So there existed or exists some supernatural being unverifiable yet somehow real who created it all....ummm what created the supernatural being? If the supernatural being can just exist without being created, then why can't the same be said of the universe...which at least we have some proof of its existence??

I just don't get what possible satisfaction is provided by the Deist's made up answers...

thaiboxerken

8th June 2003, 08:02 AM

I just don't get what possible satisfaction is provided by the Deist's made up answers...

I don't really know, but I am guessing that it gives them a sense of purpose about the universe. Some people need a little fantasy to appreciate reality, I guess.

BillyJoe

8th June 2003, 08:11 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
One of my closest friends is Eastern Orthodox who spends his saturday nights kissing Icons. He's one of the most skeptical persons I know. Why the hell would I give him $h!t over kissing Icons when he's such a valuable intellectual ally against all the really dangerous bu!!$h!t that's out there. Harumph! :mad: Why the hell shouldn't you?

He is one of the most sceptical persons you know AND he spends his saturday nights kissing Icons. Don't you see a BIG problem here. A sceptic kissing Icons.....I mean what's going on in his mind.....does part of it not know what the other part is doing?.....has he never made the connection between the paranormal beliefs of others that he debunks and his own paranormal belief which he accepts without question.....isn't there just a glaring inconsistency here?

BillyJoe

8th June 2003, 08:30 AM

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
What is the point of Deism? What does it do? So there existed or exists some supernatural being unverifiable yet somehow real who created it all....ummm what created the supernatural being? If the supernatural being can just exist without being created, then why can't the same be said of the universe...which at least we have some proof of its existence??

I just don't get what possible satisfaction is provided by the Deist's made up answers... I don't get it either :mad:

Theism I get - a kindly God lending a helping hand and rising you up to heaven when you die.

But with Deism you get all the nonsense about trying to explain a complex system (the universe) in terms of an unexplainable and even more complex system (God) but no kickback in the form of an afterlife. Why would you do it?

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

8th June 2003, 10:25 AM

Here's skepticism: Person A makes a claim. Person B debates with person A on the basis of facts, theory, logic, and so forth. All the other argumentation about sweeping metaphysics or personal philosophy or unrelated beliefs is irrelevant.

Billy said:He is one of the most sceptical persons you know AND he spends his saturday nights kissing Icons. Don't you see a BIG problem here. A sceptic kissing Icons.....I mean what's going on in his mind.....does part of it not know what the other part is doing?.....has he never made the connection between the paranormal beliefs of others that he debunks and his own paranormal belief which he accepts without question.....isn't there just a glaring inconsistency here?
Not if he isn't making claims about his icons.

If a person has to have beliefs precisely matching ours in order for us to discuss specific topics with him, we might as well all move to our own planets.

~~ Paul

UnrepentantSinner

8th June 2003, 06:20 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Why the hell shouldn't you?

He is one of the most sceptical persons you know AND he spends his saturday nights kissing Icons. Don't you see a BIG problem here. A sceptic kissing Icons.....I mean what's going on in his mind.....does part of it not know what the other part is doing?.....has he never made the connection between the paranormal beliefs of others that he debunks and his own paranormal belief which he accepts without question.....isn't there just a glaring inconsistency here?

The difference is probably semantic, but I'm much more tolerant of supernatural beliefs - which tend to be non-empirical, than of paranormal beliefs - which tend to almost always have an empirical component.

You know, poetry and sunsets are purely physical. One is ink on a piece of paper, or vibrations of the vocal cord, the other the mere side effect of the Earth's rotation. If I find "magic" or happiness or pleasure or comfort in those without applying a purely rational analysis of them - am I being a non-skeptic?

I'm sorry, but I'd rather have as many allies in the war against non-sense in general, than ostracising potential allies becuase they disagree on an issue or two. And no where in what I have said in this thread is there anything that could be remotely considered advocacy or acceptance of woo woo ideas. I just accept some diversity and don't demand Orthodoxy.

As soon as the skeptical movement demands Orthodoxy - we are no better than fundamentalist theists.

UnrepentantSinner

8th June 2003, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
If a person has to have beliefs precisely matching ours in order for us to discuss specific topics with him, we might as well all move to our own planets.

Exellent summation of my point Paul.

BillyJoe

8th June 2003, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's skepticism: Person A makes a claim. Person B debates with person A on the basis of facts, theory, logic, and so forth. You are describing a debate.
Scepticism is believing only if there is evidence to support that belief (with the degree of belief being in proportion to the evidence)

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
All the other argumentation about sweeping metaphysics or personal philosophy or unrelated beliefs is irrelevant. I don't agree.
If your metaphysics or philosophy includes a belief for which there is no evidence, it is not irrelevant - you are not being sceptical in this instance.

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
[There is no inconsistency] if he isn't making claims about his icons.If the claim is not testable, then there can be no evidence for it. If there is no evidence for the claim, then belief in the claim is inconsistent with scepticism (according to the above definition).

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
If a person has to have beliefs precisely matching ours in order for us to discuss specific topics with him, we might as well all move to our own planets Hal is sceptical except regarding God. He admits his belief in God is irrational and unscientific. He admits he has no evidence. Therefore there is no point in discussing this topic further with him - unless he shows signs of wavering ;) . However there are lots of other things we can discuss :)

JAR

8th June 2003, 10:06 PM

Clancy, Deism is a religion that doesn't hurt its members and doesn't hurt people who aren't its members. People who claim they can talk to the dead and who don't provide hard evidence for their claim might be swindling people out of their money and lying to them when they say they are talking to someone's dead loved one.

BillyJoe

8th June 2003, 10:14 PM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The difference is probably semantic, but I'm much more tolerant of supernatural beliefs - which tend to be non-empirical, than of paranormal beliefs - which tend to almost always have an empirical component. More tolerant of supernatural than paranormal belief?
If you mean, from the point of view of scepticism, supernatural belief is more tolerable than paranormal belief, then I agree and for the reason you stated.
However, supernatural beliefs can be intolerable from other points of view. I'll spare the details. (Hal's version is rather benign as supernatural beliefs go).

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
You know, poetry and sunsets are purely physical. One is ink on a piece of paper, or vibrations of the vocal cord, the other the mere side effect of the Earth's rotation. If I find "magic" or happiness or pleasure or comfort in those without applying a purely rational analysis of them - am I being a non-skeptic? No.
But don't you see a big difference between supernatural belief and the appreciation of music?

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm sorry, but I'd rather have as many allies in the war against non-sense in general, than ostracising potential allies becuase they disagree on an issue or two. Hal's a good friend - as far as a fellow poster who you have never met can be a good friend. I am not ostracising him. Doesn't mean I can't point out where he is not being sceptical - in fact, I do not need to point it out, he already agrees with me on this point.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
And no where in what I have said in this thread is there anything that could be remotely considered advocacy or acceptance of woo woo ideas. Neither have I. In all other areas Hal seems to be a sceptic.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I just accept some diversity and don't demand Orthodoxy.
As soon as the skeptical movement demands Orthodoxy - we are no better than fundamentalist theists. :confused:
I thought we were all agreed that scepticism is a method.

metacristi

9th June 2003, 04:33 AM

Clancy

Why would Hal be accepted as a skeptic here although he believes in God*, and yet people who think John Edward may be in contact with an afterlife, are repeatedly ridiculed and never accepted as skeptics?

For example, there is easily more "evidence" of spirit communication through mediums--SPR studies; demostrations--perhaps not passing the bar of "scientific testing" some here are looking for, but still a far cry from what is available to support God and, for some here, Christianity.

Why does consideration of mediumship even as a genuine possibility elicit such ridicule, but a deist can be so easily embraced as a fellow skeptic?

According with Webster Dictionary the definition of skepticism is:"A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced".Here 'proof' can mean also 'arguments beyond all reasonable doubt'.

The next step is to identify what 'belief' means.There is a widespread misconception that belief in 'something' implies automatically the claim that that something surely exist.Or this is not at all so in all cases.Indeed belief means also 'an opinion, especially a firm and considered one' (Encarta Dictionary),this does not imply having certitudes ('proof','arguments beyond all reasonable doubt') but only that,in the subjective system of values of the believer,that 'something' is very likely to exist.It is irrelevant here how one arrives at a certain belief or whether such a belief can be defended (as representing a rational stance or not) in the light of all existing objective data.

Clearly as much as the believer,having a strong opinion according with the above definition,do not have certitudes (accepting that there is no 'objective',scientific 'proof' also),still doubting therefore,she is still a skeptic (in the above definition).Even one who believes something based on 'blind faith' that is without having a rational reason.'Faith' in something does not equal with necessity having 'certitudes' or 'being sure'.For example one can believe in souls based on pure faith alone (the decision to believe is not taken after examining the existing data-belief is not supported even by some 'evidence'-which is different from proof or arguments beyond all reasonable doubt).

As far as I know Hal has witnessed that he is a deist based on faith alone but I've never heard from him that he is sure that God does exist...

Thinking that John Edward may be in contact with afterlife does not imply certitudes as far as I see.No positive claim is made here.The believer lets the door open to the possibility to arrive later at the personal conclusion that John Edward is not in contact with an afterlife in fact.To ridicule such a person is foolish.

Only when one make repeatedly positive claims,without having serious arguments (such as 'there is scientific proof,sufficient reason,arguments beyond all reasonable doubt,that John Edward is in contact with deceased people' when in fact this claim does not stand a scientific investigation) can they be labeled 'non skeptics'.Ridicule is never an option,the best path is to ignore such people,indeed the polemics risk to continue ad infinitum...

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:11 AM

Originally posted by TheERK

Yes, by conventional definitions. Deism means you believe in God, but most Deists believe in God as the 'first cause' only; that is, a non-interventionalist God. For a Christian to call him or herself a Deist may be accurate, but it's misleading; how often do you hear "I'm a Christian and a Deist"? It's like saying "I firmly believe God does not and cannot exist, and I'm also an Atheist."

In other words, Christianity is a subset of Deism (because Christianity requires God-belief), and no Christian would bother to explicitly say "I'm a Deist, too."

(Edited for mistake)

I simply do not understand this at all! How does saying "I'm a Christian and a Deist"? be deemed to be analogically similar to saying "I firmly believe God does not and cannot exist, and I'm also an Atheist." :confused: Er . . .is there not a possibility that a Christian could be a theist??? :rolleyes:

Christianity is not a subset of deism! Sheesh!

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:16 AM

Originally posted by Upchurch
Yes, by conventional definitions. Deism means you believe in God, but most Deists believe in God as the 'first cause' only; that is, a non-interventionalist God. For a Christian to call him or herself a Deist may be accurate, but it's misleading; how often do you hear "I'm a Christian and a Deist"? It's like saying "I firmly believe God does not and cannot exist, and I'm also an Atheist."

In other words, Deism is a subset of Christianity (because Christianity requires God-belief), and no Christian would bother to explicitly say "I'm a Deist, too."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't believe this is correct. To say that "Deism is a subset of Christianity" is to say that "all Deists are Christians even though not all Christians are Deists", which simply isn't the case. If anything Christianity is a subset of Deism in the sense that they both believe in God,

You cannot deny that some Christians are theists!

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by TheERK

Thanks--that's what I meant to say, that Christianity is a subset of Deism. That is, all Christians are Deists but not the other way around. Thanks for the heads up--I'll edit my post.

Eric

Don't be absurd! Do you actually know what the terms deism and theism mean??

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:21 AM

Originally posted by Martinm
Thanks--that's what I meant to say, that Christianity is a subset of Deism
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, that's wrong too. Christianity and Deism are both subsets of Theism, but they don't overlap. No Christians are Deists.

Ah! Someone who knows what they're talking about at last! :) (sorry, just reading through this thread now) Hmmmm . . .deists can't be Christians? But a lot of intellectuals in the 18th century felt compelled to embrace deism rather than theism as a consequence of the ongoing success of science. Didn't they describe themselves as Christians?

BillyJoe

9th June 2003, 05:26 AM

metacristi,

Originally posted by metacristi
Clearly as much as the believer,having a strong opinion according with the above definition,do not have certitudes (accepting that there is no 'objective',scientific 'proof' also),still doubting therefore,she is still a skeptic (in the above definition).Even one who believes something based on 'blind faith' that is without having a rational reason.'Faith' in something does not equal with necessity having 'certitudes' or 'being sure'Regarding the definition of sceptic....
Are you saying that you don't go along with the qualification that belief should be in proportion to the evidence for that belief?

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:33 AM

Originally posted by Clancy
Unrepentent Sinner,
:). The reason I brought it up is because I don't know why more people here don't seem to agree with you. (And, after all, it's not as if I say I believe JE is real; I have gone from certainty that "dead is dead" to thinking, "well...maybe..." I don't see why so many people at this forum find that position incompatible with skepticism, people who would never call Christians with their many paranormal beliefs "woo woos"....and worse).

Clancy,

There are 2 differing definitions of "skepticism". There is the original definition, and there is also another definition of more recent origin which basically means a subscription to a certain philosophical view of the world; namely materialism/physicalism. If you believe in the existence of any phenomena which would appropriately be labelled paranormal then you cannot be a "skeptic" in the latter sense, although you may be a skeptic in the original proper sense of the word.

Paul C. Anagnostopoulos

9th June 2003, 05:36 AM

BillyJoe said:I don't agree.
If your metaphysics or philosophy includes a belief for which there is no evidence, it is not irrelevant - you are not being sceptical in this instance.
Agreed, but if that belief isn't the subject of the conversation, what difference does it make?

If the claim is not testable, then there can be no evidence for it. If there is no evidence for the claim, then belief in the claim is inconsistent with scepticism (according to the above definition).
Yes, it's inconsistent with some sweeping philosophical definition of skepticism, but what does that have to do with the specific topic at hand?

Hal is sceptical except regarding God. He admits his belief in God is irrational and unscientific. He admits he has no evidence. Therefore there is no point in discussing this topic further with him - unless he shows signs of wavering . However there are lots of other things we can discuss.
Agreed, although you can have a philosophical discussion about God with him, if you can suspend any "I won't talk with believers unless I can convert them" attitude.

~~ Paul

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:42 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
I don't get it either :mad:

Theism I get - a kindly God lending a helping hand and rising you up to heaven when you die.

But with Deism you get all the nonsense about trying to explain a complex system (the universe) in terms of an unexplainable and even more complex system (God) but no kickback in the form of an afterlife. Why would you do it?

No you can be a deist and believe in an afterlife, you can even be an atheist and believe in an afterlife. Hell, you could even be a materialist and believe in an afterlife! :eek:

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:44 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Here's skepticism: Person A makes a claim. Person B debates with person A on the basis of facts, theory, logic, and so forth. All the other argumentation about sweeping metaphysics or personal philosophy or unrelated beliefs is irrelevant.

Well that's skepticism in the original true sense of the word, it is not "skepticism" as used on this board.

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:46 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
[B]You are describing a debate.
Scepticism is believing only if there is evidence to support that belief (with the degree of belief being in proportion to the evidence)

What about having a belief through philosophical/rational reasons?

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 05:50 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
metacristi,

Regarding the definition of sceptic....
Are you saying that you don't go along with the qualification that belief should be in proportion to the evidence for that belief?

That has nothing to do with skepticism in either senses of the word!

metacristi

9th June 2003, 06:45 AM

Billy Joe

Regarding the definition of sceptic....
Are you saying that you don't go along with the qualification that belief should be in proportion to the evidence for that belief?

Basically yes,the rationality of the belief does not count here (when applied at the problem of 'skepticism').Not that I agree with those whose beliefs contradicts the basic rules of logic or science's data (flat earthers and so on) but as much as they are still doubting,they are skeptics.If they are not doubting they are not skeptics (about something).The fact that their 'proof' does not stand a logical or scientific scrutiny is irrelevant in my opinion.

Even accepting only logical stances totally compatible with the observed objective data and logic (the decision to believe/disbelieve/doubt being also based on some existing-or lack of-'evidence',not necessary proof) depends on what you name 'evidence'.I include here subjective evidence too.For example if one see 'something' ressembling an alien spacecraft (and decide to believe in aliens) but have still doubts about what they saw they are still skeptics.
But if they not only believe that what they saw was an alien spacecraft but are also sure they saw an alien spacecraft they cannot be labeled skeptics (with respect to aliens).

Generally there are big problems with what 'evidence' means.In some cases there is no way to make an objective difference.For example in God's case [defined as the creator of the universe] the same existing evidence can be intepreted in both ways.That's why I do not find rational to use the degree of 'objective' support for a belief to conclude that someone is a skeptic or not (about something).

TheERK

9th June 2003, 08:17 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Don't be absurd! Do you actually know what the terms deism and theism mean??

Actually, I've read different definitions of deism--I can't seem to find a single, conclusive, definition. Some say that it's a belief in a non-intervening God that created the Universe. Some say it's just simply a belief in God--this definition is what the etymology of the word would suggest. It is also the only assumption you can make about a Deist; for examples, go to the forums at http://deism.org/. So, I was using the latter example--a belief in God--as my definition. With this assumption, my post isn't absurd at all; Christianity would be 'a belief in God', that is, a form of Deism, with other beliefs attached to it. This would make Christianity a subset of Deism.

Hopefully I've made myself clear--this is another case of confusion via different definitions.

Interesting Ian

9th June 2003, 09:15 AM

Originally posted by TheERK

Actually, I've read different definitions of deism--I can't seem to find a single, conclusive, definition. Some say that it's a belief in a non-intervening God that created the Universe.

Well that's always been my understanding of the word. If it also means a God who interacts with the world then what on earth is theism supposed to mean??

metacristi

9th June 2003, 09:17 AM

BillyJoe

I'm not sure I was enough clear above.Generally when dealing with a specific hypothesis,sometimes even positing an unobserved 'entity',there are the following situations:

1.The hypothesis is incompatible with observed facts or it is inconsistent logically.
2.The hypothesis is fully compatible with the observed facts being also internally coherent:
2.1It is a scientific hypothesis.
2.2It is not scientific (eg 'God hypothesis')
2.3It is a scientific law.

Unfortunately when discussing the problem of 'skepticism' it is not how the hypothesis relate,in absolute,to logic and compatibility with all objective data that counts.Indeed one cannot be made rational with force...

There are two type of people:

1.People capable to understand and use the laws of logic and science.
2.Ignorant people;non rational or irrational (at a certain moment and in a specific topic at least).

Well ignorant people cannot be persuaded using logic and scientific arguments,beyond all reasonable doubt.If they are nonrational enough to doubt even some very strong objective data (that the Earth is round for example),based on who knows what 'personal evidence',does this mean they are not 'skeptics'?Of course not.
Also if they believe in the 'flat Earth hypothesis' but without a logical reason (pure faith-not having however certitudes that the Earth is flat,still doubting) does this imply they are not skeptics?Again no.
I see no reason to suppose that the (inexistent) degree of 'objective' support for a hypotheses that contradicts logic and known facts is enough to make an ignorant person to reject that hypothesis.Or to be skeptical about a hypothesis that was proved 'objectively' as being unlikely...Finally is a personal choice,preferably to be made in accordance with the rules of logic and in the light of all known objective,scientific,data (probably this is the definition of skepticism in your acception).Not always possible,unfortunately.

[edit to add] In the case of God hypothesis (defined as being the creator of the universe) there is no sufficient objective data,beyond all reasonable doubt,to settle the problem either way.The choice to believe,a strictly personal belief having as reason some observed objective (or subjective) facts,is as rational as to not believe or to neither believe nor disbelieve.Even if the choice to believe is not based on reason,as much as doubt is still present ('strong convictions' does not imply certitudes or the incapacity to change position) that implies skepticism.

metacristi

9th June 2003, 10:44 AM

As far as I know deism is usually understood to be the doctrine that God has created the universe (with its laws) but afterward he let it to operate according to its own principles.God is supposed to not actively interfere with our universe (other than being a passive sustainer) that's why there are no miracles.
Theism on the other hand is sometimes opposed to deism in what the active interference with the universe is concerned.But if we take the belief in a Creator criterion as being more relevant (common to both of them) deism appears to be a variant of theism.More easily to defend logically.In fact there is no need for deists to renounce all the traditional attributes assigned to God (such as omnipotence or omniscience) but clearly they renounce the all-good attribute (as posited by the traditional concept of God) and that the world we observe is the best possible one.

However in the past,18-th century for example,when determinism seemed to be the only scientific alternative,deism was meant to represent the belief in God based on reason not on faith,revelations and so on.

Martin

9th June 2003, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
Didn't they describe themselves as Christians?Did they? Must have been bloody strange folk, then. How does one believe in a non-interventionist deity that sent his son to Earth? :eek:

Martin

9th June 2003, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
If it also means a God who interacts with the world then what on earth is theism supposed to mean??And why am I not an Adeist?

hammegk

9th June 2003, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by BillHoyt

.....The "materialism" of science is a finding, not a metaphysical position. ....
Cheers,

There you go again, requesting your particular worldview be accepted as correct so you can then "scientifically demonstrate" it to be correct.

Please demonstrate scientifically the material aspect of a quark, or the concreteness of a magnetic field. Or perhaps you also agree that math IS reality?

Jeers ....

Fun2BFree

9th June 2003, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

No you can be a deist and believe in an afterlife, you can even be an atheist and believe in an afterlife. Hell, you could even be a materialist and believe in an afterlife! :eek:

Exactly! That is the problem with Hal's position--if you can feel confident something which has no logical proof/disproof is true, then all things without logical proof/disproof should have equal rights...and they do not in this real measurable universe....SCIENCE is about that which can be measured and is best when it can be independently measured and verified...OUTSIDE of our tiny brains which are such poor instruments of measure and logic (as is amply displayed here on a regular basis)...For those not sure what this means---it means if I measure it and you measure it and neither of us has any knowledge what the other got or will get and it comes out the same anyway--then it is more likely we have got it right...The more independent measures- the more confident we can be in the measuring device...if it cannot be reliably measured (love, poetry, happiness, music, art--it's everyman for himself--each measuring device is validated internally and CANNOT be validated independently)---so yes we can be confident about the materialism of quarks and magnetic fields and other unseeable things because of how they are independently demonstrated by reliable validated measuring devices....they can be measured--reliably and independently---therefore they are materially proven to exist......then we have God beliefs based only on ....our ever unreliable brains.

neutrino_cannon

9th June 2003, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian

Well that's always been my understanding of the word. If it also means a God who interacts with the world then what on earth is theism supposed to mean??

Quite, If God, as per the Bidlack God, doesn't much interact with the universe then does it matter whether God exists or not? Apatheism, that's the ticket.

BillyJoe

10th June 2003, 05:17 AM

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Agreed [that, if your metaphysics or philosophy includes a belief for which there is no evidence, it is not irrelevant - you are not being sceptical in this instance.], but if that belief isn't the subject of the conversation, what difference does it make?Well none of course......ah, I see, you were responding to my post - which was about situations when scepticism fails - but changed the discussion to situations where that scepticism is irrelevant......

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Yes, it's inconsistent with some sweeping philosophical definition of skepticism, but what does that have to do with the specific topic at hand? But seeing as you were responding to my post YOU must stay on MY topic. :mad:

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
Agreed, although you can have a philosophical discussion about God with him.....Maybe.....

Hal could explain why he believes in God....basically he doesn't have a good reason. He admits his belief is irrational. He admits it is unscientific. He admits there is no evidence. He just believes in God. Maybe he has a need to believe in God and we could perhaps discuss that need.
So far Hal hasn't shown any interest in persuing the subject along those lines (unless I 've missed it)

Originally posted by Paul C. Anagnostopoulos
......if you can suspend any "I won't talk with believers unless I can convert them" attitude.Actually, I do not have this attitude. I like to see believers challenged only so as to better understand their view, not to convert them.

BillyJoe

10th June 2003, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Interesting Ian
What about having a belief through philosophical/rational reasons? No. We hardcore sceptics need hardcore evidence. Sorry.

BillyJoe

10th June 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by metacristi
Basically yes [I don't go along with the qualification that belief should be in proportion to the evidence for that belief]. The rationality of the belief does not count here (when applied at the problem of 'skepticism').Not that I agree with those whose beliefs contradicts the basic rules of logic or science's data (flat earthers and so on) but as much as they are still doubting,they are skeptics.If they are not doubting they are not skeptics (about something).The fact that their 'proof' does not stand a logical or scientific scrutiny is irrelevant in my opinion. But scepticism is all about evidence. So, if a person believes in something for which there is no evidence, how can he be called a sceptic? If he says he believes in God but then says "I could be wrong" - forget for a moment that this is a very unlikely scenario - does he thereby deserve the designation of "sceptic"? On what basis does he think he "could be wrong"? It couldn't have anything to do with evidence could it? He doesn't have evidence to believe in God so how could he have evidence that he "could be wrong"?

Originally posted by metacristi
.....depends on what you name 'evidence'.I include here subjective evidence too.For example if someone sees 'something' ressembling an alien spacecraft (and decide to believe in aliens) but have still doubts about what they saw they are still skeptics.
But if they not only believe that what they saw was an alien spacecraft but are also sure they saw an alien spacecraft they cannot be labeled skeptics (with respect to aliens).You continue to equate scepticism with doubt.
So, as long as someone expresses doubt, he is a sceptic???
I can only repeat that scepticism has to do with evidence. If the person is not evidence focussed, he is not a sceptic. If he expresses doubt, the basis of this doubt must not be the same as the basis of his belief (which is what? gut instinct? a hunch? revelation?), the basis of the doubt must be evidence (or lack thereof).

Originally posted by metacristi
Generally there are big problems with what 'evidence' means.In some cases there is no way to make an objective difference.For example in God's case [defined as the creator of the universe] the same existing evidence can be intepreted in both ways.First of all, evidence rarely amounts to 100% proof (even with the round Earth, unless you've been up in a spacecraft, you have to take other people's word for it). But, if the acumulating evidence is all in favour of a proposition and NO evidence has ever found against the proposition, then you provisionally accept it as true and you confidence that it is true is in proportion to the evidence

Second of all, there is no evidence for the existence of God, so what do you mean when you say that "the same existing evidence [for God]can be intepreted in both ways"?

Originally posted by metacristi
That's why I do not find rational to use the degree of 'objective' support for a belief to conclude that someone is a skeptic or not (about something). Well, if scepticism is all about evidence, the amount of evidence is crucial.

Fun2BFree

10th June 2003, 08:02 PM

Johns Hopkins Alumni magazine recently began an article with something like the following: Dr.XXXX, a physics professor, probably appeared at a recent conference to deliver a lecture on quantum physics....

In other words -there was good evidence that he was there but as far as anything goes in this world it is still only as certain as the evidence, never 100% certain.

UnrepentantSinner

10th June 2003, 10:46 PM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
But scepticism is all about evidence. So, if a person believes in something for which there is no evidence, how can he be called a sceptic? If he says he believes in God but then says "I could be wrong" - forget for a moment that this is a very unlikely scenario - does he thereby deserve the designation of "sceptic"?

Ahhhh, there's that Orthodoxy I'm so concerned about.

In my Church of the Skeptic, we have room for many, as long as they adhere to the general faith. We won't excommunicate for a heresy or two.

10th June 2003, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by JAR
Clancy, Deism is a religion that doesn't hurt its members and doesn't hurt people who aren't its members. People who claim they can talk to the dead and who don't provide hard evidence for their claim might be swindling people out of their money and lying to them when they say they are talking to someone's dead loved one.

But isn't it hurting its members because they are believing falsehoods?

-Who

BillyJoe

11th June 2003, 02:55 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
In my Church of the Skeptic, we have room for many, as long as they adhere to the general faith. We won't excommunicate for a heresy or two. Well, I don't recognize any "Church of The Skeptic" so there's excommuniction at all. ;)
Skepticism is a method not a movement.
Hal is a sceptic in all areas except in his belief in God - there he is definitely not a sceptic (even Hal agrees with this).

BillyJoe.

BillyTK

11th June 2003, 03:53 AM

Mediumship is great showbiz. John Edwards is a (relatively) talented cold-reader, but so is Derren Brown (http://www.derrenbrown.co.uk/home.asp), and he makes no supernatural claims about his powers.

I'd only be worried about Mr Bidlack's beliefs if he started to claim his moderating decisions were directed by god, rather than the proprietors of this website.

BillyJoe

11th June 2003, 05:24 AM

Then for God's sake what is Deism good for?

BillyTK

11th June 2003, 05:48 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Then for God's sake what is Deism good for?

I dunno, I'm not a deist.

UnrepentantSinner

11th June 2003, 06:49 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
Well, I don't recognize any "Church of The Skeptic" so there's excommuniction at all. ;)
Skepticism is a method not a movement.
Hal is a sceptic in all areas except in his belief in God - there he is definitely not a sceptic (even Hal agrees with this).

BillyJoe.

Then he's wasting a lot of his time administering this forum, attending TAM and being a part of the skeptic movement if he's not a "true" skeptic then?

Again, if you're going to accept people as being skeptics for 95% of their beliefs, thoughts, opinions, conclusions, etc. about the subject, but reject them as a fellow skeptic over the remaining 5% then you are engaging in Orthodoxy - and are a detriment to the movement IMO.

The only thing I ask of our non-woo woo skeptic companions who think "there might be something to..." something the majority of skeptics reject as failing the evidentiary test is that they be equally vocal in noting the lack of evidence for those things they tentatively reject as they are in advocating those things they tentatively accept.

metacristi

12th June 2003, 02:38 AM

Billy Joe

But scepticism is all about evidence. So, if a person believes in something for which there is no evidence, how can he be called a sceptic? If he says he believes in God but then says "I could be wrong" - forget for a moment that this is a very unlikely scenario - does he thereby deserve the designation of "sceptic"? On what basis does he think he "could be wrong"? It couldn't have anything to do with evidence could it? He doesn't have evidence to believe in God so how could he have evidence that he "could be wrong"?

skepticism="A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced".According with this definition skepticism is related with doubt,that is doubting that 'something' represent true (or beyond reasonable doubt) knowledge.
I agree now that what I label rational skepticism is directly related with the degree of (logical) support used to base a belief.However,given the nature of human beings,this is not always possible.The above definition enables the 'engulfment' of all positions of doubt.How can be labeled a person who doubt that the Earth is round?Non rational is the first word who pops-up
in mind.Maybe correct however this does not transform their stance in something different from skepticism (as defined above:indeed 'adequate proof' is interpretable...) only that this time we have a non rational skepticism.

Still there is no contradiction between a rational belief and a rational skepticism.Take the God hypothesis (God defined as the creator of the universe) for example.There is no sufficient objective,scientific,knowledge to settle logically the problem of God's existence/nonexistence either way.Not even to prove 'objectively' that God hypothesis is less probable/more probable than naturalism.Indeed naturalism is only a conjecture for the moment,every unbiased seeker of the truth will recognize that.Therefore there are no experimental or logical costraints that makes the stance to believe (after carefully examining all existing data) non rational.The choice to believe/disbeleive/netiher believe nor disbelieve is still a subjective choice.

In the problem of belief/disbelief I always carefully examine all existing available evidence:subjective, objective and their logical implications.After carefully weighing all this data,in my system of values,my stance (subjective) is that God hypothesis is more probable therefore for me belief is more rational.For the moment only.
Still this does not mean I consider that I have arguments beyond reasonable doubt that God does exist.You talked of 'evidence'.Well no one has objective evidence beyond all reasonable doubt atheists or theists alike to settle conclusively this problem either way.But evidence does not imply 'arguments beyond all reasonable doubt' in the case of belief/disbelief.Indeed I do not need 'proof' or (entirely objectively based) arguments beyond all reasonable doubt to base a rational,strictly personal,belief when all available data cannot settle the problem (conclusively) either way.All I need is some evidence (objective and subjective) that can be interpreted logically,on equal foot with naturalist intepretations,as pointing out toward the existence of a God.In God case there are plenty of such situations:when applied at ontological questions 'God hypothesis' is equally valid as naturalist interpretations.But the main thing that made to choose my stance are my subjective,strange,experiences=subjective evidence pointing out toward the existence of a God.Conversely the lack of direct scientific evidence of God is enough to base a rational disbelief,subjective also.Indeed naturalism is still a simple conjecture.As I've already said there is no logical constraint against belief/disbelief yet.Of course the disbeleif is rational only if all available data subjective and objective was carefully examined;if someone,after simply looking around,conclude 'I see no God therefore belief is not justified' IS NOT a rational stance.Simply waiting for theists to provide a 'proof' is also non rational!

So,to return to the main idea of my argumentation,my subjective interpretation of all existing evidence pro/against God is that God hypothesis is more probable to be true,therefore I prefer to believe.But in the same time I still have doubts that my interpretation derived from all existing evidence is correct.That is I still doubt that the existence of God represent knowledge (even though on a strictly personal base) beyond reasonable doubt.Or this is perfectly compatible with the above definition of skepticism,being also a rational skepticism.

Your argumentation,a misconception often encountered among atheists,depart from the premises that a rational belief needs objective arguments beyond all reasonable doubt and that the objective 'evidence' that convinced you that God is unlikely to exist represent arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that a belief (in God) is not rational.False premises,false conclusions.In fact atheism has no edge over theism or agnosticism.So far,at least.

BillyJoe

12th June 2003, 04:47 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Then he's wasting a lot of his time administering this forum, attending TAM and being a part of the skeptic movement if he's not a "true" skeptic then? I neither said nor implied that and, in fact, I disagree with that statement.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Again, if you're going to accept people as being skeptics for 95% of their beliefs, thoughts, opinions, conclusions, etc. about the subject, but reject them as a fellow skeptic over the remaining 5% then you are engaging in Orthodoxy - and are a detriment to the movement IMO. I will repeat myself then....
There is no orthodoxy and there is no movement as far as I am concerned.
There is just scepticism.
Except for his belief in God, Hal engages in scepticism.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
The only thing I ask of our non-woo woo skeptic companions who think "there might be something to..." something the majority of skeptics reject as failing the evidentiary test is that they be equally vocal in noting the lack of evidence for those things they tentatively reject as they are in advocating those things they tentatively accept.
So the reason you don't want to question their scepticism in relation to this "something" they believe in without evidence, is to bolster the number of members in your "movement"?
But, even then, can't you question their scepticism from within your "movement" but present a united front to the public - much like a political movement does?
It's not my scene but hey......

Fun2BFree

12th June 2003, 06:02 AM

metacristi-

You are so confused and mixed up about what atheism is about what skepticim is and about what reason and evidence and proof and subjective and objective that I don't think any post is going to get you anywhere near reality.

Oh, well, I will try. The skeptical person asks for reliable evidence- as I think you said- the evidence for the God hypothesis is entirely subjective-dependent on the observer not independently verified or even verifiable...that is not only not strong enough to prove anything beyond a reasonable doubt, but any reasoning person should definitely have doubt about it and not give it favor as you have chosen to do--(in fact make mental logistical backflips, side flips, twists, turns, self-deceptions etc. to do)

There is no good argument to favor the God hypothesis- it is not more probably correct, in fact the odds are very high that it is incorrect--In the history of man's attempts to understand the world, the supernatural explanations's batting average for being correct so far is ----let me do a little calculation....let me see zero divided by umpteen is what again? I am not ready to send that particular player to the plate when I need a hit. The natural explanation- based on objective independently verifiable evidence-independent of the observer will do just fine, thank you.

BillyJoe

12th June 2003, 06:08 AM

Originally posted by metacristi
skepticism="A critical attitude towards any theory, statement, experiment, or phenomenon, doubting the certainty of all things until adequate proof has been produced".According with this definition skepticism is related with doubt,that is doubting that 'something' represent true (or beyond reasonable doubt) knowledge. The definition of modern scepticism is as I have stated before.....
A sceptic is a person who believes only if there is evidence to support the belief and the belief is in proportion to the evidence.

Originally posted by metacristi
I agree now that what I label rational skepticism is directly related with the degree of (logical) support used to base a belief. Sounds like my scepticism is your rational scepticism.

Originally posted by metacristi
However,given the nature of human beings,this is not always possible. If that is the case, the sceptic rejects it as irrelevant.

Originally posted by metacristi
The above definition enables the 'engulfment' of all positions of doubt.How can be labeled a person who doubt that the Earth is round?Non rational is the first word who pops-up
in mind.Maybe correct however this does not transform their stance in something different from skepticism (as defined above:indeed 'adequate proof' is interpretable...) only that this time we have a non rational skepticism. Non-rational scepticism???
To me that is an oxymoron.

Originally posted by metacristi
Still there is no contradiction between a rational belief and a rational skepticism.Take the God hypothesis (God defined as the creator of the universe) for example.There is no sufficient objective,scientific,knowledge to settle logically the problem of God's existence/nonexistence either way.Not even to prove 'objectively' that God hypothesis is less probable/more probable than naturalism.Substitute "faeries" for "God" in the above and you can clearly see my objection.

Originally posted by metacristi
Indeed naturalism is only a conjecture for the moment,every unbiased seeker of the truth will recognize that.Therefore there are no experimental or logical costraints that makes the stance to believe (after carefully examining all existing data) non rational.The choice to believe/disbeleive/netiher believe nor disbelieve is still a subjective choice.. Objectivity supports naturalism. Objectivity does not support supernaturalism. Subjectivity is a totally unreliable. The only way we can say anything, if we can say anything at all, is objectively

Originally posted by metacristi
In the problem of belief/disbelief I always carefully examine all existing available evidence:subjective, objective and their logical implications.After carefully weighing all this data,in my system of values,my stance (subjective) is that God hypothesis is more probable therefore for me belief is more rational.For the moment only. And if you remove that unreliable subjective "evidence", where is your God hypothesis?

Originally posted by metacristi
You talked of 'evidence'.Well no one has objective evidence beyond all reasonable doubt atheists or theists alike to settle conclusively this problem either way. It is not possible to prove something, in this case God, does not exist. This throws the onus on theists to provide evidence for their view. The atheist, the sceptical position on God, has no belief in God because there is no evidence (belief is in proportion to the evidence)

Originally posted by metacristi
But evidence does not imply 'arguments beyond all reasonable doubt' in the case of belief/disbelief.Indeed I do not need 'proof' or (entirely objectively based) arguments beyond all reasonable doubt to base a rational,strictly personal,belief when all available data cannot settle the problem (conclusively) either way.It is not a matter of "data not settling the problem". It is a matter of there being no data supporting the belief. As a result you simply do not hold that belief

Originally posted by metacristi
.All I need is some evidence (objective and subjective) that can be interpreted logically,on equal foot with naturalist intepretations,as pointing out toward the existence of a God.In God case there are plenty of such situations:when applied at ontological questions 'God hypothesis' is equally valid as naturalist interpretations.But the main thing that made to choose my stance are my subjective,strange,experiences=subjective evidence pointing out toward the existence of a God. You base your belief in God totally on subjective experiences. But subjective experiences are unreliable. The subjective experience of one person can be completely contradictory to another person's subjective experience with absolutely no way to tell whose experience is to be trusted. In fact we trust no subjective experience and rely totally on what can be revealed objectively.

Originally posted by metacristi
.Conversely the lack of direct scientific evidence of God is enough to base a rational disbelief,subjective also. The scientific evidence is no better than your subjective experience? Is that what you want me to believe?

Originally posted by metacristi
'I see no God therefore belief is not justified' IS NOT a rational stance. But to say "I hold zero belief in the existence of God because there is zero evidence[i] for the existence of God IS rational.

[i]Originally posted by metacristi
Simply waiting for theists to provide a 'proof' is also non rational!But waiting for some positive evidence[i] for the existence of God before holding a [i]positive belief in the existence of God IS rational

Originally posted by metacristi
So,to return to the main idea of my argumentation,my subjective interpretation of all existing evidence pro/against God is that God hypothesis is more probable to be true,therefore I prefer to believe.The words "subjective" and "prefer" explain your belief in God.

Originally posted by metacristi
.But in the same time I still have doubts that my interpretation derived from all existing evidence is correct.That is I still doubt that the existence of God represent knowledge (even though on a strictly personal base) beyond reasonable doubt.Or this is perfectly compatible with the above definition of skepticism,being also a rational skepticism.Okay, I see your point about accepting the doubt inherent in a belief. I have said the same but in different words. However you acceptance of subjective "evidence" makes your position not sceptical in my view.

Originally posted by metacristi
Your argumentation,a misconception often encountered among atheists,depart from the premises that a rational belief needs objective arguments beyond all reasonable doubt and that the objective 'evidence' that convinced you that God is unlikely to exist represent arguments beyond all reasonable doubt that a belief (in God) is not rational.False premises,false conclusions.In fact atheism has no edge over theism or agnosticism.So far,at least. This is a valid argument against the "gnostic atheist" who states that "God does not exist". This is not my position nor the position of any atheist I know.
y position is that of the "agnostic atheist" who simply states the he holds zero belief the proposition that "God exists" (because there is zero evidence for the proposition that "God exists"/

regards,
BillyJoe
(I haven't had time to edit this post - sorry for any errors)

BillyJoe

12th June 2003, 06:13 AM

Fun2BFree,

We cross posted.
You have put succinctly what I have said at length.

BillyJoe.
(Hard work doesn't always pay off :( )

UnrepentantSinner

12th June 2003, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
So the reason you don't want to question their scepticism in relation to this "something" they believe in without evidence, is to bolster the number of members in your "movement"?
But, even then, can't you question their scepticism from within your "movement" but present a united front to the public - much like a political movement does?
It's not my scene but hey......

Where in anything I've typed on this forum have I said that I don't question the beliefs that they have? I'm an archetypical skeptic. I just don't think that Orthodoxy should cause us to alienate potential allies in the war on non-sense, even if they're unwilling to attack a pet skeptic issue or two.

And yes, this might come as a surprise to you, but many of us consider skepticism a "movement." There are far too many people in this world that reject critical thinking about virtually anything and it is our mission to fight this sad but true fact.

As I've stated previously, I might not accept someone who holds what I consider woo woo beliefs about one or two subjects to be Orthodox, but I refuse to excommunicate them from the skeptical movement. (in case you missed it earlier, I was being metaphorical btw.) ;)

BillyJoe

13th June 2003, 05:40 AM

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
Where in anything I've typed on this forum have I said that I don't question the beliefs that they have?Well I don't intend to check out the whole forum but in this thread it was sort of implied......Here am I questioning these irrational beliefs but receiving nothing but flak from you......kind of suggested to me that you do not like this sort of behaviour (the questioning of irrational beliefs).

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
I'm an archetypical skeptic. I just don't think that Orthodoxy should cause us to alienate potential allies in the war on non-sense, even if they're unwilling to attack a pet skeptic issue or two.Okay, you say I'm alienating them and I say I'm questioning them. I guess it's a matter of interpretation but I've had something positive to say about Hal almost whenever I've mentioned him. All I am simply saying is that Hal's belief in God is irrational and unscientific......and Hal agrees!

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
And yes, this might come as a surprise to you, but many of us consider skepticism a "movement." There are far too many people in this world that reject critical thinking about virtually anything and it is our mission to fight this sad but true fact. Regarding scepticism as a movement just sets scepticism up as a target. It sets up an "us and them" situation. Fighting those who reject critical thinking is more likely to entrench them in their positions than win them over.
I'd rather be a stealth bomber than a kamikaze pilot.

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner
As I've stated previously, I might not accept someone who holds what I consider woo woo beliefs about one or two subjects to be Orthodox, but I refuse to excommunicate them from the skeptical movement. (in case you missed it earlier, I was being metaphorical btw.) ;) Well don't look at me, I don't even recognize the movement, so I won't be doing any excommunicating.
US, I think you are arguing with the wrong person because I do not hold the views you are attacking me about.

regards,
BillyJoe.

UnrepentantSinner

13th June 2003, 06:36 AM

To distill our quibble, and yes, that's what it appears to be more than a disagreement.

I have never stopped calling people who are skeptical about 20 or so issues, but are (apparently*) credulous on 1 or 2 out for what I percieve to be their credulity.

In summation I feel that Hal, Ruby, Clancie... my jury's still out on Ian, etc have been unfairly branded "non-skeptics" because they have a belief or two that they either feel comfortable with or think there's something to, all the while questioning and outright rejecting a load of other non-sense.

Similarly, telling Hal, I don't quite get, but accept your deism, telling Ruby, some of your Christian beliefs conflict with pure rational that, but that's o.k, and telling Clancie, look, I think John Edward is a deluded charlatan, but it's cool that you've obviously researched him in now way condones the positions they hold. It condones the person.

And it is the attacking of the person, telling them, "you are not with us, you are against us," that I object to.

*by apparently I mean more "seem like" than "to all appearances."

Checkmite

13th June 2003, 10:07 AM

Sorry I haven't read the entire thread yet, but something caught my eye.

Originally posted by Clancie
5. There is more "evidence" of spirit communication than there is for the existence of a God (deism). Demonstrations that cannot be explained away as hot/cold/warm reading--and compelling personal readings--are a kind of "evidence", albeit not up to the bar of scientific proof.

I don't agree with this assessment. Let me try to paraphrase your argument, to see if I understand it correctly.

You're saying that mediums have done things - made correct guesses, or known facts, etc, and attributed them to spirits, and that some of these correct guesses or known facts haven't been (as of yet) discovered to be a work of trickery; and that this is evidence suggesting that there just might possibly be something to spirit communication, even if it isn't definitive. On the other hand, Deists make no testable claims or predictions, and thus there's no evidence at all that would "suggest" the possibility of their being correct, yes?

The mediumship claim goes thus: Spirit communication is true, my evidence is my correct guesses, and spirits are where the information came from.

Well Deism does make a comparable claim; that is, the God of First Cause exists, and my evidence is the universe itself - because if a God of First Cause exists, he would have naturally created the universe. It's practically the same argument, and the evidence for Deism is on its face just as valid as the evidence for spirit communication - the "evidence" is there, but that "evidence" doesn't necessarily have to be caused by, or prove the existence of, God (or spirits, in the other case).

Here's the difference: it can and has been proven that mediums can and have gotten information from sources more mundane than spirits. Not every single medium has been thus exposed, of course - but a viable alternative method has been found and is generally held. To hold one position we must assume the unproven existence of spirits, to hold the other we don't need to invent anything. If you hear equestrian hoofbeats in the distance, you'd do better to decide that it's a horse and not a unicorn.

Meanwhile, Deism speaks to an area that scientists like to consider (some probably don't, hehe), and can form an opinion on, but cannot truly assert one way or the other. The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. In order to hold the position that a God started it, we must assume the unproven existence of that God; however, to hold the position that it was started by a physical or chemical reaction, we must also assume the unproven existence of physical or chemical reactions before the universe whose laws they are subject to was begun.

Fun2BFree

13th June 2003, 10:01 PM

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
The Big Bang was the beginning of the universe. .......(snip)however, to hold the position that it was started by a physical or chemical reaction, we must also assume the unproven existence of physical or chemical reactions before the universe whose laws they are subject to was begun.

No -not quite- we need only assume the existence of chemicals and physical reactions that do exist and follow laws that do exist and that they have always existed

The God hypothesis supposes the existance of a being that has always existed(since nothing caused God)-but there is no physical evidence of a God..If one can accept the notion of something always existing--and one must actually there is no other logical way....there has to be an end -or a beginning more precisely- as one follows the trail back..the First Cause must always have existed or the thing that caused it existed, ad nauseum....so if we have to accept that there are things that have always existed why not start with what we know actually exists now...like chemical, physical laws, etc. Why start with a completely unmeasurable unknowable unproveable entity like God...again the God hypothesis fails to answer anything thta cannot be more reasonably understood by the natural explanation. When some one says God- one can substitute the words "no body knows" which is ignorance. I amnot sure of the quote but I believe it was Ayn Rand who said something to the effect that taking ignorance and giving it a name does not make it into knowledge...

BillyJoe

14th June 2003, 03:14 AM

Fun 2BFree,

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
.....we need only assume the existence of chemicals and physical reactions that do exist and follow laws that do exist and that they have always existedI'm not taking your quote out of context.....I understand that you are saying that we don't have to posit a God "that has always existed" because it is sufficient to posit physical laws "that have always existed".....in other words, God is a victim of Ockham's Razor.....

But (and I'm not assuming what your views are here).....

Are you happy saying that the laws of physics do not require an explanation because "they have always existed"?
Alternatively, if the laws of physics have not always existed, aren't you a little unhappy saying the universe started with, say, a quantum fluctuation and that this doesn't need an explanation because we know quantum fluctuations occur all the time?
Don't you think that before any physical/material thing could have existed - such as a quantum fluctuation - there would have to have been a potential for that physical/material thing to exist?
If so, don't we still have the problem of where this potential for a quantum fluctuation came from?

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
When some one says God- one can substitute the words "no body knows" which is ignorance [but] giving it a name does not make it into knowledge... But are you happy to say "no body knows" or wouldn't you like to get a handle on the problem of the origin of the potential for a quantum fluctuation?

BillyJoe.

Checkmite

14th June 2003, 08:54 AM

Originally posted by Fun2BFree

No -not quite- ...

I'm not attempting to argue the case for Deism here; I was illustrating how Deism and the arguments surrounding it are different from, say, spirit communication, and that Clancie's assertion that there was actually more evidence for spirit communication than for the deistic concept of God is incorrect.

Fun2BFree

14th June 2003, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by BillyJoe
But are you happy to say "no body knows" or wouldn't you like to get a handle on the problem of the origin of the potential for a quantum fluctuation?

Not happy or satisfied in such a way that we should ever stop looking for better explanations, but much happier with that explanation than any supernatural one which is completely unsatisfying and answers nothing--my inability to be happy or to conceptually wrap my brain easily around a first uncaused thing does not make it impossible or even less likely. Again the evidence that the Universe has always existed is not only as good as the God answer...it is better because at least it has physical evidence to support the existence of the thing being suggested.

BillyJoe

14th June 2003, 08:38 PM

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Not happy or satisfied in such a way that we should ever stop looking for better explanations, but much happier with that explanation than any supernatural one which is completely unsatisfying and answers nothing It is exactly this that perplexes me about Deism - There is not even a bonus in the form of an afterlife (Ian denies this but how can you get from a belief in a God who merely triggers off the Big Bang to the existence of an afterlife?) so really what good is Deism?

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
.....my inability to be happy or to conceptually wrap my brain easily around a first uncaused thing does not make it impossible or even less likely.I guess not, but it seems we're more likely to end up wrapping our brains around a loony bin than the concept of a first cause uncaused.

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Again the evidence that the Universe has always existed is not only as good as the God answer...it is better because at least it has physical evidence to support the existence of the thing being suggested. You're saying that a universe that has always existed is more likely than a God that has always existed because at least we know that the universe exists whereas we do not know that God exists.
But, in fact, there is no evidence that the universe has always existed is there? The fact is that all evidence points to our universe being only 15 billion years old. I guess there is the possibility that this universe in just a bit of quantum foam in a much larger (capital U) Universe that could have always existed or that this universe is just one of trillions upon trillions of universes in a Multiverse that could have always existed. But there really is no evidence for either the Universe of the Multiverse is there?

Fun2BFree

15th June 2003, 09:12 AM

...but there is good reproducible evidence that the Universe exists now so that puts that hypothesis ahead of the God hypothesis for which there is no evidence. That is my point. IF evidence comes along that the universe does not exist then it goes back down to the level of made up stuff like God...but for now the hypothesis that there is a real universe has been sustained by all evidence.

BillyJoe

16th June 2003, 03:11 AM

You're saying that if there is evidence that X exists but no evidence that Y exists, then it is more likely that X has always existed than that Y has always existed. Hmmm.....I'm not really convinced but it's probably not worth pursuing further.

A more important point is...
If the universe had a beginning, we have the seemingly unresolvable problem of how the universe could bootstrap itself into existence without there being a potential to do so.
If the universe has always existed, then we have the unresolvable problem of how anything could always have existed.

Okay, I'll stop it now before the funny farm beckons....

regards,
JillyBoe.

Fun2BFree

16th June 2003, 08:06 AM

Billy Joe-

It seems pretty clear to me that something that exists has a better shot of having existed for some period of time be it always or some shorter period of your choosing than something that has never been shown to exist...Which is more likely to have existed for ever- unicorns or the universe?

I think part of the problem is a perceptual limit to our brains...we cannot see ultraviolet light, or hear sound below certain wavelengths and our other senses are similarly limited in their ability to discern what is there...Time is the 4th dimension- I have hard time thinking of time as just another dimension because my brain was not evolved to process information quite that way...this "existing forever" idea is meaningless because at some point there was no such thing as time as time began with the First Cause..so how can you even have a conception of "before" when there is no such thing as time.

This is all very interesting but the bottom line is that no matter how you slice it the God argument answers nothing satisfactorily.

:)

BillyJoe

17th June 2003, 04:54 AM

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
Which is more likely to have existed for ever- unicorns or the universe? I'm finding it hard to argue with this simple exposition of your point :( but I will try ;) .....

Actually I was thinking along the lines of......If you can't at all conceive of how anything could have existed forever, how can you even begin to assign probabilities for such a thing to anything regardless of whether or not there is evidence for its existence.

Ah.....perhaps I'll concede your point. :)

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
I think part of the problem is a perceptual limit to our brains...we cannot see ultraviolet light, or hear sound below certain wavelengths and our other senses are similarly limited in their ability to discern what is there.....Of course, our minds can extend our senses.....
In our "minds eye", we can "see" the wavelengths that our eyes can not see.
But, yes, I see what you mean.....our minds are limited just like our senses are limited. :(

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...Time is the 4th dimension- I have hard time thinking of time as just another dimension because my brain was not evolved to process information quite that way.... But at least we can get a bit of a handle on it.....four spacetime dimensions crystallizing into three space dimensions and one time dimension of our everyday experience and how space becomes a bit of time and time a bit of space in reference frames travelling relative to our own.

I mean I'm sure I don't understand it any clearer than you do but we do have a sort of a handle on it wouldn't you say......compared with "existing forever" or "coming into existence without the potential to do so"

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
...this "existing forever" idea is meaningless because at some point there was no such thing as time as time began with the First Cause..so how can you even have a conception of "before" when there is no such thing as time. Well then you'll just have to consider time itself "coming into existence without the potential to do so".
How does time just pop into existence?
Why does time just pop into existence?

Originally posted by Fun2BFree
This is all very interesting but the bottom line is that no matter how you slice it the God argument answers nothing satisfactorily.
Well, I certainly agree with that. :)