The rules are there for a reason, as you well know. I don't see why I should waste too much of my time explaining that to someone who seems so adamant against the very idea of this, yet nevertheless continues to abide by such unwritten rules in his goings about here. Like I said earlier, it just seems to amount to attention seeking on your end. I don't need to argue against a performative contradiction. It's self-defeating.

I get that you want to drag me along on this merry-go-round, Groundhog Day experience, but I would rather not go through that.

You realise you have just presented two conditionals and a set relation argument. Two arguments in logic.

Did you first prove that logic was qualified to speak to the issue at hand? Because if you did, I missed it. — Isaac

Exactamundo.

Science does indeed make claims of the latter type. A pristine bedroom with no evidence of mud, fur, paw prints, and disorder, is scientific evidence of the absence of a filthy and excited dog having been in there. — S

Scientifically - your example is evidence. The evidence is the observation that we 1. knew what we were looking for, 2. Knew what it would look like if we saw it, and 3. Had a specific and limited place to look. Not an absence of. Here is the science.

Hypothesis:

There was a filthy muddy dog in this bedroom.

Assumptions:
1. In general terms I know what a dog is, if I saw a dog I would be aware of it and recognize it as such.
2. In general terms I know the nature of dogs, i know how they move, their general biology
3. In general terms I know what mud is, if I saw mud, I would be aware of it and recognize it as such.
4. Assume no other mud filled animals entered the room
5. Assume no other possible ways mud could have entered the room
6. Assume that if mud was in the room at one time, it would not have been removed prior to observation.
7. In general terms we know what a room is, and in specific we now the exact room that is in question in the hypothesis.
8. That if a muddy dog was in the room at one point it would have to leave some mud or other observable evidence in the specific search area.

Observation:

We have done an extensive search of the room in questions, with the instruments at our disposal.
We have seen no mud, and no other signs that a dog was in the room.

Conclusion:

Based on our assumptions and with the tools at our disposal we find there is no evidence to support the hypothesis that a dog was in the room.


None of that is anything at all like all the noseeum arguments you try to make. And I stand by my point
that - Lack of evidence only proves a lack of evidence.

But I have a bigger question for you. Why do feel such a need to proselytize me on your atheism. In all the talks we have had on the subject, I have never tried to convert you to my POV, all I have done is defend my belief - which I have always admitted was based on faith.

My belief is, as always, that my theism is a matter of faith, and that faith is not inconsistent with fact or reason.

If you belief that my theism is inconsistent with fact, I await your argument that shows God is not, is a fact.

If you believe that my theism in inconsistent with reason, I await your argument that shows it is unreasonable to have faith in theism.

None of that is anything at all like all the noseeum arguments you try to make. — Rank Amateur

And what arguments would those be? You tend not to address my arguments, but different ones. You tend to take aim at easier targets.

And I stand by my point that - lack of evidence only proves a lack of evidence. — Rank Amateur

Standing by it is not the same as justifying it. What's your counter to the claim that a sufficient lack of evidence in support of a proposition constitutes reasonable grounds for not believing it?

Standing by it is not the same as justifying it. What's your counter to the claim that lack of evidence in support of a proposition constitutes reasonable grounds for not believing it? — S

I have no need to support it, I am not trying to change your POV. I have no issue at all with what you believe. I can't prove to you that God is, is a fact. So I don't try. I can't prove to you that atheism is not reasonable, so I don't. Your beliefs do not bother me, and I have never challenged you on them.

It seems rather apparent that mine bothers you, you are the one making the repeated claim that my faith based theism is in error. It is you making the claim - and you who should make the argument to support it.

I wonder if it's useful to judge spiritual experience as you do? Experience, not just the spiritual sort, is , er, experienced. It happens, and we accept it.

Analysis can come later, if you're that way inclined, but will analysis change the experience? In any way at all? No, it won't. Is a spiritual experience different if the estimated statistical probability of it happening is very high, or very low? No, it isn't. Is a spiritual experience less meaningful because someone here says that only scientifically-justified things are worthy of your attention? No. And so on....

I have no need to support it, I am not trying to change your POV. I have no issue at all with what you believe. I can't prove to you that God is, is a fact. So I don't try. I can't prove to you that atheism is not reasonable, so I don't. Your beliefs do not bother me, and I have never challenged you on them.

It seems rather apparent that mine bothers you, you are the one making the repeated claim that my faith based theism is in error. It is you making the claim - and you who should make the argument to support it. — Rank Amateur

See, most of that doesn't actually address the points I make. It's not about challenging my stance, it is about supporting yours, and you can do so in relation to my stance, which is why I bring up my stance. I am not requesting "proof". I don't use that term because it is ambiguous and might lead to misunderstanding. I'm requesting whatever support you judge to be sufficient, and then once that's out in the open, I can assess it. But I can't assess it if you keep it to yourself, can I? Philosophy is about making these assessments, and this is a philosophy forum for that purpose. Why don't you want to do philosophy?

Do you accept that your faith based theism is in error if you want to distinguish your faith based theism epistemologically from faith based teapotism? The equivalence is in terms of the lack of evidence, not in any other sense you can come up with, like what we generally know about teapots or what attributes they have. Do you think that there's more evidence for God than a space teapot? Do you think that there's sufficient evidence for God, but not for a space teapot? What do you think? Philosophy is about investigating and testing these things. Sometimes yourself and others give me the impression that you're chastising me for being philosophical, on a philosophy forum of all places.

My belief is, as always, that my theism is a matter of faith, and that faith is not inconsistent with fact or reason. — Rank Amateur

This is the bit we argue over, as you well know. Faith is inconsistent with reason. They are two fundamentally different things, and they lead to fundamentally different places for the two of us. Reason leads me to reject what you have faith in.

And you aren't justified in claiming that it's not inconsistent with fact, because you don't know what the factual situation is regarding the existence of God, and if you don't know that, then how can you say whether it is or isn't inconsistent with fact? In a previous lengthy discussion on this, you eventually withdrew that claim for a differently worded claim where you qualified that you only meant something like scientific or empirical fact, but that lengthy discussion apparently achieved nothing of lasting value, as you quickly revert back as though we never even had that lengthy discussion.

Let's not go round and round all day, like twitter. Let's do philosophy .

We make an argument to influence others that their view is in error, or to convince them that our view is correct/better/ more reasonable.

If one has no interest in either of these objectives - he has no need to argue.

I have no interest in changing your mind, I have no need to argue anything to you.

If you wish to change mine, make a complete and coherent argument with clear propositions and conclusions and I will answer them as honestly as I can.

Let's not go round and round all day, like twitter. Let's do philosophy. — Rank Amateur

That's what I've been aiming at all along, but you seem unwilling.

We make an argument to influence others that their view is in error, or to convince them that our view is correct/better/ more reasonable.

If one has no interest in either of these objectives - he has no need to argue.

I have no interest in changing your mind, I have no need to argue anything to you.

If you wish to change mine, make a complete and coherent argument with clear propositions and conclusions and I will answer them as honestly as I can. — Rank Amateur

My goodness. Do you want to do philosophy or not? Because the above is just excuse and red herring. If you want to do philosophy, please go back to my post and properly engage my philosophical enquiry. You avoided all of my questions.

Faith is inconsistent with reason. — S

because........., and support please - or it is just opinion

They are two fundamentally different things, — S

agree

Reason leads me to reject what you have faith in. — S

because......., and support please - or it is just opinion

, because you don't know what the factual situation is regarding the existence of God. — S

and neither do you.

My goodness. Absolutely ridiculous.

My goodness. Do you want to do philosophy or not? Because the above is just excuse and red herring. If you want to do philosophy, please go back to my post and probably engage my philosophical enquiry — S

it is not, but you calling every call for you to make and support your positions a red herring is one.

it — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

is — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

not — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

but — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

you — Rank Amateur

No support! Provide an argument!

Go troll someone else.

and we are back to twitter.

what you really want to do is just argue, it in some way feeds your ego, or feeds some need that validates you. From the outside it appears to me your self worth is based on some view that you are an intellectual and these banters back and forth are your validation.

You are in no way really interested in an exchange of ideas - you just want to fight.

and we are back to twitter.

what you really want to do is just argue, it in some way feeds your ego, or feeds some need that validates you. From the outside it appears to me your self worth is based on some view that you are an intellectual and these banters back and forth are your validation.

You are in no way really interested in an exchange of ideas - you just want to fight. — Rank Amateur

You are insane. I gave you a very reasonable response, which attempted to pursue a philosophical enquiry. It contained no insults or personal attacks or rhetoric or pettiness. It wasn't an egotistical challenge or looking for a fight or anything like that. These are just ad hominem characterisations from you, not reasonable philosophy. You decided against the reasonable philosophical approach when presented to you.

Here it is: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/269900

One problem I have is with the move from the absence of a reasonable explanation to some story of powers, or forces, or realms, or reality, or Being, or beings. or a particular being or relationship between two special beings: God and man. In such stories man often has some unique privilege or place is the larger whole. It could be argued that such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but why should it be ruled in? Do we have good reason to think that this is the way things are other than the comfort this way of thinking may bring to us?

One problem I have is with the move from the absence of a reasonable explanation to some story of powers, or forces, or realms, or reality, or Being, or beings. or a particular being or relationship between two special beings: God and man. In such stories man often has some unique privilege or place is the larger whole. It could be argued that such a possibility cannot be ruled out, but why should it be ruled in? Do we have good reason to think that this is the way things are other than the comfort this way of thinking may bring to us? — Fooloso4

Yes, this way of thinking leads to such sayings as "if God is good, how come she allows tuberculosis into the world?" And the answer, of course, is that God is the God of everything, not just humanity. If She is the God of tuberculosis too, should She not care for the tuberculosis bacteria just as much as She cares for donkeys or humans? So yes, I agree with you: there's no reason to suppose that, if there is a Creator, that She created the universe for humans to use as their plaything.

So yes, I agree with you: there's no reason to suppose that, if there is a Creator ... — Pattern-chaser

Is there good reason to suppose that there is a Creator? I can't think of one, other than comfort. I do not find questionable interpretations of things we do not understand, such as the origins of the universe, the quantum world, and consciousness, persuasive.

When there is no definite information, we speculate. It's what we humans do. :smile: But speculation is not, of itself, persuasive, as you say. It can be interesting, though, and it can spawn ideas that eventually turn into something a lot more definite.... :chin:

But speculation is not, of itself, persuasive, as you say. It can be interesting, though, and it can spawn ideas that eventually turn into something a lot more definite.... — Pattern-chaser

There is a general sense in which I think this may be true but it is not clear how this relates to the stories we tell ourselves about man and God and the whole. What is the more definite thing? I can see how it may affect human behavior but this leaves open the questions of God and the whole.

but this leaves open the questions of God and the whole. — Fooloso4

I can't quite see what the "questions" are, that you refer to? :chin:

Given the title of the thread, questions regarding "Skeptics," Science, Spirituality and Religion.

When there is no definite information, we speculate. — Pattern-chaser

There's a massive difference between medieval-style speculation and modern-style speculation. A heck of a lot of people still think about certain things like someone from medieval times, but the number of people who think like that has been declining since the Enlightenment. But credit where credit is due. Some of the ancient Greek philosophers such as Anaxagoras, Democritus, and Aristotle, thought in the latter way, but then, sadly, Christianity and the Dark Ages came along.

Is there good reason to suppose that there is a Creator? I can't think of one, other than comfort. I do not find questionable interpretations of things we do not understand, such as the origins of the universe, the quantum world, and consciousness, persuasive. — Fooloso4

Me either. And what I strongly object to is:

"I go by blind faith, which is obviously in stark contrast to thinking reasonably, but I still want to associate my blind faith with reason and fact, and even though I take a very unphilosophical approach to this, I still want to pretend that I'm being philosophical about it".

You must admit that the terms are themselves rather broad. We can experience happiness or suffering in a variety of ways. I was thinking of it as a general barometer, but it can also be broken down into various aspects, such as stress level, general health and fitness, socialization, self actualization, etc etc.

Ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science, basically, rather than traditional moral codes given by religious authority.

There’s no reason that the full spectrum of moral intuitions couldn’t be taken into account. — praxis

Maybe no reason as such, but I have a feeling we’ll need more than reason for the full spectrum to be taken into account at the same time.

In the meantime, unless utilitarianism can reach anything close to a consensus (which I highly doubt), I’m not going to put my faith in science as a moral authority, any more than I would traditional religious doctrine.

In my opinion, morality is not an external authority, but an internal understanding of our interconnectedness. It’s not a code we impose on others or punish them by, but one we inspire them to realise and honour in themselves by our example. I recognise that historically this has not been the case, and I put that down to a combination of fear and logic, mainly. But that’s probably another discussion.

I’m not going to put my faith in science as a moral authority, any more than I would traditional religious doctrine. — Possibility

For essentially the same reason I assume: the potential for corruption by those in control of the science or doctrine.

I guess it's impossible to speculate about the corruptibility of an ethical utilitarianism supported or authorized by science because it has never existed, as far as I'm aware. You might think that it would be the most difficult for those with traditional values to adopt something like this but if it were true to the cause, progressives might have the hardest time meeting in the middle.

In my opinion, morality is not an external authority, but an internal understanding of our interconnectedness. It’s not a code we impose on others or punish them by, but one we inspire them to realise and honour in themselves by our example. — Possibility

A realization of interconnectedness is clearly a good rationalization for cooperation, and a justification that can be validated by science, I might add.

I don't think it's a useful characterization to suggest that the culture (and its moral norms) we are raised in is an imposition. For one thing, it's largely unconscious and not deliberately taught. Also, some moral intuitions are more nature than nurture.

We should recognize the role that authority plays in value systems that respect hierarchy, loyalty, and sanctity, even if we find it irrational.

↪Isaac I am talking here about experiences with less than a billionth chance of happening whose only possible explanations are spiritual. As I posted to another response,

https://sites.google.com/site/ilyashambatthought/logic-religion-and-spiritual-experience — Ilya B Shambat

Why are you referring to these experiences as "spiritual"? It seems to me that they would more accurately be described as psychic or metaphysically inexplicable. It would be a hard sell to build a religion around "master number" viewing, ex-husband telepathy or Argentinian clairvoyance, for instance.

I am not building a religion, I am talking about my experiences.

Perhaps you might be inclined to if your experiences offered some kind of spiritual insight that you felt could benefit others. Again, I’m just curious why you describe these experiences as spiritual, rather than psychic or whatever.