Also I can't pretend as if I know — Andrew4Handel

Yes, this is a problem for many, as either atheists or theists. To say for sure that 'God' is or is not is misleading at best and dishonest at worst, and they can easily be called on it. Preaching 'maybes' as 'maybes', of course greatly diminishes the impact the saying of getting followers for what is believed in. While we presume that many can see through this dodge, there may be unsuspecting adults or children listening to the 'maybes' touted as if they were truth and fact.

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, which is all we can do if we want to choose, which often we must, such as to go or not to church. Tough to sit on a fence, but it seems that's what has to be done, as agnostic.

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, — PoeticUniverse

He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely.

I think the only things that are impossible are logical contradictions.

There are things that will probably never happen but are not ruled out by the current laws of physics.

A square circle is definitionally impossible. But a a massive square is not impossible but may be physically implausible

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability,
— PoeticUniverse

He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely. — Coben

When we say 'The existence of God is unlikely' what does that mean?

I can interpret this a reflection of the subjective state of speaker's knowledge or belief and feel some appreciation for it (Bayesian?). Compare it to a statement about a roll of a die. 'Rolling six sixes (with fair die) in a row is unlikely', is for me a statement of 'objective' or classical probability.

Feel free to educate me if both statements can be appreciated with a comparable use of the word 'probability'.

Other statements that fall into the latter category include the probability of stars with planets around them (given the surveys of our skies and evidence of extra-solar planets).

Another statement that falls into the former category would be the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence.

How can statements of the former be conveyed with any conviction, persuading from a rational, rather than an emotional, spiritual or moral perspective? I can believe that you believe that God is likely/unlikely, but I'm not sure why I ought to believe it as well.

Again, my confidence on these matters is low. So feel free to provide references that I can use to educate myself.

Feel free to educate me if both statements can be appreciated with a comparable use of the word 'probability'. — JosephS

They cannot, unless one goes off on some extremely skeptical tangent in relation to the make up of mundane earthly reality as we know it, the dice scenario we have a lot of knowledge of the factors. How many universes have we studied to see how much they need or do not need deities? What branch of science does the testing for such things? And so on.

Another statement that falls into the former category would be the existence of extra-terrestrial intelligence. — JosephS

I agree, though I see this is somewhere on the spectrum closer to the dice scenario then the question of the deity.

I can believe that you believe that God is likely/unlikely, but I'm not sure why I ought to believe it as well. — JosephS

Sure. I find it really odd that in such discussions the experiences of the people involved are considered to not play a role. If person X has a wide variety of experiences that lead them to believe X is likely or true, and person Y does not, this can mean that each person reaches different conclusions about probability and BOTH can be being quite rational.

There is an overriding assumption that if it is not rational for me, then it is not rational for you. Or if you believe and it is rational, then you must be able to convince me, and often online, you must be able to convince me via words on a screen.

If we use the example of rogue waves. Sailors and others in ships on the ocean saw what they experienced as extremely large solitary waves in otherwise fairly calm seas. Scientists told them they were reacting emotionally and were incorrect, because then current models seemed to indicate that such waves were not possible. There is no reason to work with the model that if it is true then experiencers and non-experiencers should draw the same conclusion. After time technology changed and the bridges of ships had video cameras and it sure seemed that there were huge lone waves. Still there was resistence until satellite photography came in and they could be seen. Then the relevent scientists found a way to explain them - motivated by the knowledge that they did in fact exist.

Now the rogue wave experiencers should not expect that everyone believe them. They should understand that the experience is key - until such time that some other kind of evidence than witness reports can be provided - and the scientists and other experts should be wary of ruling something out because it does not fit with current models.

But no, in most such interactions it is as if there must be only one possible rational conclusion for all parties so you are close minded and you are a naive or delusional or hyper emotional simpleton.

Now, note, I am not weighing in here on the various reasons, for examples, people based on experience believe in God. I am black boxing that.

I am pointing out that there is something weird and also extremely wrong headed on the part of all parties when they expect that the other must believe or disbelieve regardless of experience. As if experience does not matter. And also what I consider ridiculous, the assumption that if you are rational about something, then you must be able to convince me through rational argument on paper/screen. That's practically insane.

How could they possibly have convinced strangers that what they experienced on the sea was in fact as they described it via reports? And yet they were rational to have believed in what they experienced and how they interpreted it.

In many situations different people with different experiences can be rational and yet reach different assessments of probability or the existence of certain entities (and other conclusions). And it might take decades before a bridge can be made. Or, in fact, such a bridge might never come.

I don't know if gods are an important unknown. It would probably depend on your notion of a god.

Certain's notions of gods would be less plausible or clearly non existent. I think the most valid reason to invoke a god is due to gaps in explanation such as a first cause.

I think the nature of consciousness and the afterlife are more important unknowns. I think the nature of consciousness would rule an after life in or out.

On a more immediate level there is the issue of promoting positive thinking. People have said "don't worry it might never happen" but what is the probability of things happening to you such as losing a job, getting cancer, finding a romantic partner etc. To some extent in the face of not knowing the future we have to have some kind of faith or blind optimism.

But it certainly seems dogmatism is not good, creating immovable dichotomies and in flexibility. Personally I have found it hard to get a secure anchor on reality.

I don't know if gods are an important unknown. It would probably depend on your notion of a god.

Certain's notions of gods would be less plausible or clearly non existent. I think the most valid reason to invoke a god is due to gaps in explanation such as a first cause. — Andrew4Handel

I disagree. For a couple of reasons. First it is as if one is not already in a belief system and looking at some options. And then one notes that one does not have an explanation for X, and then decide that God would provide one. I think that is an extremely rare situation. It is more likely that one has grown up influenced by religion, directly or not, and experiences of that religion or that notion of God either seem to 'work' or work, so there is no real reason to move away from them, or one reaches to the religion (at all or more deeply) or to God (as one thinks of it) and this helps, or out of curiosity or yearning one engages in the practice (more or in a real way for the first time) and the practices lead to experiences which seem to fit and/or the process makes one feel better and one's intuition is it is correct, in the main, in part, to some important degree. This is much clearer in, say, some versions of Hinduism where practice is central and experience is central and talked about constantly as part of getting feedback on practices. It is a decidedly empirical process - which of course does not mean it is corrent is some, all or any of the conclusions or explanations.

Here is the West, often in intellectual discussions, it is as if we arrive at beliefs via argument and deduction or, often, the empircal research of others.So when people thing of theism or religion or spirituality or belief in God, it is as if one can only rely on arguments and experts or faith. But, in fact there is a huge empircal (that is to say, experiential) facet to this.

There are reasons not to believe in mainstream religions because of problems with their scriptures such as contradiction, incoherence etc.
I am not devaluing experience. I have personally never had a religious experience or encountered God and I spent my whole childhood in a religious environment.

I am not ruling out the idea that some experiences may be spiritual or linked to a god. However from my experience this would have to be an indirect connection because I have no reason to attribute any experiences to gods but I can speculate about causality.

If I personal encountered God tomorrow I wouldn't be able to prove this to anyone probably, so I could not use this to convince anyone else of God's existence.

I think it possible to believe in some kind of deist version of God by reason alone if you feel there are substantial gaps in our knowledge or explanation that might need filling by a deity. I believe this kind of thought led Famous atheist philosopher Antony Flew to a form of Deism.

But I think consciousness is the most challenging phenomena because we know things through consciousness but don't understand the consciousness that is the basis of our knowledge so it has led to extreme forms of skepticism.

I am most interested here in the value of unknowns.

As I mentioned in my first post the number of grains of sand appears to be an unimportant unknown but other unknowns could be life changing or mind changing.

For example I cannot know how many grains of sand are on a beach or how many stars are in the universe — Andrew4Handel

This is not true. I just looked up an estimate on the web that says there are 1 EE 21 stars. It would be relatively easy to figure out the number of grains of sand on a beach - do an accurate survey of the surface. Figure out the bottom of the sand layer using test pits or seismic geophysics. Measure the average specific gravity of the grains and porosity of the sand using geotechnical methods. Then calculate the number of grains. Of course our estimates will have significant uncertainty, but knowledge we use every day does too.

However I think that when it comes to the nature of consciousness, the afterlife,morality and gods these are important unknowns — Andrew4Handel

You are mixing up types of things here, making for a sloppy argument.

• The nature of consciousness is a scientific question - a matter of fact. People are working on it and have had success. Consciousness is no great mystery.
• Morality is a matter of human value and preference. No amount of study will come up with a definitive statement.
• As for God, I think that's a funny mixture of both fact and metaphysics.
• I guess ditto for the afterlife.

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, which is all we can do if we want to choose, which often we must, such as to go or not to church. Tough to sit on a fence, but it seems that's what has to be done, as agnostic. — PoeticUniverse

I assume we are talking about Richard Dawkins. I don't know what his basis for the 1 in a quadrillion probability is, but he is a notorious shill for atheism. His hatred for religion overshadows every statement he makes on the subject. I write this as someone who has no particular religious beliefs.

I think the only things that are impossible are logical contradictions.

There are things that will probably never happen but are not ruled out by the current laws of physics.

A square circle is definitionally impossible. But a a massive square is not impossible but may be physically implausible — Andrew4Handel

I think I agree that nothing is impossible when it comes to whatever reality exists outside our minds. As for logical contradictions, they aren't possible or impossible. Logic is just a method for manipulating symbols. And the possibility of a squared circle is just a matter of definition - a circle is the set of points in two dimensions equidistant from a single point. A square is a four-sided, two-dimensional geometrical figure with four straight, equal sides and four equal angles. Saying you can't square the circle is like saying you can't dog the cat.

There are reasons not to believe in mainstream religions because of problems with their scriptures such as contradiction, incoherence etc. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but I was focusing on the reasons people believe.

I am not devaluing experience. I have personally never had a religious experience or encountered God and I spent my whole childhood in a religious environment. — Andrew4Handel

That doesn't contradict my points. I am not saying that all people who are raised in the church or in a religion will have those experiences, seek them, engage in practices with any particular interest, etc. I was describing what I hear from people who believe. That even in the states, where practice is often toned down, people will refer to experiences they have, in church, socially in the religion, in experiences that fit the more traditional religious experience - not necessarily visions of angels or such dramatic things, but a sense of peace or connection after prayer, etc. IOW they are not believers because they decided to fill in the gaps, say, around what set the Big Bang in motion or why is the universe seemingly so fine tuned, but rather out of their experiential lives. This is even truer of people who turn to religion out of despair, catastropy, addiction, powerful experiences. I don't think I have ever met anyone who is religious or a theist because God filled in the gaps in knowledge. Yes, theists will often argue in online discussions and elsewhere, but it's not what made them or kept them theists. And if you investigate how they became theists you will hear experience based answers.

If I personal encountered God tomorrow I wouldn't be able to prove this to anyone probably, so I could not use this to convince anyone else of God's existence. — Andrew4Handel

Sure, but it might affect your own belief. That was the topic in my post. Perhaps it was too much of a tangent. People believe all sorts of things they can't convince others are the case. I would say we all do.

I see your last post about what you are most interested in and I will try to keep my focus on that if I participate.

Also I can't pretend as if I know. Some people try and argue with you such as saying gods are really implausible or there is no afterlife etc. I don't think you can entirely prove something by argument but only evidence resolves things. (I think this is why philosophy struggles because arguments don't trump evidence or aren't as compelling) — Andrew4Handel

Knowing something doesn't imply that you know it with certainty or that it's provable.

Certainty and provability are simply about whether something necessarily follows in the particular axiomatic system that we've chosen to operate under, anyway.

Knowing something doesn't imply that you know it with certainty or that it's provable. — Terrapin Station

I think if you know something then it has to be certain.

I believe the Moon exists because I have experienced it. My experience might be an illusion however I can be certain that I had that experience.

I think knowledge without provability is belief. uncertainty can be a healthy skepticism.

The nature of consciousness is a scientific question - a matter of fact. People are working on it and have had success. Consciousness is no great mystery. — T Clark

What kind of success do you believe consciousness studies have had?

I don't think I have ever met anyone who is religious or a theist because God filled in the gaps in knowledge — Coben

I wasn't claiming that I was saying that we could propose a deity based on gaps in our knowledge.

If there were no gaps in our knowledge there might be no room for gods.

For example if I baked a cake I know what happened and have no need to propose the involvement of God directly.
The reason for my agnosticism is explanatory gaps and first cause issues.

I think some atheist have tried to rule out God by minimizing the kind of gaps a god might fill to the extent that they would propose a Universe from Nothing like Lawrence Krauss. That kind of atheism seems to be based on the notion there is no room or need for God in reality but I am not convinced of that position.

I think if you know something then it has to be certain. — Andrew4Handel

Then we wouldn't be able to make any empirical claim, including things as simple as "I know where I parked my car," "I know the title of Black Sabbasth's second album," "I know who holds the RBI record for the Yankees," etc.

You'd have to say "I don't know where I parked my car." etc. People who are depending on you for a ride might find that annoying.

a Universe from Nothing like Lawrence Krauss. — Andrew4Handel

Um, that was, unfortunately for good communication, referring to the physicist's nothing that isn't nothing; the zero-point field still has energy.

Then we wouldn't be able to make any empirical claim, including things as simple as "I know where I parked my car," — Terrapin Station

I don't see how this follows. You can be certain about where you parked you car. You don't know of your car has been stolen but that is statistically unlikely. You can know where you parked your car without knowing if it is still there.

I think the problem arises in cases such as when your car is stolen and prior knowledge and beliefs become irrelevant.

I don't see how this follows. You can be certain about where you parked you car. You don't know of your car has been stolen but that is statistically unlikely. You can know where you parked your car without knowing if it is still there. — Andrew4Handel

So what definition of certainty are you using?

So what definition of certainty are you using? — Terrapin Station

Having no good reason to doubt something.

Having no good reason to doubt something. — Andrew4Handel

Then why wouldn't you accept that for some people, there's no good reason to doubt the nature of consciousness, whether Gods exist, whether there's an afterlife, etc.?

Then why wouldn't you accept that for some people, there's no good reason to doubt the nature of consciousness, whether Gods exist, whether there's an afterlife, etc.? — Terrapin Station

I think other peoples reasons can be considered false. I don't think reason is subjective. This is why I differentiate between belief and knowledge.

Anyone can believe anything and have all manner of grounds for believing it but I don't think we can know something unless we are to a big degree certain.

Believing the earth is flat might be reasonable if you live in the Australian outback without access to modern education because that might be what experience tells you. But it is contextually reasonable but can easily be falsified by new information.

I think other peoples reasons can be considered false. I don't think reason is subjective. This is why I differentiate between belief and knowledge. — Andrew4Handel

There's no way to make what's a "good" reason non-subjective.

"Good" is necessarily subjective.

I meant valid

Valid per some arbitrary system of logic?

Somethings are internally contradictory or refuted by further evidence.

Somethings are internally contradictory or refuted by further evidence. — Andrew4Handel

Validity is relative to a logical system that we've adopted. For one, in traditional logic, any argument with contradictory premises is valid.

What kind of success do you believe consciousness studies have had? — Andrew4Handel

There are hundreds of neuroscience studies about the nature, scope, behavioral effects, and experience of consciousness. These have gotten more specific and detailed with the development of cognitive science techniques - PET scans, MRIs. Specific brain activity can be associated with specific mind activity - memory, emotion, thought, perception. This information has been used to try to understand the functional processes that go to make up consciousness. The one source I can steer you toward is "The Feeling of What Happens" by Antonio Damasio. I don't like the book much and I'm not sure if I buy his conclusions, but I found it a very plausible example of what a neuroscience description of consciousness might look like.

It is undeniable that some organisms are subjects of experience. But the question of how it is that these systems are subjects of experience is perplexing. Why is it that when our cognitive systems engage in visual and auditory information-processing, we have visual or auditory experience: the quality of deep blue, the sensation of middle C? How can we explain why there is something it is like to entertain a mental image, or to experience an emotion? It is widely agreed that experience arises from a physical basis, but we have no good explanation of why and how it so arises. Why should physical processing give rise to a rich inner life at all? It seems objectively unreasonable that it should, and yet it does. If any problem qualifies as the problem of consciousness, it is this one. (Chalmers 1995: 212)

I copied this out of the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It is David Chalmers's description of the "hard problem of consciousness," which I guess is why people think that consciousness is such a mystery. I must admit I don't get it. To me, this seems like an old Cheech and Chong routine. Two stoned guys who are overwhelmed and awed by the taste of Doritos and the music of the Grateful Dead.

Because science tracks physical interactions and presumes that most of these have no 'inner dimension'. What would give rise to something so different in kind from the mere jumbling of matter? If you starting from tendencies toward reductionism, thinking in terms of matter, that at some point matter starts having this inner experiencing is remarkable. If you start from phenomenology or a panpsychic perspective where consciousness is fundamental, then less so. So the defaults determine how odd something seems.

Dawkings is honest, surmising a one in a quadrillion chance for there to be 'God'; he goes by probability, — PoeticUniverse


He may be honest about the fact that he believes that, but it's a ludicrous claim. I can only assume he meant to mean something like, extremely unlikely. — Coben

Quite so. There is no statistical technique (that I know of) that will allow any numerical value to be placed on a hypothetical probability such as this. If Dawkins was truly a scientist, he would say as much: there is no way to quantify the probability of God existing (or not). If we want to guess, that's fine. But we should state that we're guessing, to fulfil our responsibility to our audience: not to mislead or deceive. :up:

Probabilities such as God existing cannot be quantified; no value can be placed upon them.