Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-08-2015, 06:51 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
This is a practical as well as a philosophical problem: Should we give weight to every unproven claim? Should we hold contradictory claims as being in some sense probably all true? We must have some mechanism for evaluating claims and surely "evidence" in its broadest sense must be the basis for any justified belief?

We seem to be able to describe an astounding range of physical properties and behaviours without reference to intentionality. Moreover references to intentionality seem to consistently conceal deeper unintentional realities in the sense that those who have held views based in intentionality have been consistently either proven false or have been unable to prove their claims. So given the range of claims available and the lack of corresponding evidence isn't it reasonable to continue applying a method that has consistently yielded results? Shouldn't we apply a method that places primacy on evidence and ignores hypotheses that remain unsupported by evidence? We might still find an intentional reality but while the evidence continues to flesh out an increasingly detailed and accurate unintentional reality applying belief to an intentional reality would seem not to be rationally justified.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
07-08-2015, 06:59 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 06:43 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:34 AM)Chas Wrote:  You are not understanding how claims work.

It is not reasonable to start with the hypothesis of something that has no evidence of existence.
Do you think it is just as reasonable to assume pixies as not?

I don't subscribe to the lack of belief motto. I believe pixies do not exist. It's not a working hypothesis, it's something I believe quite strongly. That all the evidence point to pixies merely being characters in fictional works, etc...

The only time in which I would say that I lack a belief, is if I couldn't decide one way or the other. I lack a belief in if you own a Japanese car, I have no reason to believe one way or the other, no basis to hypothesis one way or the other.

So please tell me why in an observation of an event, absent of evidence one way or the other, why I should default to a working hypothesis of unintentionality,

No - the working hypothesis simply does not include intentionality.

Quote:rather than just acknowledging that I don't know, or lack the data to start with one working hypothesis over the other?

A working hypothesis should include only those things for which their is good reason to assume them. Lacking evidence, neither intentionality nor pixies are reasonable to include.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-08-2015, 09:01 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(06-08-2015 09:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 05:10 PM)Free Wrote:  On a personal note, just one question:

Do you have a cunt?

That you can borrow? No.

Well no, I would not want to borrow it. I suspect it would be so worn out from getting fucked by the posters in this thread that its elasticity would be diminished to the point of a comparison to a hotdog being thrown down a fucking hallway.

Please carry on ...

How can anyone become an atheist when we are all born with no beliefs in the first place? We are atheists because we were born this way.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
07-08-2015, 09:16 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 09:01 AM)Free Wrote:  
(06-08-2015 09:44 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  That you can borrow? No.

Well no, I would not want to borrow it. I suspect it would be so worn out from getting fucked by the posters in this thread that its elasticity would be diminished to the point of a comparison to a hotdog being thrown down a fucking hallway.

Please carry on ...

Laugh out load Oh my fuck! Ahahahaha... Jesus... I feel kinda bad that I laughed so hard. Fuck Free. This is YOUR FAULT Angry

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 04:41 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 06:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  No - the working hypothesis simply does not include intentionality.

But you implied it should include unintentionality. That for some reason we should favor this over intentionality and go from there, even when there's no evidence one way or the other. This is just old fashion confirmation bias.

Quote: A working hypothesis should include only those things for which their is good reason to assume them. Lacking evidence, neither intentionality nor pixies are reasonable to include.

Don't you need evidence to have a "good" reason to assume something? Without evidence, shouldn't you avoid assuming anything at all?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 05:15 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 04:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  No - the working hypothesis simply does not include intentionality.

But you implied it should include unintentionality. That for some reason we should favor this over intentionality and go from there, even when there's no evidence one way or the other. This is just old fashion confirmation bias.

Quote: A working hypothesis should include only those things for which their is good reason to assume them. Lacking evidence, neither intentionality nor pixies are reasonable to include.

Don't you need evidence to have a "good" reason to assume something? Without evidence, shouldn't you avoid assuming anything at all?

Doh.
Finally you get it.
Lack of intentionality is not "unintentionality". It's just the absence of intentionality.
"Dismissed". It's a word you should look up.
Then consider yourself and your assumptions to be so.
Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 05:19 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 05:22 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(07-08-2015 06:51 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  We seem to be able to describe an astounding range of physical properties and behaviours without reference to intentionality. Moreover references to intentionality seem to consistently conceal deeper unintentional realities in the sense that those who have held views based in intentionality have been consistently either proven false or have been unable to prove their claims.

We do describe an astounding range of physical properties and behavior without reference intentionality or unintentionality. In the same way we could describe the physical properties of a smartphone, it's various parts and pieces, and how they behave without referencing intentionality. A man could believe the eye was designed, and another believe it wasn't, yet explain it's physical properties and behavior all the same.

But let's assume you're correct, that intentionality has been proven false. Have these various claims of intentionality been proven false, and shown that we don't know one way or the other? Or have they been proven false, and shown that it was all unintentional, non-deliberate?

The evidence for a man on trial, may be shown to have been tampered with, not reliable, leaving the Judge unable to convict him. This doesn't mean he was innocent, but rather there's not enough evidence to prove that he was guilty. The question of whether he is guilty or innocent is still left unanswered.

Is this how you and other's here see your position? That we don't have enough evidence to decide one way or the other, whether it was intentional or not. Or do you believe the evidence points to, shows or proves, that it was unintentional?

Quote:So given the range of claims available and the lack of corresponding evidence isn't it reasonable to continue applying a method that has consistently yielded results?

The method consistently yields results in describing the physical properties and behavior of something, but not necessarily shown that something was intentional or unintentional. Some folks looking at the results, would claim that it validates Physicalism, while it seems many here are reluctant to agree.

Quote:We might still find an intentional reality but while the evidence continues to flesh out an increasingly detailed and accurate unintentional reality applying belief to an intentional reality would seem not to be rationally justified.

I don't think it does show an increasingly detailed and accurate unintentional reality. It doesn't show the we're a product of a series of physical accidents, nor that physicalism is true. The fact the many atheists here and not just theists, don't find the physicalist reality to be true, to be less than convincing helps to prove the point.

When it comes to an unintentional reality, after a few conversations here, it seems that most are more likely to appeal to their lack of belief. Chas confidence in an unintentional reality is at best what he refers to as a "working hypothesis". While Free on the other had describes the general views of atheists, to quote: "We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know.""

While the consensus here would say there's no good evidence for an intentional reality, but as to whether there's good evidence for an unintentional one, the Jury is still out. While they seem to reject the case made by the intentionalist, they don't seem particularly convinced by the case made by the unintentionalist like Rosenberg either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 05:26 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 04:41 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:59 AM)Chas Wrote:  No - the working hypothesis simply does not include intentionality.

But you implied it should include unintentionality. That for some reason we should favor this over intentionality and go from there, even when there's no evidence one way or the other. This is just old fashion confirmation bias.

Only in your mind, unless you can accurately quote me doing that.

Quote:
Quote: A working hypothesis should include only those things for which their is good reason to assume them. Lacking evidence, neither intentionality nor pixies are reasonable to include.

Don't you need evidence to have a "good" reason to assume something? Without evidence, shouldn't you avoid assuming anything at all?

There is a difference between a hypothesis and a working hypothesis.

One can dream up anything one wants and call it a hypothesis. A working hypothesis is one that is evidence-based and potentially useful.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 05:28 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 05:31 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 05:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(07-08-2015 06:51 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  We seem to be able to describe an astounding range of physical properties and behaviours without reference to intentionality. Moreover references to intentionality seem to consistently conceal deeper unintentional realities in the sense that those who have held views based in intentionality have been consistently either proven false or have been unable to prove their claims.

We do describe an astounding range of physical properties and behavior without reference intentionality or unintentionality. In the same way we could describe the physical properties of a smartphone, it's various parts and pieces, and how they behave without referencing intentionality. A man could believe the eye was designed, and another believe it wasn't, yet explain it's physical properties and behavior all the same.

But let's assume you're correct, that intentionality has been proven false. Have these various claims of intentionality been proven false, and shown that we don't know one way or the other? Or have they been proven false, and shown that it was all unintentional, non-deliberate?

The evidence for a man on trial, may be shown to have been tampered with, not reliable, leaving the Judge unable to convict him. This doesn't mean he was innocent, but rather there's not enough evidence to prove that he was guilty. The question of whether he is guilty or innocent is still left unanswered.

Is this how you and other's here see your position? That we don't have enough evidence to decide one way or the other, whether it was intentional or not. Or do you believe the evidence points to, shows or proves, that it was unintentional?

Quote:So given the range of claims available and the lack of corresponding evidence isn't it reasonable to continue applying a method that has consistently yielded results?

The method consistently yields results in describing the physical properties and behavior of something, but not necessarily shown that something was intentional or unintentional. Some folks looking at the results, would claim that it validates Physicalism, while it seems many here are reluctant to agree.

Quote:We might still find an intentional reality but while the evidence continues to flesh out an increasingly detailed and accurate unintentional reality applying belief to an intentional reality would seem not to be rationally justified.

I don't think it does show an increasingly detailed and accurate unintentional reality. It doesn't show the we're a product of a series of physical accidents, nor that physicalism is true. The fact the many atheists here and not just theists, don't find the physicalist reality to be true, to be less than convincing helps to prove the point.

When it comes to an unintentional reality, after a few conversations here, it seems that most are more likely to appeal to their lack of belief. Chas confidence in an unintentional reality is at best what he refers to as a "working hypothesis". While Free on the other had describes the general views of atheists, to quote: "We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know.""

While the consensus here would say there's no good evidence for an intentional reality, but as to whether there's good evidence for an unintentional one, the Jury is still out. While they seem to reject the case made by the intentionalist, they don't seem particularly convinced by the case made by the unintentionalist like Rosenberg either.

No. There is no "jury". Reality is not determined by jury.
If you think suffering children reveals intention, then your idiot deity is evil incarnate.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 05:30 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 05:19 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  While the consensus here would say there's no good evidence for an intentional reality, but as to whether there's good evidence for an unintentional one, the Jury is still out. While they seem to reject the case made by the intentionalist, they don't seem particularly convinced by the case made by the unintentionalist like Rosenberg either.

Please explain what you think is the difference between "lack of intentionality" and "unintentional".

My position is completely clear: there is no evidence of intentionality in the workings of the universe. I am not making any other claim.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: