Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2015, 06:38 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 05:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

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

Since you just stated that you’re not making any other claim, lack of intentionality doesn’t seem to mean unintentional. Just like a lack of evidence of guilt, doesn’t necessarily mean one is innocent. So it would seem by “lack of intentionality” all that you mean is that there is insufficienct evidence, or no evidence for intentionality.

But I’ve been speaking about unintentionality. If you want to plead the fifth, and not make any claims to the accuracy of an unintentional reality, that all you want to claim is the lack of evidence for intentionality, than so be it.

Earlier you suggested we should accept unintentionally as the default, as the position for our working hypothesis. But if you prefer to accept Free’s position: “"We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know.” By all means go ahead.

Just be honest and clear about it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 07:01 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 05:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

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

Since you just stated that you’re not making any other claim, lack of intentionality doesn’t seem to mean unintentional. Just like a lack of evidence of guilt, doesn’t necessarily mean one is innocent. So it would seem by “lack of intentionality” all that you mean is that there is insufficienct evidence, or no evidence for intentionality.

But I’ve been speaking about unintentionality. If you want to plead the fifth, and not make any claims to the accuracy of an unintentional reality, that all you want to claim is the lack of evidence for intentionality, than so be it.

Earlier you suggested we should accept unintentionally as the default, as the position for our working hypothesis. But if you prefer to accept Free’s position: “"We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know.” By all means go ahead.

Just be honest and clear about it.

Stop wrapping yourself up in irrelevant analogies. "Pleading the fifth" is irrelevant and not applicable. Stop telling people what they think. You don't even know what you think.

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
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
08-08-2015, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 07:28 AM by Chas.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 05:26 AM)Chas Wrote:  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.

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

Since you just stated that you’re not making any other claim, lack of intentionality doesn’t seem to mean unintentional. Just like a lack of evidence of guilt, doesn’t necessarily mean one is innocent. So it would seem by “lack of intentionality” all that you mean is that there is insufficienct evidence, or no evidence for intentionality.

But I’ve been speaking about unintentionality. If you want to plead the fifth, and not make any claims to the accuracy of an unintentional reality, that all you want to claim is the lack of evidence for intentionality, than so be it.

Earlier you suggested we should accept unintentionally as the default, as the position for our working hypothesis. But if you prefer to accept Free’s position: “"We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know.” By all means go ahead.

Just be honest and clear about it.

I have been honest and clear.
  • There is no evidence of intentionality in the workings of the universe.
  • The default position is to not assume that for which there is no evidence.
  • Therefore, the logical working hypothesis for investigating reality is that there isn't any intentionality. Or pixies.

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
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
08-08-2015, 07:30 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 07:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have been honest and clear.
  • There is no evidence of intentionality in the workings of the universe.
  • Therefore, the logical working hypothesis for investigating reality is that there isn't any intenionality.

Yes, that much is clear, but we're talking about unintentionally for the moment.

Would you agree with this:

[*]There is no evidence of unintentionality in the workings of the universe.
[*]Therefore, the logical working hypothesis for investigating reality is that there isn't any unintentionally.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 07:49 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Tomasia - as far as unintentional actions go, I give you the earth rotating in orbit around the sun.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Rahn127's post
08-08-2015, 07:50 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(23-07-2015 04:59 PM)drewpaul Wrote:  1. The fact the universe exists

There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to think God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are in fact several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. None of those facts needs to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidential reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

The Universe does exist, but in all the understanding humankind does possess of its traits nothing has been discovered that puts any being at its 'control panel,' & claiming one where we have insufficient data to reach a formal theory is exactly the "god of the gaps" dilemma.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes 7R0MM3L's post
08-08-2015, 08:06 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 07:49 AM)Rahn127 Wrote:  Tomasia - as far as unintentional actions go, I give you the earth rotating in orbit around the sun.

How is that unintentional? Do you mean because it's able to rotate on it's own, sustained by the laws that govern it, but needing no active tinkering?

We could create a sim world, in which a sim sun, rotates around a sim earth, without any further involvement from the sims programer. But it would be a mistake for the sim inhabitants of this world to assume unintentionality, based on their sim earth rotating in orbit around the sun, all on it's own, governed by the laws that sustain it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 08:29 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Creating a virtual childbirth doesn't invalidate your own natural childbirth. Creating a SIM world with SIM people doesn't invalidate the natural world that the SIM creators were naturally born into.

Nature always comes first.

Insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 08:29 AM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 09:33 AM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 06:38 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Earlier you suggested we should accept unintentionally as the default, as the position for our working hypothesis. But if you prefer to accept Free’s position: “"We do not claim unintentionally. We say, "we don't know.” By all means go ahead.

Just be honest and clear about it.

"We don't know" is the intellectually honest position. It does not imply that anything is intentional or unintentional, however, from the position of "we don't know" we can infer a few logical things to formulate a hypothesis based upon either the evidence, or the lack of evidence.

In well applied logic and reasoning, we view the claim of "intentionally" with critical analysis, and arrive at the conclusion that since there is no evidence of intentionally, the claim is therefore 100% completely unproven.

What this means is that "intentionally" currently does not exist. When anyone makes a claim that something exists, such as "intentionally," they are making a positive claim of an existence. When no evidence is supplied to support said existence, and no evidence is supplied to even support the possibility of said existence, the intellectually honest thing to do is to dismiss both the claim of existence and the claim of possible existence as both being demonstrated as false.

They are false due to a 100% lack of evidence.

Now let me explain something else to you.

There is evidence of "unintentionally." That evidence is the following:

Evidence of Absence:

- is evidence of any kind that suggests something is missing or that it does not exist. For example:

If Alice bakes a pie, she then always places the pie on her window-sill.
She did not place a pie on her window-sill.
Therefore, Alice did not bake a pie.

Since it necessarily follows from the first premise that Alice will place the pie on her window-sill every time she bakes one, upon observing that there is in fact no pie on the window-sill, we can deduce that Alice did not bake a pie. This argument is called modus tollens in propositional logic, and is written in sequent notation in this manner:

P ⇒ Q, ¬Q ⊢ ¬P

Per the traditional aphorism, "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence", positive evidence of this kind is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed. In this regard Irving Copi writes:

"In some circumstances it can be safely assumed that if a certain event had occurred, evidence of it could be discovered by qualified investigators. In such circumstances it is perfectly reasonable to take the absence of proof of its occurrence as positive proof of its non-occurrence."

Therefore, the evidence of absence indicates that "intentionally" does not exist, and it is with this very same evidence that- since we only have 2 choices of intentionally or unintentionally- one must be the truth.

Since the evidence of absence indicates that intentionally cannot be the truth, then now perhaps you can understand why Chas suggests that unintentionally should be considered the default position.

There are only 2 choices, and the evidence indicates "unintentionally." Proving this conclusively is not required, nor if it were 100% true would it be even possible to conclusively prove. All that is required here is to acknowledge that which has evidence- any evidence- to be the other intellectually honest position to support, aside from "I don't know."

We can still say "we don't know" and still support the hypothesis of unintentionally because we do indeed have some evidence to support that position, in contrast to no evidence to support intentionally. Therefore, we can make the positive claim to support unintentionally for the simple reason that it has evidence, while intentionally does not.

We do not, however, make the positive claim that unintentionally is 100% conclusive and factual, but rather only that the evidence indicates it to be more likely than intentionally since we only have two choices, and "intentionally" has been eliminated. Therefore with only 2 choices, then by the process of elimination "unintentionally" becomes the default position.

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
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
08-08-2015, 10:18 AM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 07:30 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 07:22 AM)Chas Wrote:  I have been honest and clear.
  • There is no evidence of intentionality in the workings of the universe.
  • Therefore, the logical working hypothesis for investigating reality is that there isn't any intenionality.

Yes, that much is clear, but we're talking about unintentionally for the moment.

Would you agree with this:

[*]There is no evidence of unintentionality in the workings of the universe.

No, there is plenty of evidence that supports no intentionality. Things like crystallization.

Pro Tip: There is no thing called "unintentionality". There is either intention or not.

Quote:[*]Therefore, the logical working hypothesis for investigating reality is that there isn't any unintentionally.

No, "unintentionality" is simply the absence of intentionality. Your statement is just wrong.

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: