Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2015, 12:02 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  There's a third choice as well. That we don't have enough evidence to decide either way.

Your "simple reason" fails, when we consider the case of a man on trial for murder. There's only two option, he is either guilty or innocent. A lack of sufficient evidence to convict him doesn't mean he's innocent. It doesn't follow that because of a lack of evidence of ones guilt, that he's innocent. Anymore so than a lack of evidence of one's innocence, implies he is guilty.

Just as a lack of evidence of unintentionally, evidence that it was an accident, doesn't mean that it was intentional.

To move from that third choice, a lack of belief one way or the other, to confirming unintentionality requires evidence in support of it, not merely the absence of evidence for intentionality.

Also you can't eliminate intentionality, or guilt, based on the absence of evidence.

In this metaphor, the "murder" is the existence of the world, if created. The body is dead. So now you're trying to put a specific concept on trial: this man committed the murder (God created the world intentionally).

You're asking a question that focuses on the nature of the man on trial; we're saying that it's important to question the evidence directly. We see only a dead body, which is something we know happens naturally all the time. If you, as the "prosecutor" in this case, want to assert that this person committed the murder, then you're going to have to present a lot more than "it looks like" evidence to even raise the possibility enough to get a trial past the Preliminary Hearing phase. "Is it even a murder?" is the question we must begin with, and you have provided us with nothing but "well when someone murders someone, they are dead" as your basis for the rest of your points.

We're not even talking about guilt or innocence, here, we're talking "can you even prove this is a murder?", as in "upon what exact evidence are you basing this allegation?" When you said, "well it looks like a murder", and we replied with "no, this looks like a dead body that died of entirely-natural causes", you have chosen to attack the scientific method and our integrity, rather than providing serious evidence.

So forget "guilty or innocent", I'm asking what the hell are we even doing in this courtroom?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 12:04 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 12:08 PM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 11:23 AM)Free Wrote:  We certainly can base such as claim due to the simple reason that if there are ONLY two choices, and intentionality has been eliminated, then the only other choice you have is unintentionality.

It's that simple.

There's a third choice as well. That we don't have enough evidence to decide either way.

VOILA!

Hence, "We do not know."

Quote:Your "simple reason" fails, when we consider the case of a man on trial for murder. There's only two option, he is either guilty or innocent. A lack of sufficient evidence to convict him doesn't mean he's innocent. It doesn't follow that because of a lack of evidence of ones guilt, that he's innocent. Anymore so than a lack of evidence of one's innocence, implies he is guilty.

Just as a lack of evidence of unintentionally, evidence that it was an accident, doesn't mean that it was intentional.

To move from that third choice, a lack of belief one way or the other, to confirming unintentionality requires evidence in support of it, not merely the absence of evidence for intentionality.

Also you can't eliminate intentionality, or guilt, based on the absence of evidence.

You do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of "We do not know," and using simple reasoning to conclude that- despite the fact that we do not know- we have eliminated intentionality from the only two choices we have due to there being 0% evidence.

"We do not know," Tomasia, but what we DO know is that intentionality has not a shred of evidence for support.

And, since we have eliminated intentionality, then can you tell me what the only other choice indicates?

Again IF there are only two choices in the competition, and 1 has been eliminated, then the other wins by default.

You cannot eliminate both if they are the ONLY two options.

Did you not read the part where I said we cannot prove unintentionality conclusively? Proving it to be 100% true is not the point. The point is merely proving- which we did- that intentionality is false.

Therefore, with only two choices, and with intentionality being eliminated ...

What is the most likely truth?

Smartass

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Free's post
08-08-2015, 12:12 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Also you can't eliminate intentionality, or guilt, based on the absence of evidence.

If there is no evidence, there is no reason to give it any credence. Like 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, 12:18 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 11:39 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Also you can't eliminate intentionality, or guilt, based on the absence of evidence.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Do you understand what that means?

It means they are distinct from each other.

I am speaking about the evidence of the absence of evidence. The very absence of evidence is, in fact, evidence itself.

Having problems with your computer? Visit our Free Tech Support thread for help!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free's post
08-08-2015, 12:22 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:04 PM)Free Wrote:  You do not seem to be able to grasp the concept of "We do not know," and using simple reasoning to conclude that- despite the fact that we do not know- we have eliminated intentionality from the only two choices we have due to there being 0% evidence.

It's not the "we don't know", that I take issue with.

It’s the: “we don’t know, therefore intentionality has been eliminated.”

And the “we don’t know, therefore we should assume it was unintentional”

When it makes more sense to say:

"We don’t know whether it was intentional or unintentional. That we don’t have enough evidence to assume one way or the other." If you want to concede this point I’m fine with accepting that, but if you want to imply that we should default to unintentionality then I think your reasoning is flawed.

Quote:You cannot eliminated both if they are the ONLY two options.

I’m not sure why you think a lack of evidence eliminates a possibility, when it doesn’t.

I have 0% evidence to believe you are married. This doesn’t eliminate the possibility of you being married.

Quote:What is the most likely truth?

:smartass:

If you have two competing positions both of which have 0% evidence for, which is more likely to be true?

Or are you now going to argue that there's evidence for unintentionally, but not for intentionality?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 12:27 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  Or are you now going to argue that there's evidence for unintentionally, but not for intentionality?

The default position is unintentionality, to move from the default position requires a reason. When Newton saw an apple fall he didn't look up and think "I wonder who dropped that apple?"

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-08-2015, 12:30 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:27 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  The default position is unintentionality, to move from the default position requires a reason. When Newton saw an apple fall he didn't look up and think "I wonder who dropped that apple?"

The default position is I don't know. Moving to unintentionality requires a reason, just like moving to intentionality does.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Tomasia's post
08-08-2015, 12:37 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  I’m not sure why you think a lack of evidence eliminates a possibility, when it doesn’t.

I have 0% evidence to believe you are married. This doesn’t eliminate the possibility of you being married.

If you have two competing positions both of which have 0% evidence for, which is more likely to be true?

Or are you now going to argue that there's evidence for unintentionally, but not for intentionality?

Tomasia - As far as we can see, everything has a natural causation. That's not to say it's impossible that unnatural (or supernatural) causations exist, only that it seems to be an old explanation from when we didn't know how things worked, so we made stuff up, like "Thor causes the thunder with his hammer."

Natural causation is all around us; it is the explanation for nearly every phenomenon there is, and the few things we can't yet explain don't give any indication that there is a different explanation to be found there. Simple as that.

You are the one who is asserting there is a new phenomenon, here.

Seriously, try to imagine your reaction if someone came up to you and told you that invisible pixies cause you to have sexual desires-- "invisible pixies make you want to cheat on your wife with the hot neighbor-lady", for instance.

Would you be justified in saying there's no evidence for pixies, and that until you have much more solid evidence of pixies, you're going to rest comfortably on the idea that our sexual desires are caused naturally, along with all our other emotions, in the neurochemistry of our bodies/brains?

What if that pixie-believer accused you of being dishonest, in not wanting to believe in pixies, and in refusing to accept the possibility of pixies?

You'd laugh in their face, right?

Well that's exactly how we see your claims here. I'm not trying to be mean... that's just what we see. In this case, the lack of anything solid to assert, other than "Well it seems like pixies to me, so why can't it be pixies?", coupled with your assault on scientific naturalism, strikes us as utterly insane.

Literally, I can see no fundamental (geddit?) difference between your assertion of "causality" and the assertion of "pixie-caused emotions".

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 12:39 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
To put it another way, if you said you were married, but I saw no ring and had never seen you with a woman, let alone be around one long enough to be a wife... would I be wrong in assuming there was no reason to believe your story?

Now expand that concept to a world in which women were entirely mythological, and you asserted you were in fact "married" (whateverthehell that is) to one of these mythological beings. That's what we're discussing, here.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 12:42 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
I haven't read all of the posts on this thread, but jumping to a conclusion without evidence is IMO foolish, whether it's the conclusion of intentionality or unintentionality.

Admit what you don't know. Don't be scared of not knowing. There will always be a gap of human knowledge, IMO we should get over this fact.

This doesn't mean we can't guess and speculate. If I had to bet, I would bet towards unintentionality, but I can't honestly claim knowledge of unintentionality.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Matt Finney's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: