Why I'm a Theist
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
08-08-2015, 12:43 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:39 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  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?

No you wouldn't be. Because you know that men who don't wear wedding rings are likely to not be married. And that men who are frequently seen without a woman, are unlikely to be married as well.

So you wouldn't be wrong to assume this. Your assumption would be based on evidence: the fact that I wasn't wearing a wedding ring, that I'm frequently alone when I'm out, etc...
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 12:47 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:30 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

You are mistaken. The default position of unintentionality drives science to look for the underlying natural forces at work. Unintentionality assumes that there are natural forces at work to be discovered. If intentionality was as reasonable a default position as unintentionality we'd end up ascribing thunder and lightning to Zeus and "Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that."

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like GirlyMan's post
08-08-2015, 12:48 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 12:58 PM by Free.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:22 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(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.

No, again, let me take you back to the final thing I said in the post:

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.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid827764


Quote:
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.

For something to qualify it as being possible, some evidence to support such a possibility must be presented. To claim something as being possible carries the exact same burden of proof as claiming that something exists. It is a positive claim that requires evidence for support.

Hence, there is no evidence to support the possibility that intentionality is the truth.

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

Apples and Oranges Fallacy.

A comparison of apples and oranges occurs when two items or groups of items are compared that cannot be practically compared.

It's a false analogy.

Quote:
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?

Like I keep saying, IF there are ONLY two competing options, and ONE HAS BEEN ELIMINATED, then the other wins by default.

To dispute this position, please demonstrate with evidence how intentionality is possible.

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
08-08-2015, 01:01 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
Look, Free... you love your wife because of invisible pixies. It's just as plausible as your whole "neurological science" explanation. Both are possible explanations, and if you can't accept the truth of the pixies, it's just because you're a dishonest non-theist.

TEACH THE CONTROVERSY!

"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
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
08-08-2015, 01:05 PM (This post was last modified: 08-08-2015 01:08 PM by Tomasia.)
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You are mistaken. The default position of unintentionality drives science to look for the underlying natural forces at work. Unintentionality assumes that there are natural forces at work to be discovered. If intentionality was as reasonable a default position as unintentionality we'd end up ascribing thunder and lightning to Zeus and "Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that."

No it's not the driving force of science, nor is it an aspect of the scientific methodology. Science can ignore the question of intention all together. Just like a person can determine how a smartphone works, how it's various physical properties work together, without answering whether it was intentionally created or not.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 01:05 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 12:48 PM)Free Wrote:  No, again, let me take you back to the final thing I said in the post:

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.

http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...#pid827764

Wow, you just went from "seems less likely" to "eliminated" in the same sentence.

(08-08-2015 12:48 PM)Free Wrote:  For something to qualify it as being possible, some evidence to support such a possibility must be presented. To claim something as being possible carries the exact same burden of proof as claiming that something exists. It is a positive claim that requires evidence for support.

Hence, there is no evidence to support the possibility that intentionality is the truth.

This doesn't seem right to me. Let's look at the temperature of absolute zero. Isn't it possible that we don't know whether or not it is possible for matter to achieve this temperature? Something can be possible whether or not we know it, or have even pondered it.

However, I would agree that it is unreasonable to claim either possibility or impossibility without evidence, but again, certain phenomena are either possible or not, regardless of what any human thinks.....i.e. we don't need to know that it's possible for it to be possible (same with impossible).
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 01:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 12:47 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  You are mistaken. The default position of unintentionality drives science to look for the underlying natural forces at work. Unintentionality assumes that there are natural forces at work to be discovered. If intentionality was as reasonable a default position as unintentionality we'd end up ascribing thunder and lightning to Zeus and "Tide goes in, tide goes out. You can't explain that."

No it's the driving force of science,

Do you mean "Yes it's the driving force of science"?

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 01:07 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
how do these double posts keep happening? I thought for sure we had a mechanism for identifying them.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
08-08-2015, 01:08 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
It is so very simple, isn't it?

Let's say you live in a small bachelor apartment, with only a bathroom and one larger room. You used your cell phone 10 minutes ago, but forget where you set it down. You haven't left the apartment, and no one else lives there or entered the apartment that day, so you know that the cell-phone is somewhere in the apartment.

If you are looking for the phone, and you look in the bathroom and see nothing but a totally empty bathroom, then it's rather obvious that what you are looking for must be someplace else other than in that bathroom.

The bathroom has been eliminated.

Where is the phone?

Consider

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
08-08-2015, 01:09 PM
RE: Why I'm a Theist
(08-08-2015 01:07 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  
(08-08-2015 01:05 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  No it's the driving force of science,

Do you mean "Yes it's the driving force of science"?

No it's not the driving force of science,
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: