Why There is no Empirical Proof That God Exists
In our last comment section debate pixie seemed pit off that I used rational warrant as my standard of argument rather than proving the existence of God through empirical roof. I feel this is an u fair standard since God is not given in sense data. This means the rational warrant standard is justified. Here's why God is not recieved in empirical data.
Atheists are intent upon echoing the constant refrain, "no empirical proof for God." If God is empirical then the lack of empirical proof counts against belief. Yet, there's more to this than just a demand for evidence of some fact. They have vested an entire world view in the notion that empirical knowledge is the only valid knowledge. So they are willing to give up logically obvious positions in order to get this child's advantage of being able to insist that our little limited view point on this dust mote in a vast sea we have yet to plumb, is somehow indicative of real empirical proof of the nature of the universe.
One example of the sacrifice of logic to push empiricism is seen in my recent confrontation with an atheist (call him "Dusty") on Victor Reppart's Dangerous Idea blog. [1] Defending Hartshorne's modal argument I advanced the notion that if God can be conceived analytically without contradiction then God is not impossible. He of course assumes that science is the only form of knowledge so for him empirical evidence is more real than deduction. In fact he thinks inductive reasoning is just pretending, He treats my argument a though I said if there's no contradiction then God is empirical. If there is no logical contradiction then God is possible not proven. The thing that takes God beyond mere possibility is being non-contingent not being uncontradictory.
From time to time atheists have tried to disprove God with parsimony. Or they might at least argue that parsimony renders belief less likely. [2] If God is not given in empirical data then God is not subject to the demands of parsimony its unfair to expect it. I don't imagine that parsimony would prove anything anyway it'snot a proof. There are different kinds of parsimony and belief in God meets some of them. For example, God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism. [3] Just as the more insightful atheists, such as Parsons, don't argue to disprove God but in terms of likelihood, then so to do i argue not to prove god but to warrant belief. Belief may be warranted without proving the existence of God.
To many atheists God is contrary to the rules of science because he's the product of something called "supernatural."[4] They don't have the slightest idea where the concept comes from or what it really says, but they are sure it's stupid and don't' want anything do to with it. So God can't be parsimonious because he's supernatural. These atheists are merely reacting to the modern post enlightenment concept of SN as that which stands in opposition to scientific data or modern secular thinking.It really ha nothing to do with the Christian concept of the Supernatural.[5] The so Called Rules of science are not a guide to ontology.That God is not given in empirical data is a function of God not given sense data, that is not a disproof it merely means that God represents an aspect of beyond that beyond our ability to spy on.
God could only be the subject of parsimony if he is the object of empirical investigation. I can see why atheists want this to be true, because they could pretend that they've ruled out God, with their penchant for ignoring God arguments, and their glass half empty outlook which always finds the negative, the dark, the bad, refuses proof, refuses the benefit of a doubt only the cutting edge of doubt. But God is not the object of empirical investigation, nor can he be by definition. thus he cannot be judged by parsimony. The whole idea contradicts phenomenology in the first place. So typical of atheists to cherry pick reality so they accept the schools of philosophy that help them and consign as hog wash any kind of thinking that they can't understand (which is most of it).
God cannot be empirical. There are three reasons. These reasons are deductive. The reasons themselves do not require empirical proof because they are deductive. In fact they could not be empirical and claim to prove that God is beyond the empirical because they would have to have empirical evidence of God to say that, which would be a contradiction.
The three reasons are absolute:
God is not given in sense data.
Empirical means experienced first hand. In modern terms we speak of empirical proof in terms of scientific observation but it's not really empirical in the traditional sense. It's really inductive reasoning, it's extrapolation from a representative sample to a generalized probability. If God was a big man in the sky with a localized existence I would say the lack of empirical proof is a good reason not believe. But God is more basic than that. God is more analogous to the laws of physics in that we know his effects but he has no localized existence that can be observed directly.
God is not a thing in creation,
Not a thing alongside other things that is, but is the basis of reality: God is being itself. If we could say the universe contains trees and oranges, and mutt dogs and swizzel sticks and mud pies and jelly and fish and comic books and flt tires and roofs and taxes and stupid people, and God, then they would have a point. What's wrong with this list? God is not just another thing. God created all that stuff and everything else. Nothing would exist without God. So God is not along side jelly and swizzle sticks in creation. As St. John of Damascus said "God exists on the order of Being itself." God is not a product of things in creation, god is the basis of all reality. Thus, God may not be treated as things in creation. God is not contingent because he' snot produced by a prior thing. He's not part of creation, the basis of it, so obviously he can't be given in sense data he can't be understood in a empirical way.
The graphic that I have chosen above really says it all. Reality itself is framed by God, by God's being and creative energies but we ca't see that because it's the frame it'most a tangible thing in tyhw world or not given in sense data.
God is eternal.
Because God always was, never came to be, is not dependent upon anything else for his existence, we can say that God, if there is a God, then God had to be, it's not a matter of maybe God might not have existed. God must be either necessary or impossible. This is what Harsthorne drives home in this modal argument.
Because the concept of God is that of eternal necessary being, God cannot be contingent and since empirical things can only be contingent, God cannot be the object of empirical study. These arguments prove conclusively and beyond question that God cannot be empirical. Since God cannot be empirical it makes prefect since that there is no obvious evidence for God in of the kind some atheists seek, such as stars lining up to spell out his name or any of that nonsense. It might just be that God is parsimonious in some sense, but not in the sense of being more scientific. which is I think the way most atheists use the term "Parsimony" (because they don't know any better).
Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God. For that I recommend my book
Order from Amazon
Ground breaking research that boosts religious arguemnts for God to a much stronger level. It makes experience arguments some of the most formidable.Empirical scientific studies demonstrate belief in God is rational, good for you, not the result of emotional instability. Ready answer for anyone who claims that belief in God is psychologically bad for you. Order from Amazon
Sources
[1] Stardusty psyche, "Exchange with David Brightly," "comments," Dangerous Idea blog
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10584495&postID=5659799769651012438
(accessed 1/18/17)
there are 221 comments and still running,
[2] Stenger 2007, pp. 17–18, citing Parsons, Keith M. (1989). God and the Burden of Proof: Plantinga, Swinburne, and the Analytical Defense of Theism. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-0-87975-551-5.
Original Stemger is Victor J. Stenger, (2007). God: The Failed Hypothesis—How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books. ISBN 978-1-59102-652-5.
[3] Joseph Hinman, "Eligance of The God Hypothesis," Doxa: Christian Thought in thei21st Century, On line Resoirce no date imndicted. URL:
http://www.doxa.ws/cosmological/Elgegance.html (accessed 1/18/17)
it is not a contradiction on my part to say that my Parsimony argument might offer rational warrant to believe, but that God is not a subject of parsimony. I said there is a distinction in types. What atheists mean by it and what I mean by the term are two different things. My argument turns upon being an elegant idea, so God need not be empirical to be judged elegant; all one need know is a concept
[4] Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016).
see also Stenger, Failed hyp.... op cot
[5] Benson Saler, “Supernatural as a Western Category,” Ethos, Vol. 5, issue 1, first published online 28 Oct., 2009, 31-53 35. PDF URL: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/eth.1977.5.1.02a00040/pdf (accessed 1/25/2016).
Comments
There are some issues...
The first is the double standard. There are so many times you use the fact that science has not proved something to make a point (for example, "From time to time atheists have tried to disprove God with parsimony" in this very post), but you only claim "rational warrant" for your own claims. If you are only giving rational warrant, then you cannot demand your opponent prove their claims.
The second, and wider, issue is that "rational warrant" appears to be a way to prop up your faith beliefs. You have decided Christianity is true, and you then rationalise that belief by saying you have "rational warrant" for it. If that is what you want to do, then I suppose that is fine. I am interested in knowing what is true.
You cannot magically convert "plausible" to "certain". This is wrong: X is plausible, therefore we have "rational warrant" to think X is true, therefore it is reasonable to be certain X is true.
Let us say we are about to roll a standard six-sided dice. The result could be a six, and you could make a good argument that you have "rational warrant" for believing that it will be a six - after all I cannot prove it is not a six. But the chances are that it will not be a six. You want it to be a six, and you are rationalising your belief that it will be a six, but the reality is that it could be any number from one to six. The proper answer is that we do not know what the result will be.
Pix
Joe: For example, God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism.
No it not. Just because it can be summed up in one word that does not make it elegant. God is not an economic solution because it comprises all of nature, plus a hugely complex, all-powerful, intelligent being. Naturalism only comprises nature.
Joe: God is more analogous to the laws of physics in that we know his effects but he has no localized existence that can be observed directly.
You are aware that there is empirical evidence for the laws of physics, right? If God is analogous to them, we would expect evidence for God too.
Joe: He's not part of creation, the basis of it, so obviously he can't be given in sense data he can't be understood in a empirical way.
How does that follow? Just saying "obviously" does not make it obvious.
Joe: Because the concept of God is that of eternal necessary being, God cannot be contingent and since empirical things can only be contingent, God cannot be the object of empirical study.
How does that follow?
Joe: Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God. For that I recommend my book
So right after giving three reasons why there cannot be empirical evidence of God you promptly tell us that actually there is!
Pix
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Joe: In our last comment section debate pixie seemed pit off that I used rational warrant as my standard of argument rather than proving the existence of God through empirical roof. I feel this is an u fair standard since God is not given in sense data. This means the rational warrant standard is justified. Here's why God is not recieved in empirical data.
There are some issues...
The first is the double standard. There are so many times you use the fact that science has not proved something to make a point (for example, "From time to time atheists have tried to disprove God with parsimony" in this very post), but you only claim "rational warrant" for your own claims. If you are only giving rational warrant, then you cannot demand your opponent prove their claims.
You are confused about the nature of proof. One must prove one's claims. That does not mean you have to prove God. I claim belief is warranted then I must prove that and supply the warrant. I do that in my book. Moreover when one does make a claim that is empirical one must prove the empirical claim with empirical evidence. God is not an empirical claim.
The second, and wider, issue is that "rational warrant" appears to be a way to prop up your faith beliefs. You have decided Christianity is true, and you then rationalise that belief by saying you have "rational warrant" for it. If that is what you want to do, then I suppose that is fine. I am interested in knowing what is true.
that is poisoning the well. You are just saying I can't support anything I believe in it'll always be biased. Rational warrant has a specific meaning there are criteria. Read Chapter one of the Trace of pod where I lay them out.
You cannot magically convert "plausible" to "certain". This is wrong: X is plausible, therefore we have "rational warrant" to think X is true, therefore it is reasonable to be certain X is true.
warrant does not mean certain.It means good a good reason. all good reasons are not certainties. I have a good reason to think X is the case. that might imply a degree of certainty but not complete certainty.
Let us say we are about to roll a standard six-sided dice. The result could be a six, and you could make a good argument that you have "rational warrant" for believing that it will be a six - after all I cannot prove it is not a six. But the chances are that it will not be a six. You want it to be a six, and you are rationalising your belief that it will be a six, but the reality is that it could be any number from one to six. The proper answer is that we do not know what the result will be.
that is analogous to adopting a world view level belief system. The roll of dice is really pretty shallow a a reason when you consider the depth and intimacy of Christian belief/ It's a different kind of certainty required Sense of personal conviction.
No it not.
Yes it is
Just because it can be summed up in one word that does not make it elegant.
that's not the reason ,It sounds like you totally misunderstood an argumet i once tried to make for parsimony
God is not an economic solution because it comprises all of nature, plus a hugely complex, all-powerful, intelligent being. Naturalism only comprises nature.
god is not complex in the sense you are using it. Quote the opposite. drum ass Dawkins tried to argue God was complex but he merely assumed that Good is a big biological orgasm.The idea that God plus nature means a more complex God than Nature alone really misses the point about God, Nature does not ad to God;s complexity,
Joe: God is more analogous to the laws of physics in that we know his effects but he has no localized existence that can be observed directly.
You are aware that there is empirical evidence for the laws of physics, right? If God is analogous to them, we would expect evidence for God too.
that has nothing to do with it. Being analogs in one way does not mean God takes on all aspects of the laws of physics.
Joe: He's not part of creation, the basis of it, so obviously he can't be given in sense data he can't be understood in a empirical way.
How does that follow? Just saying "obviously" does not make it obvious.
simple and logic = obvious. he cant e given in sneeze data he can;t be empirical because that's what empirical is. OS that is obvious.True by definition is obvious
Joe: Because the concept of God is that of eternal necessary being, God cannot be contingent and since empirical things can only be contingent, God cannot be the object of empirical study.
How does that follow?
one thing contingent means is to be dependent upon a prior thing for one;s origin. whatever is eternal cannot be have an origin and thus annot be dependent, so that means eternal = not continent.
Joe: Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God. For that I recommend my book
So right after giving three reasons why there cannot be empirical evidence of God you promptly tell us that actually there is!
Because it;s not empirical evidence of God it;'ss evidence of the trace of God or the co-determinate, God correlate. So that;s warrant got Belief. so warrants can be backed empirical data.
So how come you so rarely do so? Where did you prove "Modern Thought rejects TS outright"?
Joe: That does not mean you have to prove God. I claim belief is warranted then I must prove that and supply the warrant. I do that in my book. Moreover when one does make a claim that is empirical one must prove the empirical claim with empirical evidence. God is not an empirical claim.
Except when he is. "Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God."
Joe: that is poisoning the well. You are just saying I can't support anything I believe in it'll always be biased. Rational warrant has a specific meaning there are criteria. Read Chapter one of the Trace of pod where I lay them out.
Which came first, your Christian faith, or the rational warrant to support it?
Joe: warrant does not mean certain.It means good a good reason. all good reasons are not certainties. I have a good reason to think X is the case. that might imply a degree of certainty but not complete certainty.
I have good reason to believe I will get a six when I roll a dice. Is that rational warrant?
Having good reason to think something is so does not necessarily imply it is likely. There may well be other, and better, reasons to think it is not true. I have more reason for thinking it will not be a six on my dice.
I guess the issue here is that rational warrant is such a weaselly term.
Joe: that is analogous to adopting a world view level belief system. The roll of dice is really pretty shallow a a reason when you consider the depth and intimacy of Christian belief/ It's a different kind of certainty required Sense of personal conviction.
Ah, so when it comes to religion, rational warrant is quite a different thing to otherwise. How we use rational warrant is, it seems dependent on how deep the question is. Or how much we want to believe the answer?
Joe: that's not the reason ,It sounds like you totally misunderstood an argumet i once tried to make for parsimony
Or your argument was flawed...
Joe: god is not complex in the sense you are using it. Quote the opposite. drum ass Dawkins tried to argue God was complex but he merely assumed that Good is a big biological orgasm.The idea that God plus nature means a more complex God than Nature alone really misses the point about God, Nature does not ad to God;s complexity,
How are YOU measuring complexity?
I have no idea how you can think [God+nature] is less complex than [nature] unless you think God has negative complexity!
Joe: that has nothing to do with it. Being analogs in one way does not mean God takes on all aspects of the laws of physics.
Then why use that as an analogy if this is an aspect so fundamental to the discussion?
Joe: simple and logic = obvious. he cant e given in sneeze data he can;t be empirical because that's what empirical is. OS that is obvious.True by definition is obvious
Just repeating that he cannot be given in sense data does not explain the logic that gets you to that conclusion.
Further, this is contradicted by your claim "Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God".
Joe: Because it;s not empirical evidence of God it;'ss evidence of the trace of God or the co-determinate, God correlate. So that;s warrant got Belief. so warrants can be backed empirical data.
So like the evidence for relativity or neutrinos? In modern science, evidence includes indirect evidence. If you really are talking about only evidence that we can sense directly, then you are arguing against a straw man.
Pix
Joe: You are confused about the nature of proof. One must prove one's claims.
So how come you so rarely do so? Where did you prove "Modern Thought rejects TS outright"?
That modern tough rejects the transcendental signified outright is not hard to prove, but don;t forget it's a choice it either rejects it outright or removes the personal dimension. All modern thinking does not reject the TS but removes the personal dimension such as God
Joe: That does not mean you have to prove God. I claim belief is warranted then I must prove that and supply the warrant. I do that in my book. Moreover when one does make a claim that is empirical one must prove the empirical claim with empirical evidence. God is not an empirical claim.
Except when he is. "Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God."
you need a basic course in language. that does not say I have proof of God it says empiric evidence (the evidence is empirical not God) the evidence warrants belief not proves God.
Joe: that is poisoning the well. You are just saying I can't support anything I believe in it'll always be biased. Rational warrant has a specific meaning there are criteria. Read Chapter one of the Trace of God where I lay them out.
Which came first, your Christian faith, or the rational warrant to support it?
why would that make any difference? So you discover an additional reason to hold beliefs you already hold does that negate the belief? why would it? logioc is logic.
Joe: warrant does not mean certain.It means good a good reason. all good reasons are not certainties. I have a good reason to think X is the case. that might imply a degree of certainty but not complete certainty.
I have good reason to believe I will get a six when I roll a dice. Is that rational warrant?
It could be if it;s a strong reason
Having good reason to think something is so does not necessarily imply it is likely. There may well be other, and better, reasons to think it is not true. I have more reason for thinking it will not be a six on my dice.
that's your burden to prove
I guess the issue here is that rational warrant is such a weaselly term.
That is total bull shit, You don't in rationality why argue? Warrant is a technical term with clear and distinct meaning. its part of logic. its the aspect of logical Argentine that affords one logical permission to accept a patriotism.
Joe: that is analogous to adopting a world view level belief system. The roll of dice is really pretty shallow a a reason when you consider the depth and intimacy of Christian belief/ It's a different kind of certainty required Sense of personal conviction.
Ah, so when it comes to religion, rational warrant is quite a different thing to otherwise.
you set up the comparison to rolling dice that is a shallow and simplistic issue. Obvious the dice might hit six but it's not very complex. It's rather inevitable. Clearly an argument for God is more complex and requires a different level of thought
the term simply means justified by reason us that really taxing your intellectual abilities?
Joe: that's not the reason ,It sounds like you totally misunderstood an argumet i once tried to make for parsimony
Or your argument was flawed...
You are the one taxed mentally by the phase rational warrant
Joe: god is not complex in the sense you are using it. Quote the opposite. drum ass Dawkins tried to argue God was complex but he merely assumed that Good is a big biological orgasm.The idea that God plus nature means a more complex God than Nature alone really misses the point about God, Nature does not ad to God;s complexity,
How are YOU measuring complexity?
cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts.
I have no idea how you can think [God+nature] is less complex than [nature] unless you think God has negative complexity!
God has no mass and no moving parts you cant add natures complexity to his
Joe: that has nothing to do with it. Being analogs in one way does not mean God takes on all aspects of the laws of physics.
Then why use that as an analogy if this is an aspect so fundamental to the discussion?
famous theological dictum God is not complex.Just because he reflects the laws of physics in one way doesn't mean he has to in a all ways,
Joe: simple and logic = obvious. he cant e given in sense data he can;t be empirical because that's what empirical is. OS that is obvious.True by definition is obvious
Just repeating that he cannot be given in sense data does not explain the logic that gets you to that conclusion.
Hes it does, its obvious, use your brain,
Further, this is contradicted by your claim "Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God".
I've already explained why that;s not true, you are confusing proving an argument about God with proving God.
Joe: Because it;s not empirical evidence of God it;'ss evidence of the trace of God or the co-determinate, God correlate. So that;s warrant got Belief. so warrants can be backed empirical data.
So like the evidence for relativity or neutrinos? In modern science, evidence includes indirect evidence. If you really are talking about only evidence that we can sense directly, then you are arguing against a straw man.
U don't you have followed a word i've said. you have no argument that beats my argument,I don;t think you think you really get it
Joe: That modern tough rejects the transcendental signified outright is not hard to prove, but don;t forget it's a choice it either rejects it outright or removes the personal dimension. All modern thinking does not reject the TS but removes the personal dimension such as God
So in one paragraph you have claimed it "is not hard to prove" AND admitted it is not true; "All modern thinking does not reject the TS".
Do you ever read what you post?
Joe: you need a basic course in language. that does not say I have proof of God it says empiric evidence (the evidence is empirical not God) the evidence warrants belief not proves God.
It is the same for neutrinos and relativity. We cannot sense them, but we can sense their traces.
Whether you want to consider that evidence "empirical" is debatable. Strictly speaking it is not. But then you are just setting up a straw man.
I would ask you to make clear exactly what YOU mean by "empirical", but really, is there any point? Will you clarify? Or obfuscate?
Pix: I have good reason to believe I will get a six when I roll a dice. Is that rational warrant?
Joe: It could be if it;s a strong reason
My reason is that I know one side of the dice has six pips on it. You do know how rolling dice works?
I have very good reason to think it could be a six. Therefore, I have rational warrant to believe it will be, right?
Joe: that's your burden to prove
So as usual, I have the burden to prove, you just have to claim rational warrant. Again and again you do this.
Joe: That is total bull shit, You don't in rationality why argue? Warrant is a technical term with clear and distinct meaning. its part of logic. its the aspect of logical Argentine that affords one logical permission to accept a patriotism.
You use it is a weasel manner, and so it becomes a weasel word.
Of course it is part of logic, but Toulmin's use of the word is significantly different to yours.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/historical_perspectives_on_argumentation/toulmin_argument.html
Joe: you set up the comparison to rolling dice that is a shallow and simplistic issue. Obvious the dice might hit six but it's not very complex. It's rather inevitable. Clearly an argument for God is more complex and requires a different level of thought
So what is you point here? Rational warrant can only be used for deep and/or complex situations? Why is that?
My guess is that for shallow and simplistic issues it is too easy to spot the BS. However, I invite you to make clear why we can only use rational warrant if the situation is deep and complex.
I will, of course, expect you to make clear how we can gauge depth and complexity, and how much of each is required before rational warrant is allowable.
Joe: the term simply means justified by reason us that really taxing your intellectual abilities?
And yet you just indicated it is only allowed for issues that are deep and complex! Nothing in "justified by reason" requires depth or complexity. Clearly this is rather more than "justified by reason", and I have to wonder why you want to pretend otherwise.
Pix
Pix: How are YOU measuring complexity?
Joe: cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts.
That is a wonderfully naive view of complexity. Good to know the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are not at all complex. They are just ideas, after all, so no mass or moving parts.
Joe: God has no mass and no moving parts you cant add natures complexity to his
Right. This is why you have selected that definition of complexity.
Let us suppose you are right. I see a train pull into a station. How was it powered? I might suppose:
1. A diesel engine, connected to a generator, powering motors on the wheels. This is a very complex system, weighing perhaps 100 tonnes, with several hundred (or thousand?) parts. Very complex.
2. A fairy propelling it with magic. This is a simple system; the loco is a hollow shell, weighing just a couple of tonnes. The wheels move, but nothing else does.
By Occam's razor, using your ridiculous view of parsimony, the preferred answer is the train was propelled by a fairy!
In fact, it turns out that any explanation involving physical components should be rejected in favour of a supernatural one in this view!
In reality, Occam's razor says we should reduce the number of unknown factors as much as possible. We know diesel engines, generators, motors all exist and are routinely built inside locomotives. That is the parsimonious answer.
We have no evidence of fairies; that answer includes an unknown factor so is less parsimonious.
Joe: famous theological dictum God is not complex.Just because he reflects the laws of physics in one way doesn't mean he has to in a all ways,
This is your claim. That means you have to prove it. Saying a bunch of theists think it is true really does not cut it.
Joe: Hes it does, its obvious, use your brain,
You are the one claiming it. You need to use your brain to prove it.
Joe: I've already explained why that;s not true, you are confusing proving an argument about God with proving God.
So explain the difference.
Pix
Rational warrant
Joe: That modern tough rejects the transcendental signified outright is not hard to prove, but don;t forget it's a choice it either rejects it outright or removes the personal dimension. All modern thinking does not reject the TS but removes the personal dimension such as God
PxSo in one paragraph you have claimed it "is not hard to prove" AND admitted it is not true; "All modern thinking does not reject the TS".
Do you ever read what you post?
do you read what I post dumb ass? the original statement said: either/ or' do you not know what that means? Either rejects it outright OR or ignores the personal aspect that's what makes i twork, please try to pay attention?
Joe: you need a basic course in language. that does not say I have proof of God it says empirical evidence (the evidence is empirical not God) the evidence warrants belief not proves God.
It is the same for neutrinos and relativity. We cannot sense them, but we can sense their traces.
PxWhether you want to consider that evidence "empirical" is debatable. Strictly speaking it is not. But then you are just setting up a straw man.
wrong. Anything that can nonresident thorough senses is polemical.
PxI would ask you to make clear exactly what YOU mean by "empirical", but really, is there any point? Will you clarify? Or obfuscate?
I Just did. Anything that be demonstrated Through the senses. Although I extend that include the aid of technology. when I said "We cannot sense them [neutrinos], but we can sense their traces...I meant we can demonstrate their effects."
Pix: I have good reason to believe I will get a six when I roll a dice. Is that rational warrant?
Joe: It could be if it;s a strong reason
My reason is that I know one side of the dice has six pips on it. You do know how rolling dice works?
I have very good reason to think it could be a six. Therefore, I have rational warrant to believe it will be, right?
Joe: that's your burden to prove
So as usual, I have the burden to prove, you just have to claim rational warrant. Again and again you do this.
I did not say that to the dice thing,. You played with my words to make it come out that way; anyone has the burden to prove any argument he dances "He who asserts an argument must prove it."
Joe: Warrant is a technical term with clear and distinct meaning. its part of logic. its the aspect of logical argument that affords one logical permission to accept a positioning..
You use it is a weasel manner, and so it becomes a weasel word.
you are so angry because you can't beat me you are willing to say anything, show me where where I've done that! prove it! "Weasel word" is a little creative writing seminar term it means what you want it to not part of logic.
Of course it is part of logic, but Toulmin's use of the word is significantly different to yours.
https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/historical_perspectives_on_argumentation/toulmin_argument.html
that source says "warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim." that is not at all different, it's merely expressed differently I said it: it is "logical permission to believe a statement," how is that any different? Linking grounds to claim is logical permission to believe a claim. This mask me wonder if you really understand ideas.
Px:So what is you point here? Rational warrant can only be used for deep and/or complex situations? Why is that?
no not what I said. My particular use of rational warrant is more complex than dice ring six,
My guess is that for shallow and simplistic issues it is too easy to spot the BS. However, I invite you to make clear why we can only use rational warrant if the situation is deep and complex.
Not what I said, but I guess I'LL HAVE TO START MAKING SIMPLE ARGUMENTS so YOU CAN KEEP UP!
I will, of course, expect you to make clear how we can gauge depth and complexity, and how much of each is required before rational warrant is allowable.
Put your committer in your chair, sit on it, rotate!
Joe: the term simply means justified by reason us that really taxing your intellectual abilities?
And yet you just indicated it is only allowed for issues that are deep and complex!
No I did not
Nothing in "justified by reason" requires depth or complexity.
that's ludicrous and obvious studio.Logic applies to all thought thus it;s east to see how some ideas are very complex but they need logic, Jesus!
Clearly this is rather more than "justified by reason", and I have to wonder why you want to pretend otherwise.
Pix
what?
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Complexity
Pix: How are YOU measuring complexity?
Joe: cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts.
That is a wonderfully naive view of complexity. Good to know the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are not at all complex. They are just ideas, after all, so no mass or moving parts.
they are not psychical objects. see where I said "Objects?" there are different kids of complexity
Joe: God has no mass and no moving parts you cant add natures complexity to his
Right. This is why you have selected that definition of complexity.
Official doctrine says God is not complex. it comes with the package of belief in Christian that he's not complex.
Let us suppose you are right. I see a train pull into a station. How was it powered? I might suppose:
what do you mean by "suppose i AM right" YOU HAVE GOTTEN WRONG WHAT i SAID ALL THE WAY DOWN THE PGAE,i;VE CORRECTED YOU ABOUT 20 TIMES
1. A diesel engine, connected to a generator, powering motors on the wheels. This is a very complex system, weighing perhaps 100 tonnes, with several hundred (or thousand?) parts. Very complex.
2. A fairy propelling it with magic. This is a simple system; the loco is a hollow shell, weighing just a couple of tonnes. The wheels move, but nothing else does.
Obviously you know nothing of my views since you can't get it right; I think you don't want to get it right,
By Occam's razor, using your ridiculous view of parsimony, the preferred answer is the train was propelled by a fairy!
what is my view of parsimony dumbass, tell me what you think it is
In fact, it turns out that any explanation involving physical components should be rejected in favour of a supernatural one in this view!
where did I say that? You made that yp because you can;t argue fairly so construct your own straw man argument,
In reality, Occam's razor says we should reduce the number of unknown factors as much as possible. We know diesel engines, generators, motors all exist and are routinely built inside locomotives. That is the parsimonious answer.
Occam believed in God so he was not scouting God or any supernatural idea as unknown, that idea would apply to physical equators not to God.
We have no evidence of fairies; that answer includes an unknown factor so is less parsimonious.
Occam would not approve. U never argued for an unknown factor factor,
Joe: famous theological dictum God is not complex.Just because he reflects the laws of physics in one way doesn't mean he has to in a all ways,
This is your claim. That means you have to prove it. Saying a bunch of theists think it is true really does not cut it.
no I don't have to prove it just as I don't have to prove God's existence. It is axiomatic it comes with the Christian faith
Joe: Hes it does, its obvious, use your brain,
You are the one claiming it. You need to use your brain to prove it.
You have totally distorted what i claim to the ponit of lying.
Joe: I've already explained why that;s not true, you are confusing proving an argument about God with proving God.
So explain the difference.
We do not have to prove God exits to prove that we have good reason to think God exists even if we can't prove it, That's proving an argument about God rather than proving God exits,
Really? I thought the "or" was a typo.
So your position is that modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind, and you are not sure which?
You are not sure if modern Thought rejects TS outright. You are not sure if modern thought takes out all aspects of mind. Nevertheless, you feel absolutely certain it does one or the other!
How can you possibly make that claim if you do not know if either of the parts are true?
Joe: I Just did. Anything that be demonstrated Through the senses. Although I extend that include the aid of technology. when I said "We cannot sense them [neutrinos], but we can sense their traces...I meant we can demonstrate their effects."
Then you are claiming evidence for God is empirical when you say "Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God."
Joe: I did not say that to the dice thing,. You played with my words to make it come out that way;
Take responsibility for your own inability to be clear. Here is the exchange.
Me: "Having good reason to think something is so does not necessarily imply it is likely. There may well be other, and better, reasons to think it is not true. I have more reason for thinking it will not be a six on my dice."
You: "that's your burden to prove"
To me "that" refers to the dice thing, given you were replying to a paragraph specifically about the dice thing. I am not a mind reader; I can only go by what you post.
Joe: anyone has the burden to prove any argument he dances "He who asserts an argument must prove it."
So where you do prove that modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind?
Given your are not sure either of those claims is true, I find it utterly implausible that you have proven one or the other is.
But of course "anyone has the burden to prove any argument" is just for other people.
Joe: that source says "warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim." that is not at all different, it's merely expressed differently I said it: it is "logical permission to believe a statement," how is that any different? Linking grounds to claim is logical permission to believe a claim. This mask me wonder if you really understand ideas.
So now your "rational warrant" is an assumption?
Are you going to stick with that?
For Toulmin, he has an argument, A implies B.
The warrant is something else to A or B. The warrant is in the background, likely things we all agree on, and we assume are true, perhaps without even thinking about it.
Look a the first example, you hear barking implies dogs are nearby. The warrant is the background information that dogs bark, it is assumed, usually not worth mentioning.
For you, your argument is, A is a reason to think B could be true. For you, A is therefore the warrant.
Very different, and it is worrying you cannot see that.
Pix
Okay, so then we can use rational warrant for the dice rolling.
I have rational warrant to believe I will get a six when I roll a dice.
Joe: Not what I said, but I guess I'LL HAVE TO START MAKING SIMPLE ARGUMENTS so YOU CAN KEEP UP!
You kept objecting to the dice rolling example. The implication was that you do not consider it suitable. However, now we are clear that you have not said that at all, so we can continue to explore this.
The important point here is that I have ration warrant to believe I will roll a six, even though the probability is less than 18% of it being true.
Pix
Pix: How are YOU measuring complexity?
Joe: cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts.
Pix: That is a wonderfully naive view of complexity. Good to know the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are not at all complex. They are just ideas, after all, so no mass or moving parts.
Joe: they are not psychical objects. see where I said "Objects?" there are different kids of complexity
First off, yes there are different kinds of complexity. This is exactly why I asked how YOU measure complexity. You not not get to pick one way of measuring for one system, and another way of measuring for a second system. You pick one system, and you stick to it to compare all systems under consideration.
Your previous reply seems pretty clear that complexity was measured by the mass of the system and the number of moving parts. Now, inevitably, you are back-tracking.
Are mass and number of moving parts how you are measuring complexity? If not, why mention them in response to my asking how you measure complexity?
Joe: Official doctrine says God is not complex. it comes with the package of belief in Christian that he's not complex.
Official doctrine says God exists. Why not just going with that if we are assuming official doctrine is true? Oh, wait, you cannot do that, you have to wrap it up in philosophical mumbo-jumbo so you can hide those underlying assumptions.
Here you underlying assumption is that official doctrine is true. You need to prove that.
Joe: what do you mean by "suppose i AM right" YOU HAVE GOTTEN WRONG WHAT i SAID ALL THE WAY DOWN THE PGAE,i;VE CORRECTED YOU ABOUT 20 TIMES
I can only go on what you say. I asked you how YOU measure complexity. Your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts". Now you get all upset when I assume YOU measure complexity by whether objects have lots of mass and moving parts.
Are you doing this deliberately?
Joe: Obviously you know nothing of my views since you can't get it right; I think you don't want to get it right,
So explain what you meant when I asked you how YOU measure complexity and your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts".
Joe: what is my view of parsimony dumbass, tell me what you think it is
I have no idea. Previously I thought it was based on the mass of objects and the number of moving parts, because when I asked you how YOU measure complexity and your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts".
I am not even going to other reading the rest of this BS, because I will end up quoting "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts" a dozen more times.
I posted what I did because I was responding to what you posted. If you are interested in an honest discussion, I hope you will explain just why that was your reply, and make clear what you really think complexity is.
Pix
Really? I thought the "or" was a typo.
!!! hahahaahahha
So your position is that modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind, and you are not sure which?
some modern thinkers do one thing and some do the other, Of course there are some, like me, who don't do either but obvious I speak of the batch of modern thinkers who reject God.
You are not sure if modern Thought rejects TS outright. You are not sure if modern thought takes out all aspects of mind. Nevertheless, you feel absolutely certain it does one or the other!
I just explained open your pea brain and read it.
How can you possibly make that claim if you do not know if either of the parts are true?
the quality of your argumentation has plummeted. this is an example of refused to listen, its a quibble.
Joe: I Just did. Anything that be demonstrated Through the senses. Although I extend that include the aid of technology. when I said "We cannot sense them [neutrinos], but we can sense their traces...I meant we can demonstrate their effects."
Then you are claiming evidence for God is empirical when you say "Of course there is empirical evidence that can warrant belief in God."
It has gotten to the point where every single thing you say is based upon not reading properly what I've answered. Obviously some evidence that warrants Boeing can be imperial, the design argumemt is empirical. But it doesn't prpve the existence God it warrants belief
Joe: I did not say that to the dice thing,. You played with my words to make it come out that way;
Take responsibility for your own inability to be clear. Here is the exchange.
take responsibility for your own illiterate density.
Me: "Having good reason to think something is so does not necessarily imply it is likely. There may well be other, and better, reasons to think it is not true. I have more reason for thinking it will not be a six on my dice."
You: "that's your burden to prove"
To me "that" refers to the dice thing, given you were replying to a paragraph specifically about the dice thing. I am not a mind reader; I can only go by what you post.
Joe: anyone has the burden to prove any argument he makes "He who asserts an argument must prove it."
So where you do prove that modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind?
where I quote people doing that show me a modern atheist who accepts a personal TS!
Given your are not sure either of those claims is true, I find it utterly implausible that you have proven one or the other is.
No you asserted that I am not sure that was your little lie about my view because you are too stupid to argue honestly and to follow a simple sentence. you know you can't win this argument so you are trying to cause confusion
But of course "anyone has the burden to prove any argument" is just for other people.
what argent have i failed to prove?
So now your "rational warrant" is an assumption?
No one with a Ph.D would argue like that.I really doubt that you are pixie.that is nothing more than speaking at cross purposes to create confusion.
Are you going to stick with that?
For Toulmin, he has an argument, A implies B.
The warrant is something else to A or B. The warrant is in the background, likely things we all agree on, and we assume are true, perhaps without even thinking about it.
Look a the first example, you hear barking implies dogs are nearby. The warrant is the background information that dogs bark, it is assumed, usually not worth mentioning.
For you, your argument is, A is a reason to think B could be true. For you, A is therefore the warrant.
Very different, and it is worrying you cannot see that.
Pix
You gotthat fromn thye autoatic answers thatconeup on google: "What is an example of a warrant in writing?
Finally, the warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim. In this example, in order to assert the claim that a dog is nearby, we provide evidence and specific facts—or the grounds—by acknowledging that we hear barking and howling.
Toulmin Argument // Purdue Writing Lab" you did not read Tool,an as I did. that definition I just quoted can support any rational argument, a dog barking is just one example you try to leverage that to turn warrant into the background assumption that is unspoken. But the quote says it can be overt or implied. you are not talking about the same thing. Toolmn/s warrant is not an unstated background assumption, the quote you are basing it on does not say it's the background knowledge that dogs bark but a dog barking so the hearing of the dog warrants belief in a dog.
Okay, so then we can use rational warrant for the dice rolling.
I have rational warrant to believe I will get a six when I roll a dice.
Joe: Not what I said, but I guess I'LL HAVE TO START MAKING SIMPLE ARGUMENTS so YOU CAN KEEP UP!
You kept objecting to the dice rolling example. The implication was that you do not consider it suitable. However, now we are clear that you have not said that at all, so we can continue to explore this.
The important point here is that I have ration warrant to believe I will roll a six, even though the probability is less than 18% of it being true.
Pix
so what?
5/13/2020 08:52:00 AM Delete
Anonymous Anonymous said...
Complexity
Pix: How are YOU measuring complexity?
Joe: physical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts.
Pix: That is a wonderfully naive view of complexity. Good to know the theory of relativity and the theory of evolution are not at all complex. They are just ideas, after all, so no mass or moving parts.
so you think complexity is only ideas?
Joe: they are not psychical objects. see where I said "Objects?" there are different kids of complexity
First off, yes there are different kinds of complexity. This is exactly why I asked how YOU measure complexity. You not not get to pick one way of measuring for one system, and another way of measuring for a second system. You pick one system, and you stick to it to compare all systems under consideration.
wouldn't different kinds be measured in different ways?
Your previous reply seems pretty clear that complexity was measured by the mass of the system and the number of moving parts. Now, inevitably, you are back-tracking.
for physical objects which is what i said I was talking about,
Are mass and number of moving parts how you are measuring complexity? If not, why mention them in response to my asking how you measure complexity?
this is nothing more than obfuscation I will not put up with it
Official doctrine says God exists. Why not just going with that if we are assuming official doctrine is true? Oh, wait, you cannot do that, you have to wrap it up in philosophical mumbo-jumbo so you can hide those underlying assumptions.
Here you underlying assumption is that official doctrine is true. You need to prove that.
No why should I expect someone to accept the truth of doctrine when they don;t accept the basic truth of the faith upon which the doctrine is founded?
Joe: what do you mean by "suppose i AM right" YOU HAVE GOTTEN WRONG WHAT i SAID ALL THE WAY DOWN THE PGAE,i;VE CORRECTED YOU ABOUT 20 TIMES
I can only go on what you say. I asked you how YOU measure complexity. Your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts". Now you get all upset when I assume YOU measure complexity by whether objects have lots of mass and moving parts.
Are you doing this deliberately?
Joe: Obviously you know nothing of my views since you can't get it right; I think you don't want to get it right,
So explain what you meant when I asked you how YOU measure complexity and your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts".
Joe: what is my view of parsimony dumbass, tell me what you think it is
I have no idea. Previously I thought it was based on the mass of objects and the number of moving parts, because when I asked you how YOU measure complexity and your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts".
I have already intimated I meant "physical" not "cynical." How can objects be cynical?
I am not even going to other reading the rest of this BS, because I will end up quoting "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts" a dozen more times.
I posted what I did because I was responding to what you posted. If you are interested in an honest discussion, I hope you will explain just why that was your reply, and make clear what you really think complexity is.
you are not trying to have an honest discussion you have done nothing but distort my words,I think you are not the same person.I think the real Pix got board and handed it on to some student or something.
you are honest you blew off real argument a long time go.
You did not go by what I said!!!! you took it out of context every time your arguments are petty we weasalie and based upon taking out of context,
I asked you how YOU measure complexity. Your reply was "cynical objects are complex when they have lots of mass and moving parts". Now you get all upset when I assume YOU measure complexity by whether objects have lots of mass and moving parts.
Obviously I mean physical objects. Now because I specified the kind of thing I was dealing with obvious that;s the specific kind of complexity i meant,so corollary you can rule out other kinds, which I was not talking about,that does not mean I reject all other forms of complexity.
the reason I reason I spoke of physical is because Dawkin's arguments about God's compexity are based upon objects in nature,
So your claim is FALSE. It is not true that modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind. The reality is that modern thought is divided, and there is a whole spectrum of positions. Your premise is wrong, so your argument fails.
Joe: the quality of your argumentation has plummeted. this is an example of refused to listen, its a quibble.
Once again the issue is the vagueness of your claims. Perhaps YOU know what you mean, but I do not.
Joe: It has gotten to the point where every single thing you say is based upon not reading properly what I've answered. Obviously some evidence that warrants Boeing can be imperial, the design argumemt is empirical. But it doesn't prpve the existence God it warrants belief
It could not possibly because you have failed to explain it possibly, could it?
Empirical evidence does not prove anything in science either, Joe. A theory is accepted when the evidence indicates it is very likely to be true, or that it is a useful model.
Joe: where I quote people doing that show me a modern atheist who accepts a personal TS!
So your argument is:
No modern atheist accepts a personal TS
Therefore modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind
That seems quite a leap. What about those included in modern thought who are not atheists? What about atheists who accepts some aspects of mind?
Joe: what argent have i failed to prove?
That modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind. Are you not following here?
Pix
Joe: that source says "warrant, which is either implied or stated explicitly, is the assumption that links the grounds to the claim." that is not at all different, it's merely expressed differently I said it: it is "logical permission to believe a statement," how is that any different? Linking grounds to claim is logical permission to believe a claim. This makes me wonder if you really understand ideas.
Pix: So now your "rational warrant" is an assumption?
Joe: No one with a Ph.D would argue like that.I really doubt that you are pixie.that is nothing more than speaking at cross purposes to create confusion.
The plain fact is that the quote says a warrant is an assumption. And when that is pointed out to you, you take exception to it.
Joe: You gotthat fromn thye autoatic answers thatconeup on google: "What is an example of a warrant in writing?
I got it from the paper I linked to, the one you quoted.
Joe: Toulmin Argument // Purdue Writing Lab" you did not read Tool,an as I did. that definition I just quoted can support any rational argument, a dog barking is just one example you try to leverage that to turn warrant into the background assumption that is unspoken. But the quote says it can be overt or implied. you are not talking about the same thing. Toolmn/s warrant is not an unstated background assumption, the quote you are basing it on does not say it's the background knowledge that dogs bark but a dog barking so the hearing of the dog warrants belief in a dog.
You need to read it again. It is very clear that the warrant is the background knowledge.
Pix
Joe: so what?
Ultimately I am interested in know what is true. If you have rational warrant for believing in God, but actually that only means there is a 1 in 10 chance God exists, that means there is a 90% chance he does not; that atheism is right.
For rolling dice, I have rational warrant for believing the outcome will be a six. But the reality is that it is significantly more likely to not be a six. The belief is wrong.
Pix
Joe: so you think complexity is only ideas?
No, and that is not what I said.
Joe: wouldn't different kinds be measured in different ways?
Sure. But why are considering different kinds of complexity? If you want to compare one system to another, surely you need to be considering just one kind of complexity for both. Otherwise the results are meaningless.
Joe: for physical objects which is what i said I was talking about,
Right, so you use one system for physical objects, and you use a different system for God. That is very convenient, because that means you can ensure God has lower complexity, just be adjusting the two measuring systems.
It is like comparing the speed of two car. I want my car to win, so I will measure its speed on a long straight track. I want your car to lose, so I will set up the conditions differently; your car has to pull a heavy trailer, round a very convoluted course. Would you trust the results?
Joe: this is nothing more than obfuscation I will not put up with it
Then stop doing it.
Pix
So here is a great example of a claim you refuse to prove.
Joe: Obviously I mean physical objects.
Obviously! The question is why you chose to include only physical objects, when you know the discussion is about God.
We are discussing the complexity of God. I asked you how YOU measure complexity. You reply talking about physical objects.
That is obfuscation!
You are deliberately avoiding the issue.
Joe: the reason I reason I spoke of physical is because Dawkin's arguments about God's compexity are based upon objects in nature,
I asked how YOU measure complexity. And again and again, you fail to answer. Now, Joe, how do YOU measure complexity, bearing in mind this is a discussion about the complexity of God, so restricting your answer to physical objects is not going to cut it.
Pix
"bearing in mind this is a discussion about the complexity of God,"
back to the idea that Christian doctrine stipulates Gd's simplicity, not it doesn't prove it but tells you what I think and why i think it.
there is factual basis that mandates God be seen as complex
So your claim is FALSE. It is not true that modern Thought rejects TS outright or that modern thought takes out all aspects of mind. The reality is that modern thought is divided, and there is a whole spectrum of positions. Your premise is wrong, so your argument fails.
do you seriously think you have a real point? this is just sophistry.
Joe: the quality of your argumentation has plummeted. this is an example of refused to listen, its a quibble.
Once again the issue is the vagueness of your claims. Perhaps YOU know what you mean, but I do not.
that is stupid and you know it.
stop wasting my time with this drivel,.
Complexity
Joe: so you think complexity is only ideas?
No, and that is not what I said.
so you must be saying no ideas are compelx?
Joe: wouldn't different kinds be measured in different ways?
Sure. But why are considering different kinds of complexity?
so now you are saying there;s only one kind of complexity but you said before there are ideas that are complex that's contradiction
If you want to compare one system to another, surely you need to be considering just one kind of complexity for both. Otherwise the results are meaningless.
O you mean like I did when I talked about physical objects, what a good idea why didn't I think of that?
Joe: for physical objects which is what i said I was talking about,
Right, so you use one system for physical objects, and you use a different system for God. That is very convenient, because that means you can ensure God has lower complexity, just be adjusting the two measuring systems.
so that proves God is simple
It is like comparing the speed of two car. I want my car to win, so I will measure its speed on a long straight track. I want your car to lose, so I will set up the conditions differently; your car has to pull a heavy trailer, round a very convoluted course. Would you trust the results?
what is like that? do you have any idea what you are saying what does it have to do with anything I; e said?
Ultimately I am interested in know what is true.
I doubt that
If you have rational warrant for believing in God, but actually that only means there is a 1 in 10 chance God exists, that means there is a 90% chance he does not; that atheism is right.
why 1 in 10? you are trying to reduce it to mathematical probability that;s too complex. too many hidden variables,
For rolling dice, I have rational warrant for believing the outcome will be a six. But the reality is that it is significantly more likely to not be a six. The belief is wrong.
that is arbitrary BS that has nothing to do with God arguments. The variables are very simple the question of Gd is not like that.
The discussion is about God and parsimony. I was clearly asking how YOU measure complexity in that context.
And still you have not done that. Why not?
My guess is because you cannot, and frankly that reinforces my belief that your statement about physical objects was deliberate obfuscation.
Joe: back to the idea that Christian doctrine stipulates Gd's simplicity, not it doesn't prove it but tells you what I think and why i think it.
So it is just your opinion. Another claim you make that you feel you do not have to prove.
Joe: do you seriously think you have a real point? this is just sophistry.
Your claim has been shown to be WRONG. That is not sophistry.
Joe: so you must be saying no ideas are compelx?
I have not made any comment one way of the other.
I believe any two things must be more complex than either one on its own, so [nature+God] is more complex than [nature], but I have made no claims beyond that.
Joe: so now you are saying there;s only one kind of complexity but you said before there are ideas that are complex that's contradiction
I have certainly NOT said there is only one kind of complexity.
I have said you should select one kind, and use only that when comparing the complexity of different systems. It is not rocket science. In the UK the idea of a "fair test" is taught in science to kids under ten.
Joe: O you mean like I did when I talked about physical objects, what a good idea why didn't I think of that?
No, I mean quite the opposite. I mean you use a single kind of complexity that covers all systems under consideration - so that includes God.
Pix: Right, so you use one system for physical objects, and you use a different system for God. That is very convenient, because that means you can ensure God has lower complexity, just be adjusting the two measuring systems.
Joe: so that proves God is simple
No, because it is flawed. Did you not understand from "you can ensure God has lower complexity" that I was mocking what you do?
What you are doing is designing the experiment to ensure you get the results you want. That is a BAD thing - well, in science, perhaps it is doctrine in religion. You have contrived an experiment in which you measure God's complexity using a method that guarantees it will be very low, and you measure the other system is using a quite different method that guarantees that will give the very high figure you desire.
Joe: what is like that? do you have any idea what you are saying what does it have to do with anything I; e said?
I have my car on a straight track, while you have your method of measuring complexity for God. We both know we will get the result we want. My car will look fast, you will get a low figure for god's complexity.
Then I put the other car on a twisted track, pulling a heavy trailer, while you find a different method to measure complexity of the other system. This guarantees that the other car appears to be much slower than mine, and that the other system is much more complex than God.
We are both fixing it to ensure we get the result want, regardless of what the truth is.
Pix
It is just a suggested number. It could be 1 in 100. The point is that your "rational warrant" is meaningless because it is not even saying you are likely to be right.
Joe: that is arbitrary BS that has nothing to do with God arguments. The variables are very simple the question of Gd is not like that.
It exposes the nonsense of "rational warrant". It shows that just having a reason to support your beliefs, your "rational warrant", does not even make it likely to be true.
If you are interested in what is true, you will want to know what it most likely, and "rational warrant" is useless. If you have already decided what is true, then "rational warrant" is wonderful, as you can rationalise your beliefs.
Pix
Joe: The answer I gave before about physical objects was given because that has a direct bearing on God arguments,such as the cosmological argument dealing with creating the physical world. That does not mean that I reduce all forms of complexity to physical objects. I am just not dealing with forms that don't apply to the discussion.
The discussion is about God and parsimony. I was clearly asking how YOU measure complexity in that context.
famously Dawkins has argued that God is complex thus s less likely to exist. That's the logic of dealing with complexity in terms of physical objects,to answer that argument I have no idea what other argument you have in mind.,I did not introduce God's simplicity into this discussion you did.
And still you have not done that. Why not?
what?
My guess is because you cannot, and frankly that reinforces my belief that your statement about physical objects was deliberate obfuscation.
since the point of my essay to which this is the comment section was about God arguments (empirical proof ad God) why would my comment not be about God arguments? what other argument involves God's complexity?
Joe: back to the idea that Christian doctrine stipulates Gd's simplicity, not it doesn't prove it but tells you what I think and why i think it.
So it is just your opinion. Another claim you make that you feel you do not have to prove.
I didn't bring it up as a God argumemt you intellectual mountebank.
Joe: do you seriously think you have a real point? this is just sophistry.
Your claim has been shown to be WRONG. That is not sophistry.
You presented no argument all you've done is twist my words and through up read blocks to real discussion, you have shown nothing. I doubt you can even say what my ideas are, you have have no understanding of argument
Joe: so you must be saying no ideas are compelx?
I have not made any comment one way of the other.
that was a sample of the way you draw conclusions about my ideas
I believe any two things must be more complex than either one on its own, so [nature+God] is more complex than [nature], but I have made no claims beyond that.
That would be true of physiol beings who have weight and physical bearing and expendable but it could have no application to God. God is off scale because he has no physical dimension. God is the mind that thinks the universe,the universe is a thought in God's mind. you can't add onslaughts to your weight.
Joe: so now you are saying there;s only one kind of complexity but you said before there are ideas that are complex that's contradiction
I have certainly NOT said there is only one kind of complexity.
I know that's the way you treat the things I say I'm giving you your own medicine
I am not comparing the complicity of systems, this came about because I said modern thinkers do one of two things to the need for TS. you changed that to a compassion between systems which it never was.
Joe: O you mean like I did when I talked about physical objects, what a good idea why didn't I think of that?
No, I mean quite the opposite. I mean you use a single kind of complexity that covers all systems under consideration - so that includes God.
No I don;t do that.I only spillover one kind of complexity in repetition to my God arguments, you asserted that I did that and didn;t think about what i really said.
Pix: Right, so you use one system for physical objects, and you use a different system for God. That is very convenient, because that means you can ensure God has lower complexity, just be adjusting the two measuring systems.
God is not a physical object why should he be treated like one?
Joe: so that proves God is simple
No, because it is flawed. Did you not understand from "you can ensure God has lower complexity" that I was mocking what you do?
ye you felt so good about your own cleverness you totally missed that I;m mocking you.
What you are doing is designing the experiment to ensure you get the results you want. That is a BAD thing - well, in science, perhaps it is doctrine in religion.
You haven't even bothered to understand what I'm saying it's totally alluded you that I did not issue a God argent in this essay you don;t know that becasue you don't listen.
You have contrived an experiment in which you measure God's complexity using a method that guarantees it will be very low, and you measure the other system is using a quite different method that guarantees that will give the very high figure you desire.
again you badly miss the point you actually think I trying to measure God's complexity how foolish what a dweeb.
Joe: what is like that? do you have any idea what you are saying what does it have to do with anything I; e said?
I have my car on a straight track, while you have your method of measuring complexity for God. We both know we will get the result we want. My car will look fast, you will get a low figure for god's complexity.
again doingus my whole point is that terms like "complex and simple don't apply to God because He's infinite and not physical.
Then I put the other car on a twisted track, pulling a heavy trailer, while you find a different method to measure complexity of the other system. This guarantees that the other car appears to be much slower than mine, and that the other system is much more complex than God.
what system? why are you talking about systems?
Joe's Rational Warrant
Joe: so what?
Ultimately I am interested in know what is true. If you have rational warrant for believing in God, but actually that only means there is a 1 in 10 chance God exists, that means there is a 90% chance he does not; that atheism is right.
For rolling dice, I have rational warrant for believing the outcome will be a six. But the reality is that it is significantly more likely to not be a six. The belief is wrong.
In your little mind if you call something a rational warrant for some unwarranted reason then it proves wrong that disproves that rational warrant is valid? that means if you are wrong about your sums it disproves the validity of mathematics.
I am closing the topic
Joe: famously Dawkins has argued that God is complex thus s less likely to exist. That's the logic of dealing with complexity in terms of physical objects,to answer that argument I have no idea what other argument you have in mind.,I did not introduce God's simplicity into this discussion you did.
You stated "god is not complex in the sense you are using it. Quote the opposite." I am asking why you think that. How are YOU measuring complexity.
I have capitalised YOU every time in relation to this question because I want to know how YOU measure it, not Dawkins.
Pix: The discussion is about God and parsimony. I was clearly asking how YOU measure complexity in that context.
And still you have not done that. Why not?
Joe: what?
Seriously, it like talking to toddler. Are you really so clueless about what we are discussing, or is this more deliberate obfuscation.
Only an idiot would not know that I was asking how YOU measure complexity in that context. It was in the sentence just before that!
Joe: since the point of my essay to which this is the comment section was about God arguments (empirical proof ad God) why would my comment not be about God arguments? what other argument involves God's complexity?
Right, here we are discussing God arguments, so what possible reason could you have for presenting a way of measuring complexity that clearly excludes God?
You tell me. You did it.
Personally, I am sticking with the "deliberate obfuscation" hypothesis. It is standing up to some strong testing right now.
Joe: I didn't bring it up as a God argumemt you intellectual mountebank.
Yes you did. You said "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism."
Joe: That would be true of physiol beings who have weight and physical bearing and expendable but it could have no application to God. God is off scale because he has no physical dimension. God is the mind that thinks the universe,the universe is a thought in God's mind. you can't add onslaughts to your weight.
So again, how are YOU measuring complexity?
The fact that you continue to avoid that question establishes beyond reasonable doubt that you have no clue; that you have decided before hand that "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism", but when it comes down to it you know you cannot justiofy that claim.
Joe: I am not comparing the complicity of systems, this came about because I said modern thinkers do one of two things to the need for TS. you changed that to a compassion between systems which it never was.
No, Joe, it came about because you said, "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism." Try to follow.
Pix
Pix: No, I mean quite the opposite. I mean you use a single kind of complexity that covers all systems under consideration - so that includes God.
Joe: No I don;t do that.
I was talking about what you should do. You should use one system. As you concede here, you do not do that. You use one system for God to ensure he gets a low result, and another system for naturtal things, to ensure they get a high result.
Joe: God is not a physical object why should he be treated like one?
He should not, and I did not say he should. I said both God and physical objects should be treated the same when comparing their complexity.
Does that mean he has zero complexity in your view? Or that his complexity cannot be measured?
Joe: You haven't even bothered to understand what I'm saying it's totally alluded you that I did not issue a God argent in this essay you don;t know that becasue you don't listen.
I am listening, but you are not saying much. I keep asking how YOU measure complexity, and you keep failing to say. That is on you, not me.
Joe: again you badly miss the point you actually think I trying to measure God's complexity how foolish what a dweeb.
I fully appreciate you are not measuring God's complexity. You are assuming it.
You have decided God is not complex, that "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism". All this discussion is about you trying to pretend that assumption is valid, and me pointing out that it is not.
Joe: You presented no argument all you've done is twist my words and through up read blocks to real discussion, you have shown nothing. I doubt you can even say what my ideas are, you have have no understanding of argument
No, I did not present an argument. You have admitted that modern thought has other positions; some people do accept the TS, some accept some aspects of mind. Your claim that modern thought is restricted to only rejecting TS OR rejecting mind entirely is therefore wrong.
Pix
Joe: In your little mind if you call something a rational warrant for some unwarranted reason then it proves wrong that disproves that rational warrant is valid? that means if you are wrong about your sums it disproves the validity of mathematics.
But in the dice rolling example, I do have rational warrant. That was the whole point!
I have seen it happen before on numerous occasions, and I can see that one side of the cube has six pips on it. I have rational warrant to believe I will get a six when I next roll the dice.
Pix
Joe: famously Dawkins has argued that God is complex thus s less likely to exist. That's the logic of dealing with complexity in terms of physical objects,to answer that argument I have no idea what other argument you have in mind.,I did not introduce God's simplicity into this discussion you did.
You stated "god is not complex in the sense you are using it. Quote the opposite." I am asking why you think that. How are YOU measuring complexity.
I have capitalised YOU every time in relation to this question because I want to know how YOU measure it, not Dawkins.
I've already told you God is not a physical object. Arguments of God's complexity such as Dawkins makes are based based upon the fallacious assumption that God is a big man.
Pix: The discussion is about God and parsimony. I was clearly asking how YOU measure complexity in that context.
And still you have not done that. Why not?
Joe: what?
Seriously, it like talking to toddler. Are you really so clueless about what we are discussing, or is this more deliberate obfuscation.
sorry you are ignorant and your ignorance is staggering. One can't just say what is your deification in parsimony,??" you have to define in terms like complexity in relation to the aspect of reality such as physics or philosophy you can't say parsimony that can be applied to anything, That tells us nothing. I already defined in relation to physical objects. I did that because it speaks to the use made of complexity by Dawkins as a anti God argument, you have not given any other aspects to deal with
Only an idiot would not know that I was asking how YOU measure complexity in that context. It was in the sentence just before that!
only an idiot would not know that saying parsimony is not specific enough you did not provide superannuate that made sense, I don;t think a guy who teaches chemistry at university would be that dense.
Joe: since the point of my essay to which this is the comment section was about God arguments (empirical proof ad God) why would my comment not be about God arguments? what other argument involves God's complexity?
Right, here we are discussing God arguments, so what possible reason could you have for presenting a way of measuring complexity that clearly excludes God?
sense Iv'e already stipulated that terms like complexity are wasted on God how can the how can I then define how to measure God's complexity??
You tell me. You did it.
did what? I refused to define what I said can;t be defined is that what you mean?
Personally, I am sticking with the "deliberate obfuscation" hypothesis. It is standing up to some strong testing right now.
you lying hypocrite, you have been obfuscating all the way through this bull shit,
Joe: I didn't bring it up as a God argumemt you intellectual mountebank.
Yes you did. You said "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism."
The context in which I made that statement was not advancing it as a God argument. It was a commentary on the extrusions nature of the concpet of parsimony in relation to God. "If God is not given in empirical data then God is not subject to the demands of parsimony its unfair to expect it. I don't imagine that parsimony would prove anything anyway it'snot a proof. There are different kinds of parsimony and belief in God meets some of them. For example, God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism."
So again, how are YOU measuring complexity?
in relation to physical object in terms of mass and moving
The fact that you continue to avoid that question establishes beyond reasonable doubt that you have no clue; that you have decided before hand that "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism", but when it comes down to it you know you cannot justiofy that claim.
I just did it stupid, as i have said many times the last exchange, I said mass and moving parts several posts ago,.
Joe: I am not comparing the complicity of systems, this came about because I said modern thinkers do one of two things to the need for TS. you changed that to a compassion between systems which it never was.
No, Joe, it came about because you said, "God is a more elegant and economical as a solution than naturalism." Try to follow.
O did that offend his little pretend love of science? You never understood it;s context.