Evidence

[Kilgore Trout]

Skepticism means that you intelligently challenge things with an open-mind.

Unfortunately, many people open their mind so much, their brain falls out.

 

[Windwalker]

Unfortunately, many people open their mind so much, their brain falls out.

What actually falls out is the illusion of reality we created with assuming by measuring the universe we understand it. There's a good reason it's called expanding your consciousness.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

What actually falls out is the illusion of reality we created with assuming by measuring the universe we understand it. There's a good reason it's called expanding your consciousness.

In short, when you give up what's real, you can live your dream of being a unicorn.

...just don't try to fly.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

What actually falls out is the illusion of reality we created with assuming by measuring the universe we understand it. There's a good reason it's called expanding your consciousness.

Plop.

There goes another one.

 

[Windwalker]

In short, when you give up what's real, you can live your dream of being a unicorn.

...just don't try to fly.

Why yes, of course that's what I'm referring to.

 

[ARandomPerson4242]

Show me where I'm being 'irrational' (as you put it).

Well, so far you've said you believe in the paranormal. That's pretty vague. Can you give us an example of something that is 'rational' and paranormal?

Not at all. Look up Plantiga's Modal version

Here it is, directly from wikipedia. [I'd add the link, but apparently I'm not allowed to post links yet. Its on the page titled Ontological argument] If this isn't what you meant, please go ahead and post what you're actually thinking of.

1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being exists.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being exists.

Also directly from wikipedia, right below that, the common refutation:
1. A being has maximal excellence in a given possible world W if and only if it is omnipotent, omniscient and wholly good in W; and
2. A being has maximal greatness if it has maximal excellence in every possible world.
3. It is possible that there is not a being that has maximal greatness. (Premise)
4. Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent, and perfectly good being does not exist.
5. Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.
6. Therefore, an omniscient, omnipotent and perfectly good being does not exist.


In fact, if you accept Plantinga's argument, you must accept the counter argument. It uses the same logic, the only variation is in step 3. Logically, you must accept this variation, as in the original step 3, you claim it is possible that there is such a being. That is, there is a less than 100% chance that there is such a being, say the chance is N. The rest of the probability (100-N) is that there is not such a being, justifying step 3 in the altered version.

Since this argument effectively starts with the same assumption, and comes to two mutually exclusive conclusions, there is a contradiction. Either the proof was wrong (both of them) or the original premise was wrong.

Originally Posted by Copernicus
For example, we are all familiar with the fact that bacteria can evolve to survive antibiotic treatments. Human evolution takes a long time, because it takes a long time for babies to mature into adults and have more babies. We have overwhelming evidence that that is exactly how we evolved and that the Earth has been around long enough for evolution to work. However, nobody is arguing that "Given enough time, anything could have happened." The argument is that what has happened has had sufficient time to happen. That is what makes it a plausible argument.

The only overwhelming evidence that we have is the fact that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Thats all you ever saw, thats all I ever saw, and thats all anyone has ever saw. When you or someone you know see otherwise, let me know.

Ummm... Copernicus did. You even quoted it. Bacteria evolve. Everyone has seen that. A bacterium of species A producing something that is species A`, which produces something that is species A``. Something distinctly genetically different. Dogs have a significantly slower reproductive cycle, so you don't see it as well in dogs. Again, Copernicus has pointed it out and you quoted it. I don't understand what you missed there.

 

[Copernicus]

Why do you say that I lack skepticism? We should all be skeptics. I certainly do not believe everything I hear. Skepticism does not mean that you can not believe anything that has been labeled 'paranormal'. Skepticism means that you intelligently challenge things with an open-mind.

No, it doesn't. Skepticism means that you have a questioning attitude towards some proposition, whether or not that skepticism is justified or "intelligent". For example, I could be skeptical of the claim that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but that would be an unreasonable case of skepticism.

Show me where I'm being 'irrational' (as you put it).

Sorry, but I feel no more obliged to do that than you felt to justify your facile claim that Dawkins' resistance to the paranormal was irrational. You simply offered that opinion as a bald assertion, and I showed you how easy it was to make such an unsupported assertion.

'Skepticism', as the term has come to be known in current debates, has been hi-jacked by a certain group of atheist-materialists whose only interest in the paranormal seems to be to find ways to attack and dismiss it. I'm sure they claim open-mindedness but I have found they are closed-minded with an emotional vehemence against the implications of the paranormal for their world-view.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is the opposite. The attacks on claims of 'paranormal activity' that I've seen strike me as perfectly well grounded. In many cases, outright fraud has been exposed. I know of no demonstrations of the paranormal that have withstood scientific scrutiny, but I accept your claim that you are convinced that at least some such claims have been true. In my experience, most people who have claimed to have had paranormal experiences have either misinterpreted their experiences or simply lied about them. And I've likely been looking at such claims at least as long as you have, if not a good deal longer (unless you are in your 70's).

What, that we're 'irrational' for our lack of skepticism?

No, that believers usually engage in irrational special pleading arguments. That is, they are just as skeptical as anyone else when it doesn't come down to a divinity or religious principle that they've been conditioned from childhood to accept. This isn't always the case, but it usually is.

 

[George-ananda]

Unfortunately, many people open their mind so much, their brain falls out.

And some close their mind so much that valuable things can't get in.

I espouse healthy open-minded skepticism myself.

 

[George-ananda]

Well, so far you've said you believe in the paranormal. That's pretty vague. Can you give us an example of something that is 'rational' and paranormal?

Just off the top of my head; some Veridical Near Death Experiences, some mediumship, some reincarnational memories, some ghost and poltergiest phenomenon, some communication of messages from the dead, some religious miracles, some telepathy; some remote viewing, some materialisations, some telekinesis, etc..

 

[George-ananda]

No, it doesn't. Skepticism means that you have a questioning attitude towards some proposition, whether or not that skepticism is justified or "intelligent". For example, I could be skeptical of the claim that Barack Obama was born in Hawaii, but that would be an unreasonable case of skepticism.

This reply starts with 'No, it doesn't.' But then it goes on to say nothing I wouldn't agree with.

Sorry, but I feel no more obliged to do that than you felt to justify your facile claim that Dawkins' resistance to the paranormal was irrational. You simply offered that opinion as a bald assertion, and I showed you how easy it was to make such an unsupported assertion.

The difference is I was never asked to justify my claim. But even so I did explain it in the last paragraph of post #57.

You are entitled to your opinion. Mine is the opposite. The attacks on claims of 'paranormal activity' that I've seen strike me as perfectly well grounded.

I agree that some of the attacks on the paranormal are well-grounded. But some are not.

In many cases, outright fraud has been exposed.

We all know that fraud occurs but you have to address phenomenon where no fraud was detected too.

I know of no demonstrations of the paranormal that have withstood scientific scrutiny, but I accept your claim that you are convinced that at least some such claims have been true.

Multiple parapsychologist have reported positive demonstrations and stand by their position. But certainly you will find the so-called Skeptics that will dispute the claims. So the lay person can either study all the details themselves (very rare) or latch onto the position of someone who represents their world-view.

In my experience, most people who have claimed to have had paranormal experiences have either misinterpreted their experiences or simply lied about them. And I've likely been looking at such claims at least as long as you have, if not a good deal longer (unless you are in your 70's).

I'm only 12 years younger than you so don't pull seniority on me mister

No, that believers usually engage in irrational special pleading arguments.

I'm not familiar with the term 'irrational special pleading arguments'. I'm pretty sure I don't use them. I do pride myself in using good logic.

That is, they are just as skeptical as anyone else when it doesn't come down to a divinity or religious principle that they've been conditioned from childhood to accept. This isn't always the case, but it usually is.

This wasn't the case for me. I was once an atheist but was converted from materialism by paranormal evidence for which the materialist understanding of consciousness was shown to be dramatically incomplete. And 'Yes' this is just my own personal evaluation and conclusion.

 

[Copernicus]

Well, why didn't you proceed to address the questions one by one if the answer is so obvious?

Too many irrelevant, repetitious questions, and too little time.

...If the human eye/sight is dependent upon the brain, what came first, the brain or the eye?

Silly question. All primates have both. Read Dawkins' book, if you want to understand how eyes evolved in animals. I'm not the expert. He is. Or, if you don't trust Dawkins, read what other evolutionary scientists have said about it. Don't waste time asking such technical questions in an internet discussion forum.

Whats wrong with belief in a "superbeing" that planned and created the universe? How is that more plausible than a universe that expanded from a singularity that DIDN'T plan to create anything, yet everything was created?

It is more plausible, because physicists have more plausible theories about the beginning of the universe that don't require reference to supernatural beings. Worse yet, the supernatural being hypothesis explains nothing, since it leaves unanswered the question of where that being came from. If it didn't have to have been created, then why did physical reality have to have been created? Since the putative deity is an superfluous entity, it violates Occam's Razor to assume its existence.

Yet, the monkey has a brain. Evolution doesn't. You think that it is unlikely for the monkey to create the painting (which is designed), but unlikely for evolution to create these specified changes that gave rise to the product of the human body (and otherwise) that we see today...

I think that you meant "likely" after "but". If so, the answer is "yes."

...Evolution has no mind, no intellect, no vision...yet we happen to have all of this complexity, and even a mind ourselves. How the heck can something with no mind create a mind? How can something with no intellect create beings with intellect?

We observe lots of simple processes in nature that interact to produce greater complexity. Brains are guidance systems for moving bodies. Hence, organisms with moving bodies that had improved guidance systems tended to outlast those that did not. Natural selection produced the human brain, just as it produced most of the traits that we observe in complex living organisms.

I will read it when Dawkins stop running from the chance to debate Dr. William Lane Craig. Craig has already criticized Dawkins' book The God Delusion in public and on paper and he is just itching to debate Dawkins, but Dawkins just keeps on running. Why?

Be honest. Dawkins has answered that himself. You can easily look up his answer. You are under no obligation to read his books, either. It's up to you whether you want to do what is necessary to understand his point of view. I would only suggest that you cease criticizing his books as if you had read them.

Evolution can work very quickly? Have you ever seen an animal produce an different kind of animal? Such as a dog producing a non-dog? Uh oh, here we go....

How about a horse producing a mule? Does that count? If not, why not?

The only overwhelming evidence that we have is the fact that dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish. Thats all you ever saw, thats all I ever saw, and thats all anyone has ever saw. When you or someone you know see otherwise, let me know...

Nonsense. You ought to pay attention to the literature on speciation. However, I am under no illusion that you are interested in doing so. The fossil record alone is enough evidence of gradual evolution, but Darwin didn't rely on it to make his case. He started out by simply referring to the practice of plant and animal breeding, which depend on the existence of heritable traits in order to work. If intelligence can guide the evolution of species, then it makes perfect sense that unintelligent environmental conditions can do the same.

No the initial assumption is not that God exist, the initial premise is it is POSSIBLE for God to exist. That is not a flaw, that is simply a possibility; either it is possible for God to exist, or it isn't. The argument states that it is possible for God to exist because there is no logical in-coherency based on the concept of a maximally great being.

The premise that God exists is inherent in the attempt to define God as a necessary being. The actual question, before Plantinga started begging it, was whether any necessary being at all existed. Plantinga has to assume God's existence in order to prove it. Ultimately, all he is saying is the same thing that Anselm said--that perfection entails existence. However, that just begs the question.

Well, "necessary truths" is a well established concept in philosophy, and the existence of God is either necessary or contingent. The argument states that based on what it means to be a maximally great being, that this kind of existence would in fact be necessary.

Philosophers are not unanimous on the question of "necessary truth," but you set up a false dichotomy here. God is neither necessarily necessary nor contingent. If he doesn't exist at all, then he is neither.

But saying physical existence is necessary would be a false statement because physical existence ISN'T necessary. The universe is contingent and everything in it is contingent.

These are just bald assertions that you have no basis for. If anything is necessary, then it is clearly physical existence itself, for we exist. The universe itself did begin to exist, but that is not the same as the claim that physical existence began to exist. You don't want to admit this, but surely you have to acknowledge it as a valid point in some corner of your mind.

So why don't we know how life can come from non-living material? That hasn't been proven yet in science.

Science has not enabled us to know everything that there is to know, and I doubt that it ever will.

I go where the evidence takes me.

So say you. I don't believe it for a second.

To claim that God was caused is giving rise to a infinite cause/effect chain of events extending back to eternal past. As the kalam cosmological argument addresses, an infinite past regressive chain isn't possible. There had to be a Uncaused Cause, and we call this cause God. So this is not a matter of assuming my conclusion, I have logical reasons to draw the conclusion that God was not created. I am not merely just stating it without warrant.

Note the bolded clause. YOU call it "God". I do not. It is reaonable to assume that physical reality just always existed in some form. If you have "logical reasons to draw the conclusion that God was not created", then present them. So far, you have shared nothing in that regard.

Well, until we have evidence that there is something beyond the observable universe, there is no need to postulate that there is.

So, you are giving up your postulation that God exists?

No it can't. Time itself came in to being along with the universe. Time cannot be infinite in its past so there must be a past boundary to time...

Once again, you conflate the universe with physical reality itself, which encompasses our universe. If you cannot grasp the difference, then we cannot have a rational discussion on the subject.

Second, you will still have the problem with thermodynamics and the second law if you postulate a eternal universe...

I do not postulate an eternal universe.

Third, you can't get consciousness from inanimate objects...

That is the question, and you just begged it.

 

[Copernicus]

This reply starts with 'No, it doesn't.' But then it goes on to say nothing I wouldn't agree with.

I was responding to your statement: Skepticism means that you intelligently challenge things with an open-mind.

I agree that some of the attacks on the paranormal are well-grounded. But some are not.

That is the question, isn't it? You have come to the conclusion that some are not, but my experiences have led me to take a more skeptical position.

We all know that fraud occurs but you have to address phenomenon where no fraud was detected too.

I suspect that all such phenomena are legitimate misinterpretations of non-paranormal phenomena.

Multiple parapsychologist have reported positive demonstrations and stand by their position. But certainly you will find the so-called Skeptics that will dispute the claims. So the lay person can either study all the details themselves (very rare) or latch onto the position of someone who represents their world-view.

George, I actually am willing to consider evidence to the contrary, but I have never come across any compelling positive evidence for such demonstrations. You assure me that there is such evidence without citing any. I remain skeptical.

I'm only 12 years younger than you so don't pull seniority on me mister

When I was a teenager, I was deeply impressed by the claims of parapsychologists and wanted to become one. I wrote Joseph Banks Rhine at Duke University, asking for advice, and he wrote me back to study hard and consider a career in conventional psychology. My skepticism evolved over the years. You don't hear as much about the field anymore, because decades of research have not led to any conclusive results.

This wasn't the case for me. I was once an atheist but was converted from materialism by paranormal evidence for which the materialist understanding of consciousness was shown to be dramatically incomplete. And 'Yes' this is just my own personal evaluation and conclusion.

You can believe in the paranormal and still be an atheist. I don't see what one has to do with the other.

 

[Windwalker]

You have come to the conclusion that some are not, but my experiences have led me to take a more skeptical position.

I'm curious what "more skeptical" actually means. I understand being skeptical of claims, but being "more skeptical" suggests something beyond skepticism.

I recall a conversation with an ardent atheist once not long ago where he referred to himself as a "hard-core skeptic". I laughed, and still do, at his statement. A "hard-core skeptic", I told him is an oxymoron. To be "hard-core" or perhaps even "more" skeptical, is to cease being skeptical and to become a cynic. What he should say is "I'm a hard-core cynic". That is much more accurate. To say in like that someone takes "more skeptical position" suggests the same thing. Skepticism by default is open-minded. Cynicism by default is closed.

I think skepticism is as much an abused word as freethinker is.

 

[Copernicus]

All that atheist was telling you was that he needed strong evidence to overcome his belief that gods were purely fictional beings. You strike me as a fairly "hard-core" theist. You do not expect your belief in God to be shaken easily.

 

[Windwalker]

All that atheist was telling you was that he needed strong evidence to overcome his belief that gods were purely fictional beings.

How do you know what the conversation and the context in which he was speaking was? Like those silly Creationists ask, "Were you there?"

You strike me as a fairly "hard-core" theist. You do not expect your belief in God to be shaken easily.

I doubt you understand what I believe, or the reasons for it. Technically, I'm not a theist. What I call God is not a fixed object of belief. Don't attempt to hear two or three words from me and stuff me into your tiny boxes as if I'm some fundamentalist thinker, theist, or atheist.

 

[George-ananda]

You can believe in the paranormal and still be an atheist. I don't see what one has to do with the other.

It's possible I suppose, but do you know may atheists that believe in the paranormal? Or believe in any type of so-called afterlife?

The problems many westerners have with the paranormal is that there is no place for so much of it to exist in the materialist paradigm.

I by chance/curiosity began self-investigating possible paradigms in which paranormal phenomenon makes sense. This lead me to Theosophy (among other esoteric things). Later I realized the paradigm actually originated from ancient India (and Vedic Science). Basically there are multiple planes to the universe. The most dense plane (our well-known physical plane) is the only one our five senses and their extensions (physical equipment) can reach.

Ultimately all planes are thought projections of the fundamental Consciousness and will return to that Consciousness. That's why that RF troubadour George-ananda likes to say 'Brahman Alone is Real'.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

This lead me to Theosophy (among other esoteric things). Later I realized the paradigm actually originated from ancient India (and Vedic Science)

It didn't.

 

[George-ananda]

It didn't.

The Theosophist's embraced the Vedic tradition. Where else the thinking may have originated was a question I wasn't addressing.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The Theosophist's embraced the Vedic tradition. Where else the thinking may have originated was a question I wasn't addressing.

I apologize for the blunt and accusatory tone in what follows, as it was addressed to another and it is simply easier to quote what I've already written in order to show how theosophists did not embrace, but helped create, modern Vedic interpretations and modern Eastern thought.

And your knowledge of yoga and Vedic texts enables you understand why that is false because...? Do you know where the word "Hinduism" comes from? And I'm sure you've read Kaṭhopaniṣad, and therefore you are quite aware of the context in which we first find the word "yoga". And you are of course familiar with the role H. P. Blavatsky, Brahmo Samaj (and those behind it, from Rammohan Roy to Sen and finally Swami Vivekananda himself), and Western esotericism had on neo-Vedānta. And it is this knowledge than enables you to understand the connection between modern Yoga and the sutras ascribed to Patañjali. So perhaps you can explain why the actual "classical" texts, the Maitrī Upaniṣad, the Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad, and the Mahābhāratam, all talk about yoga in ways that not only differ quite a bit, but have almost nothing to do with modern yoga, and why Nanda is therefore incorrect?



[Swami Vivekanada]...who as a child was introduced to western philosophers and their works (Hume, Kant, Spinoza, etc.), who was a member of the Calcutta Freemason Lodge, and who was the student of Keshubchandra Sen. Keshubchandra Sen, of course, was the student of Debendranath Tagore, and he was the student of Rammohan Roy. Do you know who first criticized the roots of Swami Vivekanda's Hinduism? Indians. Why? For starters, Rommohan's modernization and blending of Eastern tradition with Western religion and Western intellectualism, such as his book The Precepts of Jesus: The Guide to Peace and Happiness, and Debendranath Tagore rejection of the Vedic texts. Swami Vivekanda was one link in a chain of Indian intellectuals who began by rejecting much of Eastern traditions and incorporating Western.

Theosophists did not "embrace" Vedic tradition. Eastern intellectuals as far back as the 18th century embraced Western esoteric practices and traditions.

 

[Copernicus]

It's possible I suppose, but do you know may atheists that believe in the paranormal? Or believe in any type of so-called afterlife?

Yes. Many American Buddhists consider themselves atheists, but they believe in the supernatural powers of bodhisattvas and in a cycle of rebirth.

The problems many westerners have with the paranormal is that there is no place for so much of it to exist in the materialist paradigm.

George, you are working with a stereotype of "westerners" that I do not share. Most are not materialists, IMO. A great many, if not most, believe in gods, ghosts, spirits, demons, destiny, and magic.

I by chance/curiosity began self-investigating possible paradigms in which paranormal phenomenon makes sense. This lead me to Theosophy (among other esoteric things). Later I realized the paradigm actually originated from ancient India (and Vedic Science). Basically there are multiple planes to the universe. The most dense plane (our well-known physical plane) is the only one our five senses and their extensions (physical equipment) can reach.

I have a lot of respect for the accomplishments of traditional Vedic philosophers and scientists, but I don't see that tradition as especially enlightening in modern times. The scientific method has led to far greater insights into the nature of reality. Religion has a rather bad track record in that department.

Ultimately all planes are thought projections of the fundamental Consciousness and will return to that Consciousness. That's why that RF troubadour George-ananda likes to say 'Brahman Alone is Real'.

I'm not in a position to make much sense out of such claims, and I find it very hard to believe that you are in any better position.