Facts vs evidence

[PureX]

Logically possible has nothing to do with actually possible unless the logic remains synthitic to reality, which in this case it does not. Logic is simply a tool of abstraction and can be used incorrectly.

You don't seem to understand that "reality" is an elaborate set of speculative conclusions created in or minds by the combination of logic and imagination. "Actuality", on the other hand, is just a flow of incoherent information coming into our brains through our body's sensory mechanisms. What's logically possible is where our "reality" begins. And this is why the existence of God being logically possible is a very significant bit of "evidence" for us.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

bit of a contradiction.. You say that it is possible that God exists, but you think it highly unlikely.

That's a slight improvement, but still not correct. You've gotten past saying that I deny that gods exist. Will you still remember that the next time you post on the matter?

And I don't see a contradiction there. Both statements can be correct.

When an Abrahamic theist writes, "God," he is referring to the god of the Old Testament, the one that allegedly never lies and claimed to have crated the kinds. That god has been ruled out by the evidence for evolution. If evolution didn't occur - if the theory were falsified by some finding - then a deceptive superhuman entity went to considerable trouble to make it look that way, not "God."

But back to generic gods like the deist god, I have no opinion of the likelihood of their existence. How could I assign a probability to that? Based in what? My gut feeling? 1% likely? 10% likely? 50% likely? Some other number? I don't do that. I don't make such guesses, because they're meaningless. So not to God or gods being highly unlikely. The Abrahamic god is ruled out, and the existence of other gods is not assigned any degree of likelihood.

As another example, the Russian Collusion Coup was conjured in the minds of leadership. They then tried to find data and evidence that appeared to support their theory, stemming from their internal reality; paranoia.

It's remarkable to me how you politicize every post. Here you are talking about interpreting sensory data, and your go-to example was that.

Incidentally, I liked your treatment of sensation. Yes, the public domain begins where one's skin ends and external space begins, and formal science limits its investigation to the apprehensions of the exteroceptors, often called objective reality, although I like the phrase common reality better.

But that is not where the world outside of our minds begins. It begins with the body, which can be thought of as organized as an outer musculoskeletal shell wrapped in skin used for voluntary movement and protection of the softer, fleshy, internal organs. These two are called the somatic body and the visceral body, and we receive status information from them. From the somatic body, we are informed of our bodily status - position, motion. From the visceral body, we get vague, diffuse (difficult to localize) messages such as heartburn and menstrual pain. Add to these the nervous system (which we only experience when it is diseased, as with seizures or trigeminal neuralgia), and the blood (metabolism), which sensors tell us when we are dehydrated (thirst) or fighting a virus (fever, fatigue). These sensations are often called subjective.

As you suggested, we evaluate the reproducible phenomena of our bodies the same way we all evaluate the outside world. I call both of these informal science (empiricism), since it involves observation, induction. If Brussels sprout reliably and reproducibly lead to a bad taste (or vice versa), that's information one can use the same way he uses exteroceptive inductions.

My gut feeling is based on the earth naturally going through climate change cycles with a billion years of geological evidence, up and down to extremes, apart from humans. The magic trick it to make natural cycle seem to imply the unnatural, so seeing is believing. This theory comes from the same people who ran the collusion coup

Now you're doing what you accuse others of. Anthropomorphic global climate change is a fact and considered settled science in the climate science community. And no, that's not 'just my opinion.' One only need look at their supporting data. And no, the people advocating Trumpian Russian collusion are not the same as those advocating for AGCH, but the ones denying both probably are the same people. There is also much overlap with election hoaxers and vaccine hoaxers. Why? Because they all come to their conclusions the same way - faith. If one finds that an acceptable way to think, he's susceptible to all of those false beliefs, and if he's an American subjected to incessant conservative media indoctrination, he is likely to believe them all.

And yes, the Trump campaign and orbit were in cahoots with the Russians. How do we know? Besides the evidence, there's common sense. Ask yourself two questions: Was it possible for Trump to collude with the Russians, and if it were, would he do it. That's a no-brainer. All one need do is apply what I call the dog test. You defrosted a steak on a plate which you put on the table, but forgot to put it back into the refrigerator before you left for work. Your dog is home alone, loves steak, has never been trained, and can get to the steak. Question: Did the dog eat the steak? [cue Jeopardy! theme music] If you're still undecided, ask yourself the two questions again - was it possible for the dog to eat the steak and would it if it could.

 

[muhammad_isa]

There's not really a contradiction there, surely?

..just a bit.
"It is possible that the universe has a reason for its existence .. but it is unlikely".
Why is it unlikely, when everything we see and do has a reason?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

..just a bit.
"It is possible that the universe has a reason for its existence .. but it is unlikely".
Why is it unlikely, when everything we see and do has a reason?

I can't see a reason. I think/feel in reasons.

 

[exchemist]

..just a bit.
"It is possible that the universe has a reason for its existence .. but it is unlikely".
Why is it unlikely, when everything we see and do has a reason?

Can you point to a post in which someone actually says that? Or is this a question you have constructed?

 

[PureX]

I would disagree here. I would argue that science can make a case that human beings are the source of the abstract concept labeled morality.

But not that we are the only source. Which is the conclusion that the "scientism" crowd jumps to.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Can you point to a post in which someone actually says that? Or is this a question you have constructed?

It's a question I have constructed, because that is the implication of
"It is possible that God exists, but is unlikely"

 

[PureX]

The way I use the words, I'm both. I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods ...

An atheist does not believe in God, and merely wishes to deflect the issue to another.

... and an agnostic because I do not declare that they cannot or do not exist.

But you did just declare that you believe gods do not exist by declaring that you do not believe in them (existing). And then you bemoan the fact that theists don't understand your position. Perhaps it's because YOU don't appear to understand that you're contradicting yourself with every statement you make about it. Basically, you want to claim that gods don't exist but you don't want to defend it, because you can't. So you make the claim, and then try to insist that you are not making the claim because you're "agnostic". But the belief claim you just made is not agnostic. It's atheistic.

You're hiding your inability to defend your belief behind our collective human inability to know. But if you recognize that you can't know, then why are you adopting and proclaiming a belief? The theist can answer this question based on the result obtained from trusting in the possibility of God's existence. But the atheist cannot because there is no result to be gained from "unbelief". And that's why so many atheists routinely engage in all this deliberate subterfuge and double-speak.

I have abandoned hope that theists on RF will ever learn what atheists believe.

And I have abandoned all hope of ever seeing an atheist actually own and defend what they choose to believe and why. We ALL already know what they believe. They tell us constantly. But the instant they're asked to explain it, or justify it, or defend is (as they re constantly demanding everyone else must do) they immediately become "agnostics" and pretend they make no claims at all.

And then they feign dismay at why the theists aren't buying into this dishonest double-speak.

For me, logically possible means not yet proven impossible.

Ah! "Proven" to whom? That would be you, wouldn't it. And "proven" by what standard of proof? That would be yours, wouldn't it. And according to what evidence? Again, that would be the evidence that you decided was evidence according to your own definition.

Seeing a pattern here?

It would be hard to give up a thought process that guarantees the ego a win every time, lie that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

But you did just declare that you believe gods do not exist by declaring that you do not believe in them (existing).

Nope. Those are different claims. In fact, I explicitly claimed that I do not believe that gods don't exist.

From this thread "I'm an atheist because I don't believe in gods and an agnostic because I do not declare that they cannot or do not exist." What does that say? I've written that comment dozens of times including to you. Here are three more examples:

From here:
He: "If you are an atheist, in reality, you consciously held the view that there must not be a god, or gods"
Me: "I'm an agnostic atheist, meaning that I don't hold that view."

From here:
Me: "This is how the agnostic atheist views god claims, and why he lives his life as if gods do not exist without saying that they don't."

From here:
He: "you say God does not exist because God has no evidence."
Me: "That is not the position of the agnostic atheist. Why is this so difficult for so many theists to assimilate? There's a place between belief and disbelief called agnosticism, which we can call unbelief. It is different from disbelief. Can you not imagine having no opinion about the truth status of a statement? Maybe an analogy will help - trust. There are those who we have known long enough to have trusted and been correct that they were trustworthy. There are those that we have known long enough to know that that should not be trusted. But how about people we know nothing about? Do we know that we can trust them? No. Do we know that they cannot be trusted? No. So we don't trust them. This is not calling them dishonest or unreliable.

And then you bemoan the fact that theists don't understand your position.

Yes, I do. None of you seem to be able to learn this. It's a mystery to me why that is, and those familiar with my posting know that I am interested in trying to understand how other minds work. There's is a reason a literate person reads the words, "I do not say that there is no god" and sees "There is no god." I ask myself what would need to be changed in my mind for me to make those kinds of comments, and all I can conceive of is a confirmation bias that prevents you from seeing what is in front of you by filtering it out before it reaches consciousness.

And as for you seeing further with soft thinking and the critical thinker wearing blinders, I think this puts that claim to rest. Who's wearing the blinders here? You're not seeing past your nose.

I have abandoned all hope of ever seeing an atheist actually own and defend what they choose to believe and why. We ALL already know what they believe.

You don't. You just demonstrated that.

Maybe you shouldn't be so critical of thinking you don't understand and can't even paraphrase. I have no doubt that if I asked you now what I believe about gods that your answer would be that I say that they don't exist, and that you will die holding that belief, although I've got to say that @muhammad_isa made an unprecedented breakthrough earlier in this thread by posting, "You say that it is possible that God exists, but you think it highly unlikely." after I just explained all of this to him as well. You didn't do as well. You are refractory to the evidence that contradicts you.

"Proven" to whom? That would be you, wouldn't it. And "proven" by what standard of proof? That would be yours, wouldn't it. And according to what evidence? Again, that would be the evidence that you decided was evidence according to your own definition.

That was in response to, "For me, logically possible means not yet proven impossible." It applies to each individual - proven to them according to their own standards of belief. When a theist says that abiogenesis is impossible, he is saying that he has been convinced that it is impossible according to his own standards for belief.

Did you want to challenge the definition? Do you have a different understanding of what logically possible means?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, that is true.

Is it really evidence then or just a premise.

All possibilities are the result of imagination.

Even unimaged possibilities? I imagine there are possibilities I haven't imagined. How can I know what they are?

... "Nothing more than"... implies something less than.

That doesn't address my point. It's just meaningless contradiction as filler.

If imagination is everything and everything imaginable is possible, then God existing and not existing are concurrent states that cannot logically exist as real at the same time.

My mother was seduced by a unicorn and nine months later, I was born. My father, being a loyal husband, a good man and Proconsul for Atlantis took me as his own son. Growing up in that fantastic land was a marvelous adventure for an imaginative lad. My mother used to throw tea parties for Mt. Everest and invite all the land. That mighty mountain would regale us with tales of dragons and bold adventurers that used scale his peaks.

Are you going to rush out now and claim to know the son of unicorn whose mother used to throw parties for mountains that are really quite jovial when you get food in them? Consider the possibilities of having a high born Atlantean as a friend.

Why do you keep denigrating imagination? All of what we call "reality" is imagined. ALL OF IT. "Actual" reality is just a bunch of incoherent sensory input, to us.

I haven't. That appears to be your failure to understand.

I'm sorry to hear you find your sensory input so incoherent. Have you considered that may be an issue?

The phenomenon is already "real". This is what you don't seem to be grasping. "Reality" is a conceptual phenomenon created by our imaginations. Everything else is just incoherent sensory input.

Your definition of real and mine are obviously not the same. Yours seems to stretch all the utility out of that word.

A possibility is not actual by default. The cat may be dead. It may be alive. We don't know without looking and seeing the evidence.

We are all always "postulating reality". All the time. You keep trying to imply that doing this is somehow objectionable. When it fact it's inevitable as it's the human condition.

I never have. What I have stated is that you don't appear to like science and seem to see all of it as scientism.

I don't, however, think that freshman musing late into the night over beers is conjuring something into existence beyond the conceptual level. Essentially, you seem to be claiming, without evidence that merely imagining something makes it real and this means that science can tell us nothing, but by the same token no can really know anything if we follow you down that rabbit hole.

You say that the evideence of God being possible is not useful or relevant because it does not convince you that God eists and more than it convinces you that God does not exist. But that's your problem.

It's not a problem. I believe God exists without evidence and your grasping at imaginary straws is not evidence for God.

It is possible that my God and whatever it is you call God are not the actual God.

The evidence stands regardless.

You have no evidence. Just poor logical conjuring that convinces you, but that was your goal I would imagine.

The truth does not exist to be revealed to you.

Of course, just a few words down you reveal it to me. Hmmmm?

It simply is what is. God is possible. That is the truth. So those who believe that God is "reality" are being as honest and logical as those that do not.

All you are saying is that people that believe in God are not lying when they say they believe. That is evidence for what people believe and not evidence for what they believe exists. How do you not get that?

This seems to be something that many atheists really don't want to recognize. And instead want to disparage as "mere imagination". When in fact it's no more or less imaginative than anyone else's imagined reality.

I'm not an atheist and I can still see that most of what you are saying is purely imagination. Is my Atlantean origin story above more or less than the origin of a man born in the late 60's, the son of a retired Marine and electrician and a nurse that grew up in the Ozarks going to the Baptist church and accepting Christ as a teenager while learning the science that would become his profession? If you think one is more real than the other, why? Would it be evidence and not imagination?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I think you'll find that you can ask any question you wish, as long as it is logically possible .. but again, that is not the question being asked.
An atheist does not believe in God, and merely wishes to deflect the issue to another.

Any question, regardless of how logical or possible, can be asked.

Does asking a question about any imagined object does exist in reality? Does the asking increase the likelihood that the imagined object exists?

I don't know what an atheist would do, but I do know what theists that think they have all the answers do.

Do you think that you can know as much or more than God? I've asked the question.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

You don't seem to understand that "reality" is an elaborate set of speculative conclusions created in or minds by the combination of logic and imagination. "Actuality", on the other hand, is just a flow of incoherent information coming into our brains through our body's sensory mechanisms. What's logically possible is where our "reality" begins. And this is why the existence of God being logically possible is a very significant bit of "evidence" for us.

How do you know that others have a problem perceiving reality and that it is all incoherent information? I imagine that they don't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

..just a bit.
"It is possible that the universe has a reason for its existence .. but it is unlikely".
Why is it unlikely, when everything we see and do has a reason?

Some things have causes, but is a cause a reason?

Is there evidence that every event has a reason or is that just a belief with no evidence?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I can't see a reason. I think/feel in reasons.

I can see causes, but I don't know that causes have reasoning behind them. I might believe some or all do, but I don't know if any do.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is there evidence that every event has a reason or is that just a belief with no evidence?

There most surely is evidence to show that every event has a reason, yes.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us of an event you know of, that happens without a reason?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can see causes, but I don't know that causes have reasoning behind them. I might believe some or all do, but I don't know if any do.

Never do David Hume on causes then, because he claimed they are psychological and in the mind.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes, I do. None of you seem to be able to learn this. It's a mystery to me why that is, and those familiar with my posting know that I am interested in trying to understand how other minds work. There's is a reason a literate person reads the words, "I do not say that there is no god" and sees "There is no god." I ask myself what would need to be changed in my mind for me to make those kinds of comments, and all I can conceive of is a confirmation bias that prevents you from seeing what is in front of you by filtering it out before it reaches consciousness.

I ask myself that question all the time. Why do I post one thing and some others read an entirely different thing?

On another thread I asked for the evidence people that claim to recognize demons use to recognize them. I got all sorts for responses about why I don't believe in demons. Never made any statement regarding my belief in them at all. It was a reasonable question given the claims.

That and yours are just a couple of examples of this phenomenon regularly repeated.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Any question, regardless of how logical or possible, can be asked.

Does asking a question about any imagined object does exist in reality? Does the asking increase the likelihood that the imagined object exists?

I don't know what an atheist would do, but I do know what theists that think they have all the answers do.

Do you think that you can know as much or more than God? I've asked the question.

That is a good one. Another one is the absurdity of proof causes existence.
In effect if I make the perfect argument in my mind, the proof causes God to exist. In more everyday words the proof means that God exists. But that means I am greater than God, because my thought created God. Yeah, I know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

There most surely is evidence to show that every event has a reason, yes.
Perhaps you'd like to tell us of an event you know of, that happens without a reason?

There is evidence of reason for events caused by humans, but no evidence for reason in natural events.

Perhaps you would like to show the reason behind destructive storms, earthquakes, floods, random accidents and so forth.

I know they have causes, but there is no evidence they occurred with a purpose.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Never do David Hume on causes then, because he claimed they are psychological and in the mind.

Honestly, I need to refresh my acquaintance with a broad swath of philosophy.