Facts vs evidence

[Yerda]

If we do cause and effect for a natural world, then subjectivity is a case of cause and effect happening in brains as in the caused by the replication of the fittest genes. It is natural/physical but not objective.

I can live with that. The fact that there are subjective phenomena at all seems miraculous from a typically physicalist perspective. I'm hoping that some clever person can shed some light on this mystery in my lifetime.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I can live with that. The fact that there are subjective phenomena at all seems miraculous from a typically physicalist perspective. I'm hoping that some clever person can shed some light on this mystery in my lifetime.

Well, as far as I can tell it is unknown.

 

[PureX]

You characterize "reality" as an elaborate set of speculative conclusions created in our minds and distinguish it from what you label "Actuality". It is my assumption that you put these terms in quotes to signal your non-standard use of the terms.

I put them in quotes because I want to highlight the fact that these words are representational. They are not things, nor states of being. They are words that are representing complex idea sets. "Reality" is not a/the state of being. It's our conceptual idealization of a/the state of being. While the "actual" state of being us unknown to us except through our very limited immediate sensual experience of it.

I like to use the label "reality" to point to all that exists whether or not there is any sentient creature to perceive it.

Yes, I know. But that is a profoundly incoherent definition for two reasons. One reason is that perception is conception. To perceive reality is to conceive of reality. Data without processing is irrelevant. Moot. And that processing cannot happen "regardless of a sentient creature's perception".

And te other reason is because "all that exists" only exists as an idea in our minds. We have never and will never have an experience or perception of "all that exists". It's an imagined state of being. Not an actual thing, lije you are assuming it to be.

This, I think, corresponds to your "Actuality". The first point I would make to those following along is that I completely disagree that the flow of information coming into our brains through our body's sensory mechanisms could be described as incoherent.

Again. Data without processing is just incoherent, irrelevant input. And processed data is not "a state of being beyond and apart from the sentient mind". In fact, it's very much the opposite: it IS the sentient mind's conception of the state of being.

Now to address your term "reality" and your characterization of it. I would say that your term "reality" corresponds to what I would call an individual's subjective beliefs.

There are no other kind. All belief is subjective.

You really need to consider your conceptual directives far more carefully than you are.

As to what is logically possible, something can only be logically possible if it does not conflict with, or violate the defining principles, properties, and rules of the system or domain in which the logic is being applied. If that domain is "Actuality" as you have labeled, or reality, or physical world as I have described, then to be logically possible the conclusion must conform to this system, to be synthetic with reality. So what is logically possible does not begin with subjective beliefs, but begins and ends with a statement as to what system, domain, or framework within which one is appling that logic.

The ONLY thing determining what is logically possible or not possible for us are our preconceptions of what is logically possible or not possible. Beyond that, only our imaginations can reach.

Since the statement, "And this is why the existence of God being logically possible is a very significant bit of "evidence" for us.", is based in a system not of "Actuality" but in the imagination of an individual's subjective belief, the readers would have to know the particulars of that purely abstract systems defining elements, properties, and rules in addition to the properties and characteristics of the subject "God" in order to evaluate whether "the existence of God" is logically possible in that particular and purely abstract system.

None of this is true.

If some idea is deemed impossible, it is set aside. Dropped as a concept of reaity. But if an idea is deemed possible, it remains viable until such time as we deem it to be impossible. That's why the fact that the existence of God is possible is such an important bit of evidence.

 

[Yerda]

If some idea is deemed impossible, it is set aside. Dropped. But if an idea is deemed possible, it remains viable until such time as we deem it be impossible. That's why the fact that the existence of God is possible is such an important bit of evidence.

Evidence for what?

 

[MikeF]

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.


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.

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.

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?

I have recommended the abandonment of the label atheist. Atheism declares a blanket non-belief in a catagory so ill-defined as to essentially be undefined. I suggest that using the term atheist and referring to God, god, or gods in your counter-arguments does nothing more than create a strong confirmation bias in the believer. By even talking about or reference "it", it confirms in the believer that there is something there to talk about. By agruing within the Western philosophical paradigm and all the historical baggage it entails, you illicit confirmation bias in the believer.

My recommendation would be to drop the god/s centered paradigms and language, take each case individually and ask for clarification on any entity or entites proposed and address those specifically.

That is of course unless you do not rule out the existence of such, that it truely is a possiblility that has yet to be properly describe, then ignore what I've said here.

 

[PureX]

Evidence for what?

Evidence for continuing the investigation. Evidence in support of NOT being an atheist.

 

[Yerda]

Evidence for continuing the investigation.

Ok, well happy investigating. Seems a tad flimsy to me, but each to their own.

 

[PureX]

I have recommended the abandonment of the label atheist. Atheism declares a blanket non-belief in a catagory so ill-defined as to essentially be undefined. I suggest that using the term atheist and referring to God, god, or gods in your counter-arguments does nothing more than create a strong confirmation bias in the believer. By even talking about or reference "it", it confirms in the believer that there is something there to talk about. By agruing within the Western philosophical paradigm and all the historical baggage it entails, you illicit confirmation bias in the believer.

My recommendation would be to drop the god/s centered paradigms and language, take each case individually and ask for clarification on any entity or entites proposed and address those specifically.

That is of course unless you do not rule out the existence of such, that it truely is a possiblility that has yet to be properly describe, then ignore what I've said here.

The idea we call "God" is not that undefined. Any meta-idea will have a lot of variation possible, but we still all understand more or less what the term refers to: the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

The atheist's real resentment, I think, is that the mystery is not being resolved for them. And they can't argue with the fact of the mystery, itself. Which is why they are constantly arguing with religious images and stories and characterizations of the mystery.

 

[MikeF]

The idea we call "God" is not that undefined. Any meta-idea will have a lot of variation possible, but we still all understand more or less what the term refers to: the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

The atheist's real resentment, I think, is that the mystery is not being resolved for them. And they can't argue with the fact of the mystery, itself. Which is why they are constantly arguing with religious images and stories and characterizations of the mystery.

How funny. I would suggest non-believers in imagined entities would argue that believers in imagined entities believe in said entities because they can’t handle the unknown, and here you see the non-believers as having problems handling unknowns.

As to the universality of your meta-idea of “God”, I am skeptical that homo sapiens of some 200,000 years ago would recognize your universal meta-idea of “God”, nor of 10,000 years ago. We are born into a present reality, and many beliefs and ideas are embedded into us well before we can think critically about them.

What you refer to here is the persistent explanation of the gaps in our understanding. As the gap has narrowed, the meta-idea filling in the gap has evolved and adapted, from multiple animalistic and anthropomorphic entities, to a singular abstract and amorphous entity.

It really appears that the universal meta-idea is fear of the unknown, and for whatever reason, the unknown must be masked in some way.

As to why non-believers argue against imagined entities, as social animals living in large groups, what people believe can negatively impact the lives of others in the group. If beliefs in imagined entities are a source of negative impacts, folks are going to address that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

How funny. I would suggest non-believers in imagined entities would argue that believers in imagined entities believe in said entities because they can’t handle the unknown, and here you see the non-believers as having problems handling unknowns.

As to the universality of your meta-idea of “God”, I am skeptical that homo sapiens of some 200,000 years ago would recognize your universal meta-idea of “God”, nor of 10,000 years ago. We are born into a present reality, and many beliefs and ideas are embedded into us well before we can think critically about them.

What you refer to here is the persistent explanation of the gaps in our understanding. As the gap has narrowed, the meta-idea filling in the gap has evolved and adapted, from multiple animalistic and anthropomorphic entities, to a singular abstract and amorphous entity.

It really appears that the universal meta-idea is fear of the unknown, and for whatever reason, the unknown must be masked in some way.

As to why non-believers argue against imagined entities, as social animals living in large groups, what people believe can negatively impact the lives of others in the group. If beliefs in imagined entities are a source of negative impacts, folks are going to address that.

Yeah, now also get rid of ideas like reality, real, truth, rational and all those since I doubt stone age people had such ideas.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I have recommended the abandonment of the label atheist.

I like and embrace it, but many use euphemisms such as freethinker, agnostic, irreligious, skeptic, etc. to describe their lack of belief in gods because of the baggage associated with the word. Much of the West (and the Muslim East) has been conditioned by Abrahamic clergy to see atheists as immoral and an abomination to a good god, but I don't care if such people think less of me enough to use euphemisms.

Anecdote: I once treated a woman for back spasm following a fall in the shower, and wrote her a prescription for diazepam. She came back a week later perfectly fine after falling again and it correcting her problem, which was memorable in itself. She said that the medication helped, but asked why I called it diazepam instead of Valium. I told her that it was for the same reason that she called herself Persian rather than Iranian. If you know that a word has undesirable baggage, find another word. But in this case, I find it desirable to reclaim the word, which is done in large part by not being ashamed of it.

I suggest that using the term atheist and referring to God, god, or gods in your counter-arguments does nothing more than create a strong confirmation bias in the believer.

Disagree. As you just saw, I think it does something other than that. It gives many theists a reason to discriminate (undesirable but acceptable) and it helps normalize the word (desirable).

In my opinion, faith creates confirmation biases to defend the faith-based belief from evidence to the contrary, not philosophical questions about gods. Here's something recent on that:

Me: "And yes, you are boxed in by closed-mindedness caused by a faith-based confirmation bias which shows you what you want to see and a lack of critical thinking skills. Sorry that you resent reading that, but your emotional reactions are your responsibility. You don't need to be any more emotional than the critical thinkers with whom you engage. None have your plaintive disposition. None are stressed."

As you can see, I consider the reactions of readers to carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered ideas be their responsibility.

By even talking about or reference "it", it confirms in the believer that there is something there to talk about.

I agree with them. There is something to talk about.

That is of course unless you do not rule out the existence of such ... that it truely is a possiblility that has yet to be properly describe

I don't rule out an intelligent designer for the universe. I also don't believe that one exists. Regarding the concept of a god being ill-defined, I agree. I let the believer define his god for me and comment to him on that claim. If he's talking about a person separate from nature that created it and gives commands, I answer with that definition of a god in mind. If he's talking polytheistic gods, we discuss those. If he's just giving nature the name God, we can discuss that.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The idea we call "God" is not that undefined. Any meta-idea will have a lot of variation possible, but we still all understand more or less what the term refers to: the mystery source, sustenance, and purpose of all that is.

OK. Calling that a god isn't helpful, and if I want to use a personage as a metaphor, Mother Nature works fine without all of the baggage like Einstein encountered for his poetic albeit injudicious use of the word Godfor the laws of nature. Think how much better off we'd all be if he had said the Mother Nature doesn't dice with the universe. Nobody would have misunderstood him.

The atheist's real resentment, I think, is that the mystery is not being resolved for them.

That seems to apply more to you than me. I didn't feel the need to give it a name. I'm content calling the questions unanswered and for me unanswerable. And it's why I don't try to guess whether god exist. I'm comfortable with agnosticism. Many people are not, and feel a need to guess and choose between competing hypotheses just to have an answer even if wrong.

And what resentment? You're projecting. It's you that resents the atheist. I don't have an emotion reaction to theists or their beliefs.

And they can't argue with the fact of the mystery, itself.

You say that like it's something humanists want or try to do. You seem to have no concept of spirituality or the possibility of it in the humanist.

Which is why they are constantly arguing with religious images and stories and characterizations of the mystery.

Many don't want or need such stories. They add nothing for me, and they seem to be damaging to those who believe them. As an adult, I prefer plain speaking. Once again, this is how Einstein went wrong when he introduced a god to his science and philosophy.

 

[MikeF]

I put them in quotes because I want to highlight the fact that these words are representational. They are not things, nor states of being. They are words that are representing complex idea sets. "Reality" is not a/the state of being. It's our conceptual idealization of a/the state of being. While the "actual" state of being us unknown to us except through our very limited immediate sensual experience of it.

Yes, I know. But that is a profoundly incoherent definition for two reasons. One reason is that perception is conception. To perceive reality is to conceive of reality. Data without processing is irrelevant. Moot. And that processing cannot happen "regardless of a sentient creature's perception".

And te other reason is because "all that exists" only exists as an idea in our minds. We have never and will never have an experience or perception of "all that exists". It's an imagined state of being. Not an actual thing, lije you are assuming it to be.

Again. Data without processing is just incoherent, irrelevant input. And processed data is not "a state of being beyond and apart from the sentient mind". In fact, it's very much the opposite: it IS the sentient mind's conception of the state of being.

There are no other kind. All belief is subjective.

You really need to consider your conceptual directives far more carefully than you are.

The ONLY thing determining what is logically possible or not possible for us are our preconceptions of what is logically possible or not possible. Beyond that, only our imaginations can reach.

None of this is true.

If some idea is deemed impossible, it is set aside. Dropped as a concept of reaity. But if an idea is deemed possible, it remains viable until such time as we deem it to be impossible. That's why the fact that the existence of God is possible is such an important bit of evidence.

What can I say, other than I disagree. You are fixated on the experience of the individual, and of that, I am more than happy to be skeptical. But we do not have to stop there, throw up are hands and say, we really can't know anything about the world around us. We do not simply have our own experience, we have the experience of billions of other imperfect observers. With all that data, as well as our ability to create tools that expand our ability to collect data, data collected independently from a human observer, we have the ability to explore and understand actual reality, or as you say "Actuality".

Since we can be quite confident that things exist, as explained above, referring to "all that exists" is hardly an imagined fiction. However, I am definitely not saying that we know all the details of everything out there, by any means.

The ONLY thing determining what is logically possible or not possible for us are our preconceptions of what is logically possible or not possible. Beyond that, only our imaginations can reach.

When talking about "Actualtiy", or the real world for the rest of us, it is our understanding of the rules and properties of the cosmos that determine our ability to make a judgment of logically possible. Now, since I think we are both in agreement that collectively, we (humanity) do not fully understand all the rules and properties of the cosmos, I suggest that any proclaimed judgment of logically possible is necessarily restricted what comports with what we do know. Outside of that is simply unknown. In the world of "Actuality" as we know it, no one can claim imagined entites as logically possible, there is nothing there to logically support such a claim.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What can I say, other than I disagree. You are fixated on the experience of the individual, and of that, I am more than happy to be skeptical. But we do not have to stop there, throw up are hands and say, we really can't know anything about the world around us. We do not simply have our own experience, we have the experience of billions of other imperfect observers. With all that data, as well as our ability to create tools that expand our ability to collect data, data collected independently from a human observer, we have the ability to explore and understand actual reality, or as you say "Actuality".

Since we can be quite confident that things exist, as explained above, referring to "all that exists" is hardly an imagined fiction. However, I am definitely not saying that we know all the details of everything out there, by any means.



When talking about "Actualtiy", or the real world for the rest of us, it is our understanding of the rules and properties of the cosmos that determine our ability to make a judgment of logically possible. Now, since I think we are both in agreement that collectively, we (humanity) do not fully understand all the rules and properties of the cosmos, I suggest that any proclaimed judgment of logically possible is necessarily restricted what comports with what we do know. Outside of that is simply unknown. In the world of "Actuality" as we know it, no one can claim imagined entites as logically possible, there is nothing there to logically support such a claim.

I am not your we and you have no evidence that I am your we.

 

[Trailblazer]

I suppose that your criteria is what Baha'u'llah taught, and that you believe all of that without editing.

Yes, I believe what Baha'u'llah wrote, but I have no reason to believe everything that is in the Old Testament or the New Testament.
Baha'i views of the Bible vary widely. My views lie in the middle area.

Introduction

Although Bahá'ís universally share a great respect for the Bible, and acknowledge its status as sacred literature, their individual views about its authoritative status range along the full spectrum of possibilities. At one end there are those who assume the uncritical evangelical or fundamentalist-Christian view that the Bible is wholly and indisputably the word of God. At the other end are Bahá'ís attracted to the liberal, scholarly conclusion that the Bible is no more than a product of complex historical and human forces. Between these extremes is the possibility that the Bible contains the Word of God, but only in a particular sense of the phrase 'Word of God' or in particular texts. I hope to show that a Bahá'í view must lie in this middle area, and can be defined to some degree.

Bahá'í teachers and scholars both have an interest in solving this problem. It should be noted at this point that the problem of Biblical authority addressed here is logically prior to that of Biblical interpretation, and the defining of a Bahá'í view is logically prior to engaging in inter-religious dialogue.

Conclusion

The Bahá'í viewpoint proposed by this essay has been established as follows: The Bible is a reliable source of Divine guidance and salvation, and rightly regarded as a sacred and holy book. However, as a collection of the writings of independent and human authors, it is not necessarily historically accurate. Nor can the words of its writers, although inspired, be strictly defined as 'The Word of God' in the way the original words of Moses and Jesus could have been. Instead there is an area of continuing interest for Bahá'í scholars, possibly involving the creation of new categories for defining authoritative religious literature.

A Baháí View of the Bible

Below is the Baha'i position on the Bible according to the Guardian of the Baha'i Faith, Shoghi Effendi:

The Bahá'ís believe what is in the Bible to be true in substance. This does not mean that every word recorded in that Book is to be taken literally and treated as the authentic saying of a Prophet.

...The Bahá'ís believe that God's Revelation is under His care and protection and that the essence, or essential elements, of what His Manifestations intended to convey has been recorded and preserved in Their Holy Books. However, as the sayings of the ancient Prophets were written down some time later, we cannot categorically state, as we do in the case of the Writings of Bahá'u'lláh, that the words and phrases attributed to Them are Their exact words
(9 August 1984 to an individual believer)

When 'Abdu'l-Bahá states we believe what is in the Bible, He means in substance. Not that we believe every word of it to be taken literally or that every word is the authentic saying of the Prophet.
(11 February 1944 to an individual believer)

The Bible: Extracts on the Old and New Testaments

When does the god of Abraham become the god of Baha'u'llah?

The God of Abraham is the same God as the God of Baha'u'llah, since there is only one God.
I believe the attributes of that God as revealed by Baha'u'llah since I believe He received a direct revelation from God. It makes no sense to me to believe that everything the biblical authors wrote about God is accurate. The claim is that these men wrote as they were moved by the Holy Spirit of God, but what reason do I have to believe that given they were not Messengers of God?

 

[MikeF]

Disagree. As you just saw, I think it does something other than that. It gives many theists a reason to discriminate (undesirable but acceptable) and it helps normalize the word (desirable).

In my opinion, faith creates confirmation biases to defend the faith-based belief from evidence to the contrary, not philosophical questions about gods. Here's something recent on that:

Me: "And yes, you are boxed in by closed-mindedness caused by a faith-based confirmation bias which shows you what you want to see and a lack of critical thinking skills. Sorry that you resent reading that, but your emotional reactions are your responsibility. You don't need to be any more emotional than the critical thinkers with whom you engage. None have your plaintive disposition. None are stressed."

As you can see, I consider the reactions of readers to carefully considered, sincerely believed, and constructively offered ideas be their responsibility.

I am not sure faith creates confirmation bias, rather, I see it as a safe harbor into which those biases can be preserved. With a strong belief in the existence of the imagined entity, lots of things, every day things, can be interpreted as confirmation, including someone arguing against their particular entity within their paradigm.

I might also suggest that working within an atheism/theism paradigm gives the psychological impression that those on team theism are essentially agruing for the same thing, when in reality, they are not. That sense that "What I believe and am arguing for is held by just about everyone other than these few atheist" provides just that much more bonding and confirmation to the belief. It would be better from the non-believers point of view to break that illusion.

So, I am suggesting that remaining within the Western theological paradigms provides another kind of safe harbor. It seems necessary, to me at least, to find ways to create cognitive dissonance by rejecting the whole paradigm in which the imagined entity is built.

But again, that is my take, and my suggestion to those who reject any and all non-natural entity claims.

 

[MikeF]

I am not your we and you have no evidence that I am your we.

Sorry to break it to you Mikkel, but you are part of the human race whether you like it or not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Sorry to break it to you Mikkel, but you are part of the human race whether you like it or not.

And there we are totally the same in all cases. In fact there are no difference at all and I am you. We are one and not individuals as humans. So if you die, I die, because you die. We are one!!!
You really don't understand the replication of the fittest genes, do you?

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The God of Abraham is the same God as the God of Baha'u'llah, since there is only one God.

By that reckoning, all monotheists believe in the same god even if the gods they describe are mutually exclusive. The deists also only believe in one god, a god that built the universe and then disappeared - also the god of Abraham and Baha'u'llah.

I am not sure faith creates confirmation bias

Where else would you find one? A confirmation bias protects consciousness from contradictory evidence. That pretty much defines holding a faith-based view that is incorrect.

One of my favorite resources on the topic which you might also find helpful comes from a young earth creationist (YEC) and geologist, Glenn Morton, who became an old earth creationist as he studied geology. He describes his confirmation bias as a YEC using the device of a demon who sat at the portal of his awareness screening ideas and throwing those that disagreed with his faith-based belief out to protect him from contradictory evidence. I find him and the description of his experience credible. The Talk.Origins Archive Post of the Month: February 2002

I might also suggest that working within an atheism/theism paradigm gives the psychological impression that those on team theism are essentially arguing for the same thing, when in reality, they are not.

You might be right judging by the comment from Trailblazer above, but why should that be of concern of the atheists posting to them? I don't mind if they think like that, and they don't seem to either.

That sense that "What I believe and am arguing for is held by just about everyone other than these few atheist" provides just that much more bonding and confirmation to the belief. It would be better from the non-believers point of view to break that illusion.

Better for whom? You and I may have a different view of how such people think, what is possible in conversation with them, and what is undesirable. I don't think any zealous believers are affected at all by my posting except when they have an emotional reaction to it, and that's fine if they do.

 

[Yerda]

And they can't argue with the fact of the mystery, itself.

From my experience, many of them don't see the mysterious (or mystical) side to the world as insoluble. I sure didn't for many years and my impression is that my fellow atheists think I'm a bit weird insofar as I do now.