What If You're Wrong

[Polymath257]

If we are wrong about the creator if there is one... it's like being wrong about the host of where we are invited. It does matter.

Suppose you were walking down the street and noticed a party. Someone at the party invites you in. You assume that the person who invited you to be the host. You have a wonderful time, but towards the end, you find out someone else was the host. And it was someone you hadn't seen at the party. But you were told by another party-goer that this other person was the correct host. When pressed, you find out that the person who told you wasn't sure who the host is either.

How much does it matter that you were wrong about the host?

As far as I can see, very little.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Is ANY evidence for deities objective? Or even evidence?

Does it need to be? And yes, subjective evidence is, indeed, evidence.

 

[Audie]

Is ANY evidence for deities objective? Or even evidence?

Phone rings and rings in ye empty warehouse
when that q is asked.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Is all evidence objective?

Of course not. You often need evidence for the evidence, specifically because of the idea that subjectivity is introduced at all levels. Hence the reason eye-witness testimony is not considered as compelling as something like DNA evidence.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Does it need to be?

If we're admitting that it is not, then why is it ever a big problem when someone questions someone else's ideas that do not seem to reflect the reality we inhabit?

 

[Audie]

You need someone like me to be so superior and condescending to. It's clearly important to you, and means nothing to me. So ... you're welcome.

Condescending-
So says he who seemed to think it necessary
to explain to me what the op was talking about.

You' d make a better frienemy if you were
to lighten up a little. Nobody is as full of you as you are.

 

[SalixIncendium]

If we're admitting that it is not, then why is it ever a big problem when someone questions someone else's ideas that do not seem to reflect the reality we inhabit?

It isn’t for me. It is for people who need to satiate their egos by proving they’re right while proving others wrong.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

It isn’t for me. It is for people who need to satiate their egos by proving they’re right while proving others wrong.

I don't pretend to "be right." I only point out that I am pretty sure that others aren't.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The whole thing is just so totally unbelievable,
but, some believe even scientology.

So what are your thoughts on Ayn Rand Objectivism versus cognitive relativism. Both are non-religious, but only one can be right as truth can't both absolute and relative.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I don't pretend to "be right." I only point out that I am pretty sure that others aren't.

Your state of mind doesn't cause other people to be not right. That is magical thinking. Your state of mind can't cause other humans to neither right nor wrong.
What are you trying to say?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Who cares what "Dawkins" says?

Turn the question around.

What of you theists with your huge investment
in religion, what if you are wrong?

No god, no supernatural, no afterlife?
Is that ever seriously considered?

Its of more immediate and obvious importance
than the Pascals ger you are offering.

You get one life, and to waste so much of it on
nonsense-?

Does this get even 39 seconds of serious
thought?

Or even worse for theists, what if god is real, and he is similar to the immoral God of the Bible. If you worship the wrong version of him your punishment is worse than not worshiping at all. Since theists like to use "odds arguments" with all of the possible gods, and so many theists believing in immoral versions of god an immoral god seems just as likely as a moral one. With this small twist Pascal's wager becomes an argument for atheism.

Of course the main problem with Pascal's wager is that it ignores the fact that belief is not voluntary for a rational thinker. I cannot force myself to believe that horses can sprout wings and fly no matter how many myths about Pegasus that I read. The same applies to the existence of a god.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

Your state of mind doesn't cause other people to be not right. That is magical thinking. Your state of mind can't cause other humans to neither right nor wrong.
What are you trying to say?

I'm trying to say what I have been saying all along... if I find your justifications flimsy enough, I am going to call you out on it and ask that you provide compelling evidence for your claims. If you can't provide it, then I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE YOU.

Also - I, personally, make no claims as such. I'll be the first to admit I might be wrong about anything I can't provide compelling evidence for. AS SHOULD BE EVERYONE ELSE WITH HALF A WORKING BRAIN.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Or even worse for theists, what if god is real, and he is similar to the immoral God of the Bible. If you worship the wrong version of him your punishment is worse than not worshiping at all. Since theists like to use "odds arguments" with all of the possible gods, and so many theists believing in immoral versions of god an immoral god seems just as likely as a moral one. With this small twist Pascal's wager becomes an argument for atheism.

Of course the main problem with Pascal's wager is that it ignores the fact that belief is not voluntary for a rational thinker. I cannot force myself to believe that horses can sprout wings and fly no matter how many myths about Pegasus that I read. The same applies to the existence of a god.

What is the status of objective reality?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm trying to say what I have been saying all along... if I find your justifications flimsy enough, I am going to call you out on it and ask that you provide compelling evidence for your claims. If you can't provide it, then I AM NOT GOING TO BELIEVE YOU.

Also - I, personally, make no claims as such. I'll be the first to admit I might be wrong about anything I can't provide compelling evidence for. AS SHOULD BE EVERYONE ELSE WITH HALF A WORKING BRAIN.

So what is compelling evidence?

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

What is the status of objective reality?

Why is it people always turn to things like this when they don't have solid ground to stand on for the position they desire to hold? Attempts at deconstructing all of reality as we know it. When you have to turn to that tactic, it is definitely time to admit that you were bluffing all along. The hand you're holding is the 2 of diamonds, 5 of spades, 7 of hearts, 9 of clubs and you accidentally got dealt a joker when they weren't even supposed to be in play. And you were betting as if you had the royal flush.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Why is it people always turn to things like this when they don't have solid ground to stand on for the position they desire to hold? Attempts at deconstructing all of reality as we know it. When you have to turn to that tactic, it is definitely time to admit that you were bluffing all along. The hand you're holding is the 2 of diamonds, 5 of spades, 7 of hearts, 9 of clubs and you accidentally got dealt a joker when they weren't even supposed to be in play. And you were betting as if you had the royal flush.

That is not a reasoned argument. It takes for granted that there is compelling evidence, but doesn't show it.
The question is if we know reality. You haven't shown compelling evidence for it. Further you speak for a "we" that doesn't exist. All humans doesn't believe in knowledge like you do.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

So what is compelling evidence?

Something that can be observed by any party (barring sensory issues, of course), and whose existence, placement aspect (or any combination) point toward the hypothesis being proposed. Something that distinctively explains the parts of the observed phenomenon as we find it in existence and that does not, itself, stand in conflict or contradiction with any other part of the hypothesis or further related observable phenomena.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is the status of objective reality?

That which can be tested and confirmed. There are all sorts of observations that we make that are not confirmable. That does not mean that they are not real, it only means that they are questionable observations. There are observations that can be endlessly tested and confirmed. That is what is usually thought of as reality.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

That is not a reasoned argument. It takes for granted that there is compelling evidence, but doesn't show it.
The question is if we know reality. You haven't shown compelling evidence for it.

Evidence for reality is to be found literally everywhere. The same is actually said by people who claim that God exists - that "the evidence is everywhere." But when it is applied to the reality we all (at least appear to) share and inhabit (again - according to the massive preponderance of EVIDENCE we each and collectively have at our disposal), then you claim "fowl!" What a load of absolute crap.

All humans doesn't believe in knowledge like you do.

Good for them, I guess? I can't be arsed to care about those people's opinions then, honestly. If they aren't interested in providing evidence for wild claims than they can get out of my face.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That is not a reasoned argument. It takes for granted that there is compelling evidence, but doesn't show it.
The question is if we know reality. You haven't shown compelling evidence for it. Further you speak for a "we" that doesn't exist. All humans doesn't believe in knowledge like you do.

Putting unrealistic demands on others is not reasonable. If a person is denying reality in a face to face debate it is the one time that a quick slap across the face is justified. It immediately demonstrates the error of his ways nonverbally with no lasting damage.