EdenOne: I am not going to persecute anyone for what they believe. I am simply trying to explore your definition -- according to what you say, we should be abenteists with respect to santa living in the andromeda galaxy?
Posts by bohm
-
284I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
-
-
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
-
-
bohm
EdenOne: Just trying to see if I can follow your logic. Suppose I consider the idea that santa exists in the andromeda galaxy with flying raindeer. There is no evidence for or against that idea, so should we then not be abentists with respect to santa?
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
-
-
bohm
EdenOne:
Okay -- obviously we agree out of principle one should not say that so-and-so is 100% true, but it is not a very common think to meet atheists who believe so, especially those with scientific training. For instance Dawkins has his "Belief scale" (or what it is called) where he score himself as 6 out of 7 in terms of "unbelief".
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
-
-
bohm
EdenOne:
I agree this is all a matter of probability. I think the issue here is that you can accomplish what you set out to obtain by simply applying the standard tools of scientific inference. Suppose you have the following hypothesis:
H : God exists.
Now you gather evidence and that affects your belief* in H. Suppose (say) H becomes very unlikely on the evidence, then one way to quantify that is to say the probability H is true is very low. In facts, on this view, claims of certainty about non-analytical statements are merely approximating probabilities very near 0 or 1 with 0 or 1.
The point I am making is you should distinguish between two things: 1) the hypothesis (god exists, unicorns exist, seashells exist, the Higgs bosone exists) and 2) the degree of belief in these statements which is principle never 1 (total acceptance) or 0 (total acceptance of the negation).So you don't need to alter your original hypothesis H to
H' : God is absent
to allow for the remote possibility god may exist -- it is build into the framework of inference that such a remote chance might exist.
* Belief has various meanings and i am not using the religious one.
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
-
-
bohm
Re. Augustus Ceasar, I think it is a bit obtuse to say that Augustus Ceasar is a diety who existed. Now I don't know too much about what people thought about AC, but clearly they were either (1) factually mistaken about his nature or (2) using a different definition of deity than that of christian theism.
If (2), the example has no relevance for christian theism or the other large religions. If (1) this does not demonstrate a deity existed in any meaningful sense. By this standard then both aliens, bigfoot, the reincarnated elvis, the lock ness monster and xenu the galactic overlord "exists" because some people have believed so based on misinterpretations of the evidence.
-
284
I'm an ABSENTHEIST. Are you also?
by EdenOne init just dawned on me.
the existence of god can't be proved, neither is there evidence of god's inexistence.
so, i'm neither theist neither atheist.
-
-
bohm
Let me put it this way: If Joe says: "there is a deity in the universe", and Jack says: "there is no deity in the universe", let me ask you, who has the heaviest burden of proof? Because in order to conclude beyond question that there is no deity in the universe, Jack must scan the entire universe to make good on his claim. As for Joe, if he finds a deity lurking on the nearest planet, his search for evidence is over. Therefore, the heaviest burden of proof falls on atheists, not on theists.
I think there is a difficulty here. Let first focus on the first part of the above paragraph and suppose it reads as:
Joe: There is a X
Jack: There is no X
Obviously how likely we evaluate those statements to be depend on what X is. If for instance X is "A small smooth rock" Joe is very likely correct, if on the other hand "X" is "Santas magical workshop" the burden of proof clearly rests on Joe.
Normally, in science, if X is something belonging to some new type of object not previously seen the convention is to doubt the existence of X until new evidence comes in. Notice the christian god is about as different from any other thing we know of as can be.
This brings me to the second part of the paragraph. The problem is that how easy it is to confirm (or rule out) the existence of X should not affect our belief if X exists. Take this example
X1 : There is a small magical dwarf in my attick
X2: There is a small magical dwarf on Mars
It is very easy to confirm or rule out X1 and very hard to confirm or rule out X2, but we would normally say both claims were equally unlikely and any person who wished to believe them should have good evidence.
-
19
Thoughts on "Going Clear," the Scientology Documentary
by OnTheWayOut ini managed to find a copy of "going clear" on the internet.
i won't post a link because most are loaded with pop-ups and you have to be careful about accidental downloads.
mine was no exception, but i managed to keep the computer clean.
-
-
bohm
I am just now reading the book and are at the last chapter. A striking thing is how absolutely nuts Miscavige and Hubbard come across -- they strike you as genuinely dangerous people who could use professional help. For instance Hubbard seems absolutely bonkers; he really did seem to believe he had special gifts and also seemed like he couldn't tell a story without lying. There is a particular memorable account of how Hubbard gathered the crew of his ship and had two older male members push peas around on the splinter-filled woden deck in front of their family with their noses. So you got to imagine the scene: father is on all four pushing a pea on the wooden deck leaving a trail of blood, girls are crying, everyone is scared shitless for what Hubbard will do next and Hubbard is excitedly crying "faster, FASTER".
Then there is Miscavige who's idea of management is to randomly punch people in the face every now and then and otherwise just be a total dick.
It is also eye-opening. If something like Scientology can survive, it bodes well for jehovahs-witness who are a few rugs down the crazy-ladder. I can't imagine this is doing them any favors in term of new members and (hopefully) they will never find another Tom Cruise.
Very interesting stuff. Can't wait to see the documentary.
-
5
The Privileged Planet: How Our Place in the Cosmos is Designed for Discovery by Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards
by Slidin Fast insomeone raised this book/film to me recently as scientific argument for intelligent design.
i have neither read it or seen it as a film (i hesitate to classify it as a documentary).
having done a little research it seems to be at the least be viewed as controversial by the scientific community.
-
-
bohm
Here is a review:
-
40
The mathematical probability of spontaneous order (no designer/creator)
by Fernando inthere seem to be many prerequisites for life as we know it.. to name a few: order, function, compatibility, availability, sustainability, intelligence, consciousness, intuition and so on.. focusing on only one, namely order.. what are the chances of order arising spontaneously, by chance, with no creator/designer?.
i have often pondered this and recently came across a mathematical summary of the big picture:.
if every particle in the known physical universe (10^80 particles), participated in one trillion interactions (10^12 interactions) per second, for the entire 30 billion years of the universe's existence (10^18 seconds), then we would by now have covered only 10^110 permutations.. if you had only 100 components in a container, what are the chances that a blindfolded person could lay them out in order on a table?.
-
-
bohm
prologos: Have you ever see a law make itself.?
Have you ever seen a god make itself?
have you ever seen a strawman make itself?
-
40
The mathematical probability of spontaneous order (no designer/creator)
by Fernando inthere seem to be many prerequisites for life as we know it.. to name a few: order, function, compatibility, availability, sustainability, intelligence, consciousness, intuition and so on.. focusing on only one, namely order.. what are the chances of order arising spontaneously, by chance, with no creator/designer?.
i have often pondered this and recently came across a mathematical summary of the big picture:.
if every particle in the known physical universe (10^80 particles), participated in one trillion interactions (10^12 interactions) per second, for the entire 30 billion years of the universe's existence (10^18 seconds), then we would by now have covered only 10^110 permutations.. if you had only 100 components in a container, what are the chances that a blindfolded person could lay them out in order on a table?.
-
-
bohm
Okay so which of these statements do you disagree with
(1) your calculations do not account for natural laws such as those governing chemistry
(2) in order to say which chemical processes will happen or not one has to take into account chemistry