Is 'belief' a process of ignoring?

[Mulder]

When someone believes something for which there either:

a) little or no supporting evidence
b) actual evidence against it

what process is going on?

It seems to me that they deliberately choose to ignore (a) and/or (b). Either way, such irrational belief seems to be a process of actively, or passively, ignoring.

What do people think?

Incidentally, if you're wondering how I came up with this odd suggestion, it's because I've seen it happen. I have presented a huge amount of evidence that completely demolishes the cherished beliefs of a group of people (I'm told I have a cruel streak). Rather than argue, they simply politely ignored it or nitpicked at tiny, completely irrelevant details and then carried on believing. I was left dumbstruck by their reaction. They weren't even upset - they simply ignored the evidence as if they'd never seen it!

[Janot]

I don't see why a belief should necessarily involve ignoring. It is for example impossible to imagine a nothingness of the kind which might happen after death. A belief that afterwards you experience another life is, in my opinion, just as plausible as the alternative. There is not the remotest evidence to suggest this is the case, but what it is you are ignoring if you believe this?

[Mulder]

Sorry Janot I added some more material to my original post before yours. I don't know if it would change anything. My point was, it wasn't just a blind speculation on my part, I've seen it happen concerning paranormal beliefs.

Sorry - editing again. In the example I quoted, they had no arguments against the main points I made. They simply ignored their consequences. It's weird!

[Mulder]

My theory of how this may work is this. Imagine a modestly religious person (ie. one who goes to church but, frankly, doesn't know much about the origins of their religion) watches a Richard Dawkins TV programme. They may see that Dawkins has some valid points but are they going to stop going to church? One or two might, perhaps, but most will not. I suspect they use the logic of 'millions of people have believed this stuff for centuries so there must be something in it'. Just my theory.

[Mongrel]

My theory of how this may work is this. Imagine a modestly religious person (ie. one who goes to church but, frankly, doesn't know much about the origins of their religion) watches a Richard Dawkins TV programme. They may see that Dawkins has some valid points but are they going to stop going to church? One or two might, perhaps, but most will not. I suspect they use the logic of 'millions of people have believed this stuff for centuries so there must be something in it'. Just my theory.

There's also;
Habit - they've always gone to church on Sundays
Contrariness - "Well he's quite rude"
Poor understanding of logic - "Aha - You can't disprove it!!" *Headdesk*
Poor understanding of the scientific method - Not so much for straight religion, but other sorts of pseudo-science
Pedantry - The nitpicking minor points you mentioned
Hating to be wrong.....

Off the top of my head

[Janot]

Sorry Janot I added some more material to my original post before yours. I don't know if it would change anything. My point was, it wasn't just a blind speculation on my part, I've seen it happen concerning paranormal beliefs.My general experience of people is that they will believe what they want to believe, irrespective of logic or reason. Thus astrology and any other -olgy which comforts them. Depressing.

[Mulder]

I'm sure there's a technical term, like 'cognitive dissonance', for what's going on but I find it very disconcerting. You can present an argument with logic and evidence and people will apparently understand and absorb it. They may say it is 'stimulating', 'food for thought', and all the usual cliches. And then, a few hours, weeks or days later you will come across them talking about stuff that you disproved decisively in your presentation earlier as if it were fact.

As I say, it's as though they simply 'ignore' what you said because it doesn't fit with their world view. It's as though there is a mental gate there that only admits information supporting their beliefs. Opposing evidence just bounces of the wall and leaves no trace. Frankly, I find it a bit scary!

It might be a group psychology thing. Provided there is always a group of 'believers' around, individuals feel free to ignore any contrary evidence. The very existence of the group makes them 'immune' to contrary evidence or beliefs.

[Fiona]

I do not think there is one answer to this question. I think belief comes in many forms and for many reasons

Most of us have some beliefs which are rationally held and which will modify when new information comes along. Such beliefs are often relatively simple (by which I mean their provenance is not wide ranging, and they are amenable to test or to falsifiability). This type of knowledge is especially well tackled using scientific method and we have made amazing strides because of the development of that method and the whole process of experimentation and peer review etc. That is wonderful

There are other types of knowledge which just don't fall into that category, and in fact I think it is arguable that most of the things which are important to us do not. I would include art and literature and politics and economics and social sciences in that group. Economics and social sciences have tried to ape the methods of hard science, certainly, and I do not argue this can never be done. But I am sceptical and I believe they need to find a new methodology and approach.

In addition to different kinds of knowledge, I think it is futile to deny that some things have a different significance for different people. Some beliefs touch on the core identity and they relate to what people perceive as the sense of themselves as individuals. Such beliefs can be helpfully construed as core constructs as described by GR Kelly in Personal Construct Theory (which, incidentally, suggests a new approach for social science which for me looks fruitful). We all have such beliefs and I think we all know how hard it is to have them challenged. If we are going to attack such "identity" issues then we need to recognise that the person challenged has a lot more investment and will be much more threatened: it is not about one issue it is about their whole understanding of the world. That they don't give it up easily is not even slightly surprising.

I don't know if that is helpful but it is how I see this issue and ignoring is only one strategy for defending the identity issues

[ZERO]

When someone believes something for which there either:

a) little or no supporting evidence
b) actual evidence against it

what process is going on?

It seems to me that they deliberately choose to ignore (a) and/or (b). Either way, such irrational belief seems to be a process of actively, or passively, ignoring.

What do people think?

When I was a religious believer, I just assumed my beliefs were true. That is what I was raised to think. I didn't passively or actively ignore evidence, I just was not exposed to it in everyday life.

However, when I did stumble upon evidence contradicting the bible, I couldn't ignore it and I'm as amazed as you that people can deny irrefutable facts.

[Mulder]

... I'm as amazed as you that people can deny irrefutable facts.

I've seen people do it, repeatedly. I don't have any explanation for it. I agree that 'ignore' is probably not the right way of putting it but that's the way it looks. It is as if only information supporting a belief gets through but the rest doesn't. Often people don't even get upset, as you might expect, but instead simply 'switch off' or stop listening.

Fiona talks about identity issues and may well be right. So, for instance a person may characterise themselves with statements like 'I like carrots, I don't like jazz, I believe in ghosts'. The beliefs are integrated into that person's personality. You could no more persuade them that ghosts don't exist as make them like jazz. Well, maybe ...

[ZERO]

I've seen people do it, repeatedly. I don't have any explanation for it. I agree that 'ignore' is probably not the right way of putting it but that's the way it looks. It is as if only information supporting a belief gets through but the rest doesn't.
Speaking from my own experience, when I first came across things that were against what I was taught, I molded my religious beliefs to fit around the evidence. I couldn't deny well reasoned evidence based ideas but I couldn't imagine my religion could be completely wrong either.
It was when something proved the bible wrong that I reevaluated everything I believed.



Fiona talks about identity issues and may well be right. So, for instance a person may characterize themselves with statements like 'I like carrots, I don't like jazz, I believe in ghosts'. The beliefs are integrated into that person's personality. You could no more persuade them that ghosts don't exist as make them like jazz. Well, maybe ...
I didn't ever feel that my religion was "who I am". Maybe those that do feel that way are the ones that can't/won't let go?

[Fiona]

The fact that you changed relatively easily suggests it was perhaps not core for you even though it was a big part of your life. I realise that sounds like a post hoc argument but it is not if you look at kelly's ideas. It is possible to determine what is core for any given individual in his scheme of things

If, for example, a core belief is that intelligence matters a lot, then a lot of what you think about other people and ideas will be judged according to that dimension as you conceive it. You might listen more to people you see as intelligent and you might be more easily persuaded by them. If you build a lot of your views on that basis then evidence that the concept of intelligence is not very strongly founded will make you uncomfortable. You might revise your conception into a more sophisticated idea - maybe discard "g" and adopt a more sophisticated characterisation, say. But if the whole notion that people do not differ on that dimension and in fact it does not exist is presented to you, then you will be much more likely to dismiss that evidence no matter how strong it is. Too many other things depend on it.

Of course you have more than one core concept so if another happens to be logic and evidence as a high value that might override and you might discard intelligence and do all the big adjustments required in the face of the new evidence. But equally the idea of intelligence might be so important that you discard the other to a small extent.

This is probably not a very good example - I can never think of good illustrations when I need them - but I hope that makes some sense. Our very core constructs seem to us to be self evidently true and so it takes an awful lot to give them up and the process is painful. And in addition to the intellectual difficulty there can be other strong elements such as a necessity to give up at least one form of intimacy with those we love and who share our previous concept. That is a scary thing too, but it is real and reinforces the wish to resist the change perhaps

[ZERO]

The fact that you changed relatively easily suggests it was perhaps not core for you even though it was a big part of your life. I realize that sounds like a post hoc argument but it is not if you look at kelly's ideas. It is possible to determine what is core for any given individual in his scheme of things

If, for example, a core belief is that intelligence matters a lot, then a lot of what you think about other people and ideas will be judged according to that dimension as you conceive it. You might listen more to people you see as intelligent and you might be more easily persuaded by them. If you build a lot of your views on that basis then evidence that the concept of intelligence is not very strongly founded will make you uncomfortable. You might revise your conception into a more sophisticated idea - maybe discard "g" and adopt a more sophisticated characterisation, say. But if the whole notion that people do not differ on that dimension and in fact it does not exist is presented to you, then you will be much more likely to dismiss that evidence no matter how strong it is. Too many other things depend on it.

Of course you have more than one core concept so if another happens to be logic and evidence as a high value that might override and you might discard intelligence and do all the big adjustments required in the face of the new evidence. But equally the idea of intelligence might be so important that you discard the other to a small extent.

This is probably not a very good example - I can never think of good illustrations when I need them - but I hope that makes some sense. Our very core constructs seem to us to be self evidently true and so it takes an awful lot to give them up and the process is painful. And in addition to the intellectual difficulty there can be other strong elements such as a necessity to give up at least one form of intimacy with those we love and who share our previous concept. That is a scary thing too, but it is real and reinforces the wish to resist the change perhaps

You are probably very close regarding core belief.
I did not like being in the religion.
I only believed as long as I did because of duty, guilt and fear. However I did believe 100%. I knew god existed.:-[

Perhaps those who enjoy the religious life also get a sense of identity from it.

[SorryImPsychic]

When someone believes something for which there either:

a) little or no supporting evidence
b) actual evidence against it

Either way, such irrational belief seems to be a process of actively, or passively, ignoring.


Beliefs make up a large proportion of our mental landscape. We can define "belief" as sustaining an idea that is not based on proof. The idea
that God exists is a belief because there is no proof . But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

[ZERO]

Beliefs make up a large proportion of our mental landscape. We can define "belief" as sustaining an idea that is not based on proof. The idea
that God exists is a belief because there is no proof . But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.
So which one seems the rational belief to hold?
No evidence = nothing to believe in.


Also, I think, there is a case to be made that refusing to believe in god for lack of evidence, is not a belief.
Perhaps opinion would be a better word.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

What does the term " God" mean here?

[SorryImPsychic]

So which one seems the rational belief to hold?
No evidence = nothing to believe in.



Also, I think, there is a case to be made that refusing to believe in god for lack of evidence, is not a belief.
Perhaps opinion would be a better word.

Neither positions are Rational actually...
Because the Existance/Non Existance of God is indeterminable.
Not something anyone can argue about cause both sides are arguing from belief and not from evidence or proof.

From my quantum theory perspective I can answer that dilemma but bit complex for believers to accept.

[SorryImPsychic]

What does the term " God" mean here?

The meaning of "God" is arbitrary - it means whatever anyone wants it to mean - belief knows no bounds.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

The meaning of "God" is arbitrary - it means whatever anyone wants it to mean - belief knows no bounds.

What? Not even the bounds of knowing what you're talking about?
Gosh, you really are a free spirit!

[ZERO]

Neither positions are Rational actually...
Because the Existence/Non Existence of God is indeterminable.
Not something anyone can argue about cause both sides are arguing from belief and not from evidence or proof.
I can see what you're saying, but one view is rational.

If I say there is a invisible dragon with me, no one can prove or disprove that statement. It is extremely probable that the dragon does not exist. The rational view is - no dragon.
Now exchange god for dragon and I think the analogy still stands.



From my quantum theory perspective I can answer that dilemma but bit complex for believers to accept.::)

[SorryImPsychic]

I can see what you're saying, but one view is rational.

If I say there is a invisible dragon with me, no one can prove or disprove that statement. It is extremely probable that the dragon does not exist. The rational view is - no dragon.
Now exchange god for dragon and I think the analogy still stands.

::)

I think if you cannot see the dragon then the statement is 100% true - there sure is an "invisible Dragon" cause no one can see it.

[Toad]

I think if you cannot see the dragon then the statement is 100% true - there sure is an "invisible Dragon" cause no one can see it.

Acutally, wouldn't a rational person then say, "Well, I can't see the Dragon - how else can I determine it's there. Can I feel it? Can I weigh it? Can it leave footprints? Can it do something I can observe?"

If in light of the above, the invisible Dragon viewer still can't enable me to detect it, then I conclude it does not exist.

I suppose you could argue that an invisible, weightless, bodyless Dragon that can't do anything observable may exist - but in that case it's indistuingishable from nothing so why call it a Dragon?

Now just replace Dragon with God in the above and we can all be happy Atheists O0

Toad.

[DrS]

Thankyou Carl Sagan! ;)

[Toad]

Thankyou Carl Sagan! ;)

Ahhh is that where this comes from! :cheesy:

I had a vague idea I'd read this argument as I typed it but couldn't think where....

I've been meaning to read a Sagan book but never quite got round to it....

Toad.

[Mongrel]

The idea
that God exists is a belief because there is no proof . But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

As I'm sure I've said before...
the leap of 'faith' to believe in god\s is greater by orders of magnitude than the leap from "there's no convincing proof of god/s therefore I'm happy to live my life as if there were no god/s"

Evidence does it for me every time :smiley:

[SorryImPsychic]

As I'm sure I've said before...
the leap of 'faith' to believe in god\s is greater by orders of magnitude than the leap from "there's no convincing proof of god/s therefore I'm happy to live my life as if there were no god/s"

:smiley:

Your comment is still rife with fuel for potential religious arguement!>:D

I wish that ALL would just say god is in the "don't know box" and will remain there until proof is forthcoming. End of story get on with LIFE.

[SimonC]

But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

Very true. Equally true, however, of the Loch Ness Monster, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bertrand Russell's 'celestial teapot'...

[SorryImPsychic]

Very true. Equally true, however, of the Loch Ness Monster, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Bertrand Russell's 'celestial teapot'...

Yes they are all "beliefs" based on nil-proof so what is your point? :undecided:

[SimonC]

Yes they are all "beliefs" based on nil-proof so what is your point? :undecided:

My point is that they are all equally valid; there is no fundamental reason ( beyond subjective preference ) to distinguish between belief in god, and belief in the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Nor between faeries, unicorns or any other similarly fanciful notion.

This is a foundational part of the skeptical outlook, and why proof, and the scientific method, is held in such esteem by critical thinkers.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Yes they are all "beliefs" based on nil-proof so what is your point? :undecided:

Is failure to believe in Nessie ( or the FSM or Russell's Teapot) a belief?

[SimonC]

A splendid argument against the existence of god is to be found in Dara O'Briain's stand-up, currently available to watch via the BBC website's iplayer facility. Starts at around 33mins in, although the rest of it's worth watching too. ;D

[SorryImPsychic]

Is failure to believe in Nessie ( or the FSM or Russell's Teapot) a belief?


The above are hypothetical examples of the arbitrary nature of beliefs.

But disbelief (in something believed but unproven) is still

"belief not based on fact" .

The truth or falsity of your position has not actually been determined no matter how right you think you are.

[SorryImPsychic]

My point is that they are all equally valid;

Logically ANY Belief based on "no proof" is "invalid".


Let p = P Exists
Let -p = P does not exist
If we cannot show with certainty that P does or does not exist then
both p ^ -p in conventional logic is a logical fallacy...and this is the logical status of any belief.

[Mulder]

What's so special about 'God' anyway? Why does everyone have to have an opinion on him/her/whatever? Is it just because a few thousand years ago some peoople decided, for whatever reason, that there must be a god and so created some myths to surround the story? If no one had ever invented gods, would we still have to have an opinikn on whether they existed?

[SimonC]

Logically ANY Belief based on "no proof" is "invalid".




Quite so. We call that stance 'skepticism'.:smiley:

I am an atheist, or more properly a very strong agnostic. There is not, in my view, anything like a sufficiency of evidence to support the claim that god exists. I gladly accept the possibility that my current stance could be incorrect, and if compelling proof were to be offered than I would adapt my opinion accordingly.

In this regard, I hold exactly the same ( skeptical ) outlook in the context of mediumship, homeopathy, faries or any other supernatural claim.

If I understand you correctly, SorryImPsychic, then you seem to be suggesting that atheism/agnosticism is a 'belief', in the same way that a religious outlook is. I think this is largely a question of semantics, to be honest. Certainly there is no absolute, concrete disproof of god's existence. Is it reasonable to suggest that disbelief in something for which there is no evidence is a question of 'belief'? Strictly speaking, I suppose so, but where does that lead us?

Here are a couple of 'beliefs' with no evidence to support them -

i - invisible pixies live on the moon.

ii - invisble leprecauns live on mars.

Stricly speaking, shouldn't we be agnostic about these claims, if your suggestion applies? I can't disprove either of the above ideas - they may be true. So it's surely just a question of 'belief' to suggest that they're almost certainly rubbish? Woudln't this apply equally to absolutely any idea that you, I or anyone else could concoct, however outlandish?

So, then, how do we distinguish between these kind of beliefs? There's nothing whatsoever to suggest that one of the above suggestions is more probable, or feasable, than the other. We can't possibly assess anything in this way. This is why, as skeptics, we remain open-minded but ask for evidence ( or at least some kind of logical, rational hypothesis ) as a basis for our beliefs.

[SorryImPsychic]

.:smiley:

..... you seem to be suggesting that atheism/agnosticism is a 'belief'... Certainly there is no absolute, concrete disproof of god's existence.

Here are a couple of 'beliefs' with no evidence to support them -

i - invisible pixies live on the moon.

ii - invisble leprecauns live on mars.

Stricly speaking, shouldn't we be agnostic about these claims, if your suggestion applies? I can't disprove either of the above ideas - they may be true. So it's surely just a question of 'belief' to suggest that they're almost certainly rubbish? Woudln't this apply equally to absolutely any idea that you, I or anyone else could concoct, however outlandish?

So, then, how do we distinguish between these kind of beliefs? This is why, as skeptics, we remain open-minded but ask for evidence ( or at least some kind of logical, rational hypothesis ) as a basis for our beliefs.

Even the claim that the Laws of gravity will continue to hold in the future cannot be prooved and is thus an inductive belief.

Any belief has the status of "invisible pixies on moon" if the belief is not based on proof. We use the argument of improbabiltiy as grounds for disbelief ( cannot disprove but highly unlikely based on past experience). This is still inductive belief.

The real problem of belief is when it insists it is TRUE - and is forced onto others (e.g. religion). Belief has to be recognised as something that is both "not true and not false simultaneously" - this NEUTRALISES the belief to zero value. This is the only way I can see that will break the stronghold that "beliefs" have over others.

Only when we neutralise the truth value of beliefs can we begin to stop arguing and get to the real truth of matters that govern our lives.

[SorryImPsychic]

[quote=Mulder;28993]What's so special about 'God' anyway? Why does everyone have to have an opinion on him/her/whatever? quote]

My involvement in this thread is based on a desire to idnetify the relationship between truth and belief in order to destroy the stronghold of beliefs over the lives of others.

[SimonC]

Even the claim that the Laws of gravity will continue to hold in the future cannot be prooved and is thus an inductive belief.

Any belief has the status of "invisible pixies on moon" if the belief is not based on proof. We use the argument of improbabiltiy as grounds for disbelief ( cannot disprove but highly unlikely based on past experience). This is still inductive belief.

The real problem of belief is when it insists it is TRUE - and is forced onto others (e.g. religion). Belief has to be recognised as something that is both "not true and not false simultaneously" - this NEUTRALISES the belief to zero value. This is the only way I can see that will break the stronghold that "beliefs" have over others.

Only when we neutralise the truth value of beliefs can we begin to stop arguing and get to the real truth of matters that govern our lives.

I'm tempted to say that if the laws of gravity fail to hold then we'll just have to float above that bridge when we get to it. But I won't...

I think you're making something of a strawman argument here, to be honest. You seem to be suggesting that the scientific method casts every 'truth' in stone, and sees it as utterly immutable and beyond revision. This really is not the case at all - any scientist/critical thinker realises that 'truth' is always a work-in-progress, and that all rational interpretations of the universe are subject to revision and alteration. That's how science works.

If the prevailing circumstances suddenly changed then, of course, scientific understanding would have to change accordingly. It's just that the scientific method is the best, most pragmatic tool we have to interpret the universe as it is. Not perfect, open to challenge, but still the best available, thus far.

The other point I'd make is that the scientific method does make a very imortant distinction between that which it accepts as true ( or as close to true as we can get ) and that which falls under the banner of 'belief' - belief is very much an individual, subjective experience. Science, by contrast, only accepts as true that which we all share as common experiences. You may believe in ghosts, I may not, we are both subject to gravity ( thus far!! ).

In a way, this is one reason that I object to the popular notion that spirituality/supernaturalism is 'warm and fuzzy', whereas science is cold and hard. I really see it the other way around - science is a priori about our common experiences; the commonality with which we all live in this universe, as opposed to spiritual beliefs which are essentially selfish and introspective.

I'm very confused by the last sentence of your post. You seem to suggest that 'truth', as defined by science is really no more than the current, prevailing belief, but you then go on to mention a 'real truth'. How do you define this 'real truth'. I can only imagine that you feel you have a more precise tool than scientific investigation with which to define this, presumably higher, truth. What mechanism do you suggest with which to achieve this insight?

[SimonC]

Just another quick thought, but science doesn't just make its predictions ( beliefs, if you will ) solely 'based on past experience', does it? Surely the scientific method uses past experience as a starting-point, but then bolsters that with a vast amount of internally consistent data. Doesn't that also distinguish it somewhat from straightforward, non-evidential belief?

We don't just believe that the boiling point of water will be the same tomorrow as today because 'it's always been that way', but because it's explained by conduction, convection, the molecular structure of water and all that kind of stuff. Gravity is, as far as I know, less clearly understood, but I guess there are pretty good models in the offing.

Then again, I'm no scientist - just an enthusiastic and interested layman. I'm sure there are people here much better qualified to offer comprehensive and insightful responses than I am! :smiley:

[Pebble]

Is one of the problems here the concept of 'truth'? Through scientific method we can understand and predict. 'Truth' however requires that we accept something as being right or true in all circumstances, when viewed from any angle, and by any observer. Thus perhaps the argument is circular because of a belief in truth!

[Toad]

Logically ANY Belief based on "no proof" is "invalid".


Let p = P Exists
Let -p = P does not exist
If we cannot show with certainty that P does or does not exist then
both p ^ -p in conventional logic is a logical fallacy...and this is the logical status of any belief.

In Boolean algebra (I assume that's what you're trying to use)

p ^ -p = 0

Anyway, ignoring that for a moment, based on your definitions the set of items for which there is no proof or disproof is infinite.

An infinite set has a couple of things of note to say about it

i) There are no known physical instantiations of infinite sets
ii) Since the set is infinite, the probability of any one of those things subsequently existing is infinitely small (where existence is defined as having a physical instance)

Since this God is, according to you, in that infinite set we can conclude it's probability of existence is infinitely small.

One final thing to note. The commonly held definition of the Abrahamic God has thus far turned up evidence against its existence. So (using playground logic now!) the existence of the Abrahamic God is infinitely small plus "a bit" - ie it is less likely to exist than the Flying Spaghetti Monster! :'(

Toad.

[Cuddles]

Incidentally, if you're wondering how I came up with this odd suggestion, it's because I've seen it happen. I have presented a huge amount of evidence that completely demolishes the cherished beliefs of a group of people (I'm told I have a cruel streak). Rather than argue, they simply politely ignored it or nitpicked at tiny, completely irrelevant details and then carried on believing. I was left dumbstruck by their reaction. They weren't even upset - they simply ignored the evidence as if they'd never seen it!

This is classic conspiracy thinking, but it does apply to pretty much all beliefs. It's not that they pretend they never saw the evidence, it's just that they know they're beliefs are correct and therefore no matter what the evidence says, it must be wrong. I think the nitpicking tends to come from those who like to pretend they're being rational and use the logic that if one tiny little part is wrong, the whole thing falls apart, which is what creationists like to try. The sad thing is, no-one ever seems to realise that even if they do manage to prove a theory wrong, it still doesn't make their beliefs any more right.

[SorryImPsychic]

Just another quick thought, but science doesn't just make its predictions ( beliefs, if you will ) solely 'based on past experience', does it? Surely the scientific method uses past experience as a starting-point, but then bolsters that with a vast amount of internally consistent data. Doesn't that also distinguish it somewhat from straightforward, non-evidential belief?

Modern science is totally based on inductive reasoning...that is it argues from the specific to the general. Furthermore Science has to assume that the Universal Laws will remain in place - yet it cannot say how or why or what holds these Laws in place let alone guarantee their continuance.

Furthermore there are widespread accepted Theories that have no basis in reality e.g. The Big Bang/Expanding Universe/Black Holes - and these theories continually have to conjure up new "fudge theories" to counter new discoveries that disprove them.

The Red Shift contoversy literally and theoretically destroys the Theory of the Expanding Universe in showing that high red shift objects were now being observed in front of lower shift red objects...But the expanding universe is still taken as fact.

Members cannot accept me as a skeptic - but believe me I am skeptical about any institutionalised bull-shit.

[DrS]

Modern science is totally based on inductive reasoning...that is it argues from the specific to the general.Examples? How, for one example, is pasteurization based on inductive reasoning?



Furthermore Science has to assume that the Universal Laws will remain in place - yet it cannot say how or why or what holds these Laws in place let alone guarantee their continuance.I would have said it "assumed" on the basis of hypotheses which have been tested, forming theories which have then been repeatedly demonstrated, and which are therefore reasonably considered proven and correct.

[SorryImPsychic]

Examples? How, for one example, is pasteurization based on inductive reasoning?

I would have said it "assumed" on the basis of hypotheses which have been tested, forming theories which have then been repeatedly demonstrated, and which are therefore reasonably considered proven and correct.

Pasteurization is a process that works now - but who is to say that bacteria and other harmful organisms will not eventually become immune to the effects of current high temperatures. (Organisms have been found in the lava of active volcanoes).

Yes our science is based on assumptions - some "currently" correct only others totally erroneous. The Big Bang Theory assumes the universe exploded into existance from nothing...

[Toad]

Furthermore there are widespread accepted Theories that have no basis in reality e.g. The Big Bang/Expanding Universe/Black Holes - and these theories continually have to conjure up new "fudge theories" to counter new discoveries that disprove them.[/quote]

Isn't this the important difference between those with Dogmatic belief and those who claim to be skeptics or scientists or free thinkers?

In the case of BB, there was theory which made some predictions. The predictions were tested and found to be different to those predicted. The new data was analysed and a modified theory was developed to try and explain the new data in concert with the old. the process continues...

Taking a religion like Christianity - a prediction is made, it is demonstrated to be incorrect. The adherents claim God is testing their faith and the original text still stands (dissenters are executed).

Toad.

[SorryImPsychic]

Isn't this the important difference between those with Dogmatic belief and those who claim to be skeptics or scientists or free thinkers?

Toad.

My concern is that there are so many vested interests that are preventing scientific developments - including the peer review system which determines which proposed research projects get funded...It stinks and I'm mocked for saying that gov deliberately shelve projects which would put the demand for petro fuels at risk.

[Toad]

My concern is that there are so many vested interests that are preventing scientific developments - including the peer review system which determines which proposed research projects get funded...It stinks and I'm mocked for saying that gov deliberately shelve projects which would put the demand for petro fuels at risk.

Ahh well that is a different issue. I suppose I wouldn't be surprised to hear that was the case - after all the country is dependent on fuel taxation at the moment.

In this instance though, I can't accuse the government of doing anything the people of the country aren't also doing after all, I don't see many people ditching their cars for bikes and/or moving closer to their places of work...

Churchill :-

No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.

Toad.

[Mulder]

My concern is that there are so many vested interests that are preventing scientific developments - including the peer review system which determines which proposed research projects get funded...It stinks and I'm mocked for saying that gov deliberately shelve projects which would put the demand for petro fuels at risk.

These two matters are not the same.

Peer review - have you any personal experience of it? No one knows everything and remembers everything. Peers can point out problems with your research. Things you forgot to consider, counter arguments you didn't eliminate, problems with protocol etc. It is very useful. People whose papers are rejected consistently probably have failed to provide enough evidence to justufy what is frequently speculation.

Funding - this is entirely different. It affects grant applications rather than peer review of papers. It is often said that funding has tended to move research from pure towards applied in recent decades. Inevitably, applied science is targetted towards producing profit. This is more of a political matter, it is not a failure of the scientific process.

[SorryImPsychic]

These two matters are not the same.

Peer review - have you any personal experience of it?

Funding - this is entirely different. This is more of a political matter, it is not a failure of the scientific process.

No personal peer review issues!

Science is very caught up with politics today...and science is itself becoming political...well to come to think of it - probably always has been.

[Mulder]

No personal peer review issues!

That's an ambiguous answer (what a surprise!). So, are you saying you've had papers published in scientific journals? If so, on what subject?

[SimonC]

My concern is that there are so many vested interests that are preventing scientific developments - including the peer review system which determines which proposed research projects get funded...It stinks and I'm mocked for saying that gov deliberately shelve projects which would put the demand for petro fuels at risk.

That's not an argument against the scientific method itself, though, is it? The fact that a tool may be misused does not invalidate the excellence of the tool itself.

[ZERO]

Furthermore there are widespread accepted Theories that have no basis in reality e.g. The Big Bang/Expanding Universe/Black Holes - and these theories continually have to conjure up new "fudge theories" to counter new discoveries that disprove them.

The Red Shift contoversy literally and theoretically destroys the Theory of the Expanding Universe in showing that high red shift objects were now being observed in front of lower shift red objects...But the expanding universe is still taken as fact.

I'm very interested in this. Could you provide links please?


The Big Bang Theory assumes the universe exploded into existance from nothing...
My understanding is: it is impossible at the moment to know what was before and what caused the BB due to mathematics being unable to cope with the infinite values found in the BB singularity.
There is no claim and can not be a claim, that it came from "nothing".

[DrS]

The Big Bang is one of several working hypotheses. This is how science works. It is, as has been said, a work in progress. And if it is found to be incorrect, it will be revised or shelved in favour of a more likely theory.

The fact remains that Pasteurization is a process that works now, as you admit. It was a hypothese that was tested and found to be correct. It demonstrates science's accuracy. That organisms might evolve to make pasteurization ineffective also serves merely to demonstrate science's accuracy, not the opposite.

[bindeweede]

The Big Bang is one of several working hypotheses. This is how science works. It is, as has been said, a work in progress. And if it is found to be incorrect, it will be revised or shelved in favour of a more likely theory.

The fact remains that Pasteurization is a process that works now, as you admit. It was a hypothese that was tested and found to be correct. It demonstrates science's accuracy. That organisms might evolve to make pasteurization ineffective also serves merely to demonstrate science's accuracy, not the opposite.

DrS,

I hope this is not too much of a stupid question. Does Pasteurisation kill some viruses as well as bacteria? I believe viruses can mutate, but is that also possible with bacteria? Are there more modern and effective ways of killing bacteria/viruses which might not be used because of cost?

Sorry, several questions, but I find the issue interesting.

[Mongrel]

DrS,

I hope this is not too much of a stupid question. Does Pasteurisation kill some viruses as well as bacteria? I believe viruses can mutate, but is that also possible with bacteria? Are there more modern and effective ways of killing bacteria/viruses which might not be used because of cost?

Sorry, several questions, but I find the issue interesting.

Viruses generally have a much smaller tolerances for 'local' conditions, that includes temperature variations, pH levels and humidity (heating, pickling and salting are common examples).

[DrS]

DrS,

I hope this is not too much of a stupid question. Does Pasteurisation kill some viruses as well as bacteria? I believe viruses can mutate, but is that also possible with bacteria? Are there more modern and effective ways of killing bacteria/viruses which might not be used because of cost?

Sorry, several questions, but I find the issue interesting.
Well, first of all, I'm not a scientist, but an humanities bod. So I'm speaking from the point of view of an interested bystander too. As far as I know, however, pasteurization does kill viruses as well as bacteria ... I seem to remember a concern voiced during the foot and mouth crisis that that particular virus wasn't susceptible to pasteurization like others.

As far as bacterial mutation is concerned, I understand that it occurs. The example that strikes me is that of those bacteria that have acquired immunity to antibiotics. I think the argument is that non-resistant bacteria are killed off by antibiotics until the minority drug-resistant strain becomes dominant. Whether this indicates that they are mutant (either then or in the first place) is something I'm unclear about, but if they evolve, presumably mutation is involved.

Re the last part of your question ... I don't know, I'm sorry, but would be very interested to know as well.

[bindeweede]

Viruses generally have a much smaller tolerances for 'local' conditions, that includes temperature variations, pH levels and humidity (heating, pickling and salting are common examples).

Thanks

Scratching around I came across this.

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/9059/heat-inactivates-avian-influenza-and-newcastle-disease-viruses-in-egg-products

I always thought Pasteurisation went up to rather higher temperatures. Also, does sunlight have any effect on bacteria or viruses? What about in sea water?

Also thanks to DrS. I think we cross-posted.

[Mongrel]

Thanks

Scratching around I came across this.

http://www.thepoultrysite.com/poultrynews/9059/heat-inactivates-avian-influenza-and-newcastle-disease-viruses-in-egg-products

I always thought Pasteurisation went up to rather higher temperatures. Also, does sunlight have any effect on bacteria or viruses? What about in sea water?

Also thanks to DrS. I think we cross-posted.

Well a temperature of 74C (IIRC) is the standard for food hygiene, sunlight may kill a few bugs (UV lights are used for sterilising) but wouldn't be very reliable. As for seawater, maybe, once again it depends on the bug.

Saying that though if you inhale\ingest something while swimming in the sea your bodies pH is similar enough that it probably wouldn't blink twice before doing the happy dance in your body.

[Dr B]

The idea
that God exists is a belief because there is no proof . But the idea that God does ' Not Exist' is also a belief because there is not proof for that either.

But that's the very logical fallacy mentioned earlier! Please go back and read.....8)

[Dr B]

The real confusion is whether one wants to make an argument based on faith (within a philosophical context) or an argument based on fact (a scientific context).

The problem is many try to use faith, to argue for fact and that is happening above with one poster.

If you make a claim of fact, then this is the same as a provisonal truth and as such, it becomes relevant to science.

However, science does not care about arguments based purely on people's faith / spiritual beliefs or their rights to hold them - it's irrelevant.

If you have no reason to accept something - then there is no evidence for it. This does not prove anything false, but it provides no reason to accept it either as so is not support. It is thus logically meaningless. However, it is not a belief - it is a logical proposition relating to the information.

Stating "god does not exist" is not a belief per-se - but there are more elegant ways one could make this into a perfectly legitimate statement which would amount to a very similar position (just better clarified).

[SorryImPsychic]

But that's the very logical fallacy mentioned earlier! Please go back and read.....8)

That's because belief is illogical - Belief supports ideas that are of indertiminate truth values.

[Cuddles]

That's because belief is illogical - Belief supports ideas that are of indertiminate truth values.

Not necessarily. Many of the ideas it supports are just plain wrong.

[SorryImPsychic]

Not necessarily. Many of the ideas it supports are just plain wrong.

None of our contempories can disprove or prove god...if you say one of the above is true then you do so on the basis of belief and not factual evidence.

[SimonC]

None of our contempories can disprove or prove god...if you say one of the above is true then you do so on the basis of belief and not factual evidence.

This has already been responded to several times. Please re-read the last three or four pages of this thread. It's pointless to just make the same assertion over and over again.

[Mulder]

This has already been responded to several times. Please re-read the last three or four pages of this thread. It's pointless to just make the same assertion over and over again.

Of course, it could be that SorryImPsychic is, in fact, being ironic! Otherwise, she seems to be demonstrating the original point of the thread! :smiley:

[SimonC]

Of course, it could be that SorryImPsychic is, in fact, being ironic! Otherwise, she seems to be demonstrating the original point of the thread! :smiley:

Irony? Let's just say I'm currently skeptical about that... ;D

[SorryImPsychic]

Irony? Let's just say I'm currently skeptical about that... ;D

Well I suppose that's what this site is all about - skepticism?

[SorryImPsychic]

Of course, it could be that SorryImPsychic is, in fact, being ironic! Otherwise, she seems to be demonstrating the original point of the thread! :smiley:

Didnt you like the dance video I linked for you? :'(

[Mulder]

Didnt you like the dance video I linked for you? :'(

It's not like it was you, is it ...

[SorryImPsychic]

It's not like it was you, is it ...

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Cuddles]

None of our contempories can disprove or prove god...if you say one of the above is true then you do so on the basis of belief and not factual evidence.

Belief is not just religion. People believe in all sorts of things. Homeopathy, pychics, bigfoot and so on. While some beliefs are unanswerable, others just haven't been answered yet, and many have already been answered. Your claim that belief supports unanswerable things is wrong.

When you find yourself standing at the bottom of a hole clutching a spade, the trick is to admit it was a bad idea and climb out, rather than to keep digging.

[SorryImPsychic]

Your claim that belief supports unanswerable things is wrong.

When you find yourself standing at the bottom of a hole clutching a spade, the trick is to admit it was a bad idea and climb out, rather than to keep digging.

When we want to verify the Truth value of anything there will be three options open to us;
Let us call the Thing (P)

1) the thing is TRUE (P)
2) the thing is FALSE (this means total negation of P = (-P)
3) the thing is shown to be not TRUE but also shown to be not FALSE (remembering that FALSE means the total negation of (P) .

In Logic/Math this is written as
-(P) ^ -(-P)

In case of (3)

The reasons for this are many eg
The T/F may simply be indeterminable at that stage for lack of proof.
OR
The thing may be partly TRUE and partly FALSE so cannot say absolutely TRUE or absolutely FALSE. This is the case of "grey areas" . The TRUTH of such "grey area" statements is that the TRUTH is something else other than (P) or (-P)
Another reason may be that the thing was once TRUE but something Changed to make it now FALSE or visa versa.

There are many areas to explore in why -(P) ^ -(-P) and will vary according to the thing in question.

This is cold hard logic.
Do not argue anything before you understand these fundamentals.

[SimonC]

Looks to me like you're just talking a complete load of old Booleans.

[Pebble]

When we want to verify the Truth value of anything there will be three options open to us;
Let us call the Thing (P)

In Logic/Math this is written as
-(P) ^ -(-P)

This is cold hard logic.
Do not argue anything before you understand these fundamentals.

Sure you can create an equation to express an argument, but you must start with an assumption of the nature of truth and falsehood. So why not let 'H' be the probability that truth is simply a notion invented by humans unable to deal with uncertainty and put that in your equation? Then somewhere along the line one must factor in the infinite capacity of the human brain for inventing explanations for observed phenomena, most of which are nonsense and readily dismissed as too improbable to merit further consideration. If one is going to take a mathematical approach to all of this either one has to have defined criteria for deciding 'a priori' which truths are worth testing and which can be validly excluded or one must accept that mathematically all are equally possible, rather than cherry picking one favored hypothesis to enter into the equation.

[Cuddles]

Do not argue anything before you understand these fundamentals.

Do not pretend to be cleverer than you are, you'll only make yourself look even more of a fool.

Some people believed the Earth is hollow. It is not. Therefore, belief does not only talk about indeterminate truth values. Simple as that. No amount of maths and logic can alter the facts.

[SorryImPsychic]

Do not pretend to be cleverer than you are, you'll only make yourself look even more of a fool.

Some people believed the Earth is hollow. It is not. Therefore, belief does not only talk about indeterminate truth values. Simple as that. No amount of maths and logic can alter the facts.


You don't seem to understand Logic

Let the belief that the earth is hollow = H

Three options for H: either it is
True
False
Neither true and neither False (eg it could be partly hollow)

So to determine the truth value of H we can do a little empirical research and determine that (- H) is the truth value of H. So anyone who believes H to be true is doing so in spite of evidence.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Neither true and neither False (eg it could be partly hollow)

Is Gibberish your first language?

[SorryImPsychic]

Is Gibberish your first language?


Well an easier way to put it is :

not totally true but not totally false - partly true (as one explanation only)

[Pebble]

Dear SorryImPsychic,

I am feeling ignored. Either my point was too subtle, or just plain incomprehensible, perhaps I am unworthy! Using equations to express the likelihood of x being true is all very clever as an exercise in reasoning, but of no practical value unless one can test the hypothesis. Now where one can enter data into the equation to give some indication as to the likely values on either side, one has simply made the obvious a little more difficult to express (hollow earth). Where as with most unresolved questions there is no useful data to impute, does your use of a mathematical equation actually add anything? From a practical standpoint we can invent an infinite number of possible untestable explanations, 'God' for example. Unless using a mathematical approach provides insights that we are otherwise incapable of expressing or a novel way of thinking about the problem then it simply adds obfuscation. I cannot see what insight you have added with your equations.

[SorryImPsychic]

[quote=Pebble;29644] So why not let 'H' be the probability that truth is simply a notion invented by humans unable to deal with uncertainty and put that in your equation? [quote]

H = " truth is simply a notion invented by humans unable to deal with uncertainty".

- H = It is not the case that "truth is simply a notion ivnented by humans unable to deal with uncertainty."

-(H) ^ - (-H) = It is not the case that "truth is simply a notion ivnented by humans unable to deal with uncertainty"
but neither is it the case that "truth is simply a notion ivnented by humans unable to deal with uncertainty."

Pebbles you can decide which,if any,expresses your proposition.

[SorryImPsychic]

Dear SorryImPsychic,

From a practical standpoint we can invent an infinite number of possible untestable explanations, 'God' for example. Unless using a mathematical approach provides insights that we are otherwise incapable of expressing or a novel way of thinking about the problem then it simply adds obfuscation. I cannot see what insight you have added with your equations.

G = God Exists (positive)
-G = God does not Exist (negative)

-(G) ^ - (-G) (double negation neutralises proposition) (neutral)

It is not the case that God exists nor is it the case that God does not exist (We cannot prove God either way at this stage)

Like it or not this is the Truth about "gods" Neutral truth value. This applies in quantum computers/quantum theory and fortunately in reality too.

[DrS]

Why not have another read of Pebble's comment .....


Using equations to express the likelihood of x being true is all very clever as an exercise in reasoning, but of no practical value unless one can test the hypothesis.

Which part don't you understand ? :smiley:

[SorryImPsychic]

Why not have another read of Pebble's comment .....



Which part don't you understand ? :smiley:

Test what hypothesis? The predicate is not clear.

[DrS]

That is meaningless garbage. I'm dreadfully sorry, but you are either too stupid to communicate with, or you are a troll.

[SorryImPsychic]

That is meaningless garbage. I'm dreadfully sorry, but you are either too stupid to communicate with, or you are a troll.

Pebbles Quote:
Using equations to express the likelihood of x being true is all very clever as an exercise in reasoning, but of no practical value unless one can test the hypothesis.

I'll ask again - test what hypothesis? Exactly what is being referred to here? In the logical operations I provided many methods can be used to determine the truth value of a statement including testing of the hypothesis. Why is hypothesis testing assumed not to be occuring?

Please you tell me then what is "hypothesis" that is assumed not to be tested here?

[Pebble]

Pebbles Quote:
Using equations to express the likelihood of x being true is all very clever as an exercise in reasoning, but of no practical value unless one can test the hypothesis.

I'll ask again - test what hypothesis? Exactly what is being referred to here? In the logical operations I provided many methods can be used to determine the truth value of a statement including testing of the hypothesis. Why is hypothesis testing assumed not to be occuring?

Please you tell me then what is "hypothesis" that is assumed not to be tested here?

I now suspect that you are deliberately missing my point, perhaps I'm being unkind. One can use mathematical equations to express abstract ideas that are difficult to comprehend or express in everyday language. But to be of value this must lead to outcomes that can be tested at least mathematically (e.g. exercises in 5 or more dimensions). All I can see so far is you using a mathematical equation to express what lots of people say in much simpler terms on a daily basis.
It is not for me to tie myself down to a single hypothesis from the infinite number of possible hypotheses fruitcakes can dream up, it is for you to justify using a mathematical approach in the first place.

[Pebble]

Apologies SorryImPsychic,

I misread what you wrote. Having looked through the thread I still cannot see how you propose to undertake hypothesis testing. You state that since one cannot prove either the existence or non existence of whatever, one cannot assert with certainty the non existence of same. The math would only start to be useful if one could being to approach providing probabilities for given outcomes. Thus indulge me and demonstrate how to use these equations to determine which is more likely to be true the non existence of god or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

[SorryImPsychic]

........perhaps I'm being unkind. But to be of value this must lead to outcomes that can be tested at least mathematically (e.g. exercises in 5 or more dimensions).

It is not for me to tie myself down to a single hypothesis from the infinite number of possible hypotheses fruitcakes can dream up, it is for you to justify using a mathematical approach in the first place.

This is not maths - it is Quantum Logic - and also the basis for Classic Logic. - (T) ^ -(-T) a statement of Superposition.

I will make a statemant now that is universally TRUE:
Any statement that we could possibly make has three possible potentials truth values i.e. either it is True or False or Neutral (neither true but neither false). Nothing else can apply.

There is no other positions of reality.

Take mathematical problems for example such as The Twin Primes Conjecture - can we prove mathematically that there are infinitely many twin pairs of primes - the supercomputers calculate and calculate but to what end when there is no end mathematically? Can maths solve this problem...they may stumble on an anomaly to solve it but what if they don't - does that mean there is not an anomaly further down the number line.

Give me one statement does not meet this test of three potential answers as to its truth value.

[Pebble]

This is not maths - it is Quantum Logic - and also the basis for Classic Logic. - (T) ^ -(-T) a statement of Superposition.

I will make a statemant now that is universally TRUE:
Any statement that we could possibly make has three possible potentials truth values i.e. either it is True or False or Neutral (neither true but neither false). Nothing else can apply.

There is no other positions of reality.


Give me one statement does not meet this test of three potential answers as to its truth value.

If one accepts the assumption of the existence of truth, then I have no problem with the statement logically or mathematically, but so what! Other than a different way of saying what many have said, can you begin to address the comparative value of the logic for or against god v FSM?

[SorryImPsychic]

...... can you begin to address the comparative value of the logic for or against god v FSM?


I am not farmiliar with the acronym FSM so cannot comment on this!

[Pebble]

I am not farmiliar with the acronym FSM so cannot comment on this!


Apologies SorryImPsychic,

Thus indulge me and demonstrate how to use these equations to determine which is more likely to be true the non existence of god or the Flying Spaghetti Monster!

Unfamiliar with FSM, don't get out too much! Just another of man's inventions to explain the existence of the universe. There is no need to have specific information to answer my question! You can simply demonstrate the principle of your approach. To facilitate you in this regard, FSM is a recent invention by a group of skeptics demonstrating how easy it is to create a new Deity, similar issues raised by the 'cargo cult'

[SorryImPsychic]

Unfamiliar with FSM, don't get out too much! Just another of man's inventions to explain the existence of the universe. There is no need to have specific information to answer my question! You can simply demonstrate the principle of your approach. To facilitate you in this regard, FSM is a recent invention by a group of skeptics demonstrating how easy it is to create a new Deity, similar issues raised by the 'cargo cult'

The FSM exists
The FSM does not exist
The FSM does not exist but neither does it exist.

The FSM exists (True) in the sense it is a deliberate conceptual creation.
The FSM does not exist (True) It has no material existance
The FSM both exists and does not exist. (True) It exists conceptually but not actually.

God Exists (False) no proof
God does not exist (False) no proof
God does not exist but neither does God exist (Neutral) unlike the FSM the two statements cancel each other out.

Because the question of God is unprovable to date, and none is forthcomeing, then the question of God's existance is totally indeterminable and really should not be argued...or decided upon...and basically forgotten about....like it or not..God has NIL/Neutral truth value because it is indeterminable whether he even exists or not in the first place.
.
Pebbles I don't blame you if you don't get any of this stuff - its the sort of thing that is really hard to get your head around at first. Im trying to keep it simple but in doing that Im complicating it. So this is the best I can do .

[Pebble]

Pebbles I don't blame you if you don't get any of this stuff - its the sort of thing that is really hard to get your head around at first. Im trying to keep it simple but in doing that Im complicating it. So this is the best I can do .

So the 2 sets of logic are equivalent, except that in the case of the FSM I provided you with one piece of information: man invented the concept. Given that the only logical explanation for 'god' is that man invented the concept, one may deduce the following

God exists (True) in the sense it is a deliberate conceptual creation.
God does not exist (True) It has no material existance
God both exists and does not exist. (True) It exists conceptually but not actually.

I think my tiny brain is beginning to manage, though perhaps not, as I remain unimpressed by your arguments

[SimonC]

You're not comlplicating anything, SorryImPsychic, all you're doing is obfuscating.

So, you apply arbitary terms to the three states - true, false and not yet determined. So what? At best you have defined three Boolean sets. What can you do with that? I can't see that you can perform any algebraic function with that system. Quite literally you might as well apply the terms 'good', 'bad' and 'indifferent' or 'Bill', 'Ben' and 'Archibald' ( or any words/symbols or whatever you like ) to the three sets - it makes absolutely no difference whatsoever what you call them, you're simply creating labels for states which are more elegantly and precisely described by everyday language.

Surely you might just as well try to multiply the words 'this is true' and 'that is not true'. It's utterly meaningless.

Your third set, incidentally, should not be 'that which is both true and not true', but 'that which has, as yet, neither been determined to be true or false'.

Again, how do you apply that in any useful context? Do you distinguish between the subjective and objective in this? I say that red is the nicest colour. Which set do you put that in? How do you determine your conclusion. And what do you do with your system then?

If my guess is correct about where you're going with this SorryImPsychic, then I rather suspect you're hoping to open the door and let Shroedinger's rather tired old moggy into the room. Please tell me I'm wrong! :sad:

[Janot]

I remain unimpressed by your argumentsThere is no argument


You're not comlplicating anything, SorryImPsychic, all you're doing is obfuscating.

Why do people rise to the bait? She is insane. Ignore her.

[Pebble]

There is no argument

She is insane. Ignore her.


I am not sure on this score; arrogant and conceited yes, but at an average of 14 posts per day, she(?) is either a missionary or seriously uncomfortable with her own world view. Does it matter? Surely, it all contributes to the debate, even if sometimes the associated denigratory remarks are gratuitous.O0

[Cuddles]

That is meaningless garbage. I'm dreadfully sorry, but you are either too stupid to communicate with, or you are a troll.

I don't think one necessarily excludes the other.

[Mulder]

... Does it matter? Surely, it all contributes to the debate, ...

Yes it does matter because there IS no debate here. I know, I've tried! A debate implies a discussion of opposing points of view. However, where one 'side' almost completely ignores the points of the other (or just denies them without offering any reason), it hardly even qualifies as a chat, far less a debate.

[Pebble]

Yes it does matter because there IS no debate here. I know, I've tried! A debate implies a discussion of opposing points of view. However, where one 'side' almost completely ignores the points of the other (or just denies them without offering any reason), it hardly even qualifies as a chat, far less a debate.


Point taken, but S.I.P is to my mind quite typical of those who believe that they can defend quackery with pseudoscience. As the real enemies of reason such individuals merit attention since they genuinely believe that science supports their interpretation. While engaging them is unlikely to change this, it does help identify the pattern of obfuscation they follow and perhaps inform the way rational thought should be presented to the public.

[Nudles]

Pasteurization is a process that works now - but who is to say that bacteria and other harmful organisms will not eventually become immune to the effects of current high temperatures. (Organisms have been found in the lava of active volcanoes).

Yes our science is based on assumptions - some "currently" correct only others totally erroneous. The Big Bang Theory assumes the universe exploded into existance from nothing...

The Big Bang theory does not postulate that the current known universe "exploded into existance from nothing...". The theory implies nothing at all about where the current observable universe came from before the "Big Bang", just that all the evidence suggests quite strongly that there was a central point from which all of the observable universe originated at a certain point in time, estimated to be around 13.7 billion years ago. This is known because all the viewable matter is moving away from a point in space, at velocities that would be expected with such an event. Much more evidence besides, people did not come up with an idea of "hey lets guess that it was a big explosion and look for evidence for that". Science looks at the evidence and postulates a hypothesise based on the evidence, then tests the hypothesise to the point of breaking, removes any part which does not survive the numerous testing and when it is VERY stable, they elevate it to theory then keep testing it constantly, relentlessly.

You may as well say; Evolution says the universe came from nothing, or The theory of gravity for that matter. Neither of these along with the big bang theory have anything to say about pre-big bang.

Could you provide a link or the name of the bacteria (I'm assuming you are referring to bacteria) living in lava? The closest thing I have heard of is bacteria living in about 130 to 150, just above boiling point, which is much much cooler than the melting point of rocks.

Also, evolution of bacteria tends to work in increments, not huge bounds. Suggesting that the bacteria in milk could evolve to withstand the temperatures of pasteurization close to boiling point when the bacteria would usually die at just over half that temperature would be a strawman representation of the evolutionary process.
Sure, if we only heated the temperature of the milk to a tiny bit above what it would take to kill most bacteria of this kind, and kept doing this for many many many years, then it is more plausible, but that is not how it is done. If there was a reasonable chance that the bacteria would adapt at the temperatures now used, they would have to increase the pasteurisation temperature, thus changing the taste of the milk, which I am sure people would eventually get used too.

If what you suggest does happen in the future, then so be it, that does not deny the science behind it at the moment. With the current bacteria we are dealing with, current conditions are fine. If something does come up, who do you think will come up with new solutions to solve the new problems? Mystics?

Yes science is based on assumptions, we have to assume 2+2 =4.

As to your example about arguing about the existence of something, in your example, of a god.

T=God exists
F=God does not exist
U=Undetermined

In this context you are correct, all we can say is U. This is because the word God has not been defined. It is a meaningless word, not even a concept. But if one were to define, or give the word God characteristics, such as; omniscient(all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all loving).

T=God exists
F=God does not exist
U=Undetermined

Now we come up with F. If it was all caring, then there would be no suffering, no hunger, pain or sorrow. It would have the ability to stop suffering, as it is all powerful and at the same time all caring, and being all knowing, it would know pain existed and stop it. So logically, this god can not exist, as the existence of suffering creates a logical contradiction.

If one were to give the word god the only defining characteristic of Creator of the universe.
Then all anyone could say is U.

So on the concept of "god" as an abstract idea, then one logically would have to be Agnostic, but to individual definitions of god/s one can easily be a gnostic atheistic.

[Pebble]

As to your example about arguing about the existence of something, in your example, of a god.

T=God exists
F=God does not exist
U=Undetermined

In this context you are correct, all we can say is U. This is because the word God has not been defined. It is a meaningless word, not even a concept. But if one were to define, or give the word God characteristics, such as; omniscient(all knowing), omnipotent (all powerful), omnibenevolent (all loving).

T=God exists
F=God does not exist
U=Undetermined

Now we come up with F. If it was all caring, then there would be no suffering, no hunger, pain or sorrow. It would have the ability to stop suffering, as it is all powerful and at the same time all caring, and being all knowing, it would know pain existed and stop it. So logically, this god can not exist, as the existence of suffering creates a logical contradiction.

If one were to give the word god the only defining characteristic of Creator of the universe.
Then all anyone could say is U.

So on the concept of "god" as an abstract idea, then one logically would have to be Agnostic, but to individual definitions of god/s one can easily be a gnostic atheistic.


While I agree, I don't think this works with the fruitcakes. If you accept god as the creator of the universe, then one can readily move to the concept of why did he do that. So for any given current god concept e.g omnibenevolent, one can equally come up with all sorts of excuses why human suffering is part of said plan.

[Nudles]

While I agree, I don't think this works with the fruitcakes. If you accept god as the creator of the universe, then one can readily move to the concept of why did he do that. So for any given current god concept e.g omnibenevolent, one can equally come up with all sorts of excuses why human suffering is part of said plan.

I was not expecting SorryImPsychic to suddenly accept what I was saying, I was just interested in her response. Although I suspect a troll.

Of course, convoluted logic and reasoning can pretty much explain anything, no matter how contradicting, irrational or illogical. Which is why I tend to keep my argumentum, for the most part, to internet forums, etc.

It is hard if not impossible in most cases to reason someone out of a point of view that they did not reason themselves into.
(to bastardise a quote)

It is also very hard to argue with people who think they can explain everything that they believe with gross misconception of quantum mechanics, which is the direction I fear this thread is going, to some extent. Damn that "What The Bleep Do We know".*

*Logical fallacies for entertainment purposes only.

[SimonC]

Damn that "What The Bleep Do We know".*

*Logical fallacies for entertainment purposes only.

Seconded! I completely detest that bloody film. The bastardisation of quantum theory is an insult to the intelligence, and the 'you create your own reality' philosophy probably sounds great to the happy, shiny new-age crowd, but at its core it's completely monstrous.

I wonder if JZ 'Ramtha' Knight would tell a victim of child abuse, for example, that they've 'created their own reality and circumstances'? >:-) Idiots!

[Mulder]

I think this thread has illustrated my observation about believers ignoring contrary evidence and arguments. Of course, it is not as simple as 'belief is a process of ignoring' (I never thought it was!). But ignoring does seem to be one useful weapon for defending onself against inconvenient truths.