Posts by Coded Logic

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

The definition of "knowledge" is justified true belief.

We've gone over at least a dozen times before, truth is the label we apply to claims that match reality. In order to see if a claim matches reality - we LOOK AT REALITY! e.g. - evidence.

That's not circular reasoning. It's modus ponens. And without that assessment a belief can't be justified.

I genuinely don't know why you have such difficulty getting your head around this. The validity of any tool is how well it performs its intended function. It's not circular reasoning to asses a hammer by how well it drive nails. The same is true of reason and evidence. Their validity is assessed by their explanatory and predictive abilities.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

KateWild,

My question isn't just one of chemistry. It's how did you asses the probability of an intellectual being guiding evolution? How can you tell the difference of naturally occurring evolution from guided evolution? And how did you determine that guided evolution was more likely?

Also, why are you calling the intelligence "God". How have you ruled out more naturalistic explanations such as aliens?

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

KateWild,

How have you determined "it's more probable there is an intellectual being responsible for guiding evolution in the early stages of amino acid formation"?

And how does an "intellectual being" get you to God?

6

Reduce people's religosity through transcranial magnetic stimulation...

by Thursday in

found this interesting article in the december 2015 issue of the australasian science journal, on whether it might be possible to change a person's beliefs by stimulating their brain via transcranial magnetic stimulation (tms).. "the study by us and uk researchers recruited 38 undergraduate students, with each reporting they held significant religious beliefs and conservative political views.

participants in the experimental condition received tms to the pmfc for a period of 40 seconds, a process that reduces neural activity in this region for up to an hour.

control participants underwent a similar process, but with a low level of tms that has no effect on the functioning of the pmfc.. the researchers found that those who had received tms reported significantly less conviction in their beliefs concerning god, angels and heaven following a reminder of death than those in the non-tms control group.

Coded Logic

TMS can help us get rid of cognitive bias? Sign me up!

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

What if using evidence to try to find out of there is a God is like using a metal detector to try to discover a heavy metal band? It is based on a misunderstanding of how reality works.

Then we could never be justified in believing there is a God. Because I know of no method to tell the difference between things which don't exist and things for which there is no evidence. If we can't find out about something with evidence then what can we find out about it with?

Imagine for a moment that I propose the existence of a square circle. And when you point out such a thing is not possible I say "Well you're being arrogant because you haven't ruled out that it could exists outside of all geometric planes. How do you know in the future we won't have the necessary mathematics to describe a square circle?"

I think you would find such postulations tedious and blatantly ad hoc. The very notion that I'm having to go outside of geometry to make my square circle work is a huge red flag I don't have good reasons for believing such a thing exists.
The same is true of the God hypothesis. If we have to redefine what existence means or postulate evidence is the wrong tool for the job - then that should be a red flag we are not on a path to knowledge.

Philosophy is a great tool for making sure we're using the right epistemological methods and asking the right questions - but untempered by real world data it can only explore the theoretical. Never the actual. And arm chair speculations and ontological arguments are never going to get us to a justified belief in God(s).

Most importantly, it's not my fault if believers can't find a way to verify or falsify their beliefs. It's not my fault they can't think of a set of evidence that would prove the existence of the creator they claim exists. Because it's the person making the claims responsibility to provide evidence - not my responsibility to design tests for them. Onus Probandi: burden of proof / burden of persuasion falls to the person making the claim.
For example, I don't believe in the Multiverse. And simply saying "Well scientist don't have a way to test the theory therefore we are justified in believing it." - is NOT a valid argument. If someone claims the Multiverse is real it is up to THEM to provide the evidence. And if the hypothesis is unverifiable and or unfalsifiable then their belief is unwarranted.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

Love is an emotion. Emotions are real brain states that we can detect with measurable accuracy.

Love is also manifested by signs of affection. These too are demonstrable. Love is a real thing. It's been extensively studied. Here's some peer reviewed scientific articles if you're interested on the topic:

http://www.vislab.ucl.ac.uk/pdf/NeuralBasisOfLove.pdf

http://jn.physiology.org/content/94/1/327.short

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/46107078_Neuroimaging_of_Love_fMRI_Meta-Analysis_Evidence_toward_New_Perspectives_in_Sexual_Medicine

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4327739/

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

Or it could be an accurate description of a God beyond existence as we understand it.

"Beyond existence" is not something that has been established as being a real thing. And, until such a time as it is shown to be possible that something can exist "beyond existence" - there's no good reason to believe any such claims. Once again, I could just as easily put flying unicorns in the category of "beyond existence". But it still wouldn't mean anyone was justified in believing they're actually real.

You also don't seem to understand that negative theology is a thought experiment. It's not an actual way of describing things. Because we can only explain things in relation to other things. If you don't know what a ship is I might say it's a large boat. If you don't know what a boat is then I would have to explain it in reference to a vessel that floats on water, etc - until I get to something you have experience with or you already understand and then I can explain a ship in reference to that. But we can't explain things solely on what it isn't. If I say there I have a device that's not a computer and it's not alive and it doesn't have any minerals in it - could you then understand what that device is?

"Beyond existence" is just an Ad Hoc response you made up to try and rescue a failed hypothesis. There's a huge difference between following the evidence where it leads vs making up new terms so you can try and lead the evidence where you want it to go.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

If God fails to be a being about whom it makes sense to make empirical statements then what?

Then we're not justified in believing in it.

It doesn't make sense to make empirical statements about things which don't exist - like flying unicorns - because there are no empirical statements that can be made.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

"God" is a manmade construct. Either it is an accurate description of some existent being or it is not.

If you're asking "could there be something out there of which we could not comprehend and cannot be described in anyway" then you're NOT talking about God. You're talking about something very much different.

84

Why I'm not agnostic

by Coded Logic in

i think the time to be agnostic is when you have evidence on both sides of a claim.

for example, i'm agnostic about the existence of a historical jesus.

i think a reasonable case can be made that jesus was a man who was turned into a legend over a period of a couple of decades.

Coded Logic

But what about a God beyond being? Not in the category of beings whose existence can be determined one way or another.
-SBF

How do we tell the difference between beings whose existence cannot be determined from beings that don't exist at all?

I could just as well put unicorns, bigfoot, or pyramid building aliens in the category of 'beings whose existence cannot be determined'. Because things for which there is no evidence and things which don't exist are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

I am open to their existence pending evidence. But in the meantime the only rational position is disbelief. Why do people have such a hard time with this?