| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Agki" |
| Date: |
23 Apr 2007 05:30:07 AM |
| Object: |
Sagan's Famous Quote |
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
Agki
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 11:54:18 AM |
|
|
"Agki" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1177324207.452996.105390@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof.
I think it should take more than one helium balloon to prove that things
fall up.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http//www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Greywolf" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 06:24:15 AM |
|
|
"Agki" <agkistrodon@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:1177324207.452996.105390@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof.
I think what that magnificent, noble man meant was that when Jesus junkie,
'Tex, the Jesus Junkie' asserts that 'Jesus' caused his cancer to go into
remission, for example, that 'Tex' should provide rather extraordinary
'proof' that his remission was the result of 'divine' interference and *not*
the 'medicine' and medical procedures provided by his doctor and hospital.
*That* 'proof' would constitute 'extraordinary' evidence due to the 'nature'
of the evidence provided.
To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
Agki
That's a 'toughie'. Thank goodness it is getting past the point where
animals are so cruelly treated on such a large scale. Anyone with a heart
doesn't want to see animals suffer -- at all. But like war, abortion, and
capital punishment; experimentation on animals can be viewed as a 'necessary
evil'. It's something we all loathe to a degree, but appropriate at times.
Imaginary 'God' can't do a damn thing about any of it, can he?
Greywolf
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "quibbler" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 08:14:13 AM |
|
|
In article <1177324207.452996.105390@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
agkistrodon@mindspring.com says...
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it.
It's not a matter of belief.
Proof is proof
Science doesn't do proof, moron. In fact, even in math, proof basically
just means a sound argument. However, sagan was talking about evidence
used to support abductive and inductive conclusions, not the process of
so-called deductive proof.
and any claim requires only ordinary proof.
Irrelevant. Once there is a proof, the matter is resolved. However,
science only approximates reality and doesn't generate proof.
It works on things like probability. Therefore a fantastically
improbable assertion requires a lot of evidence to counterbalance its
burden.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
Let's start at an IQ of 25, which is slightly higher than most repugs and
theists. We can haggle from there.
--
Quibbler (quibbler247atyahoo.com)
"It is fashionable to wax apocalyptic about the
threat to humanity posed by the AIDS virus, 'mad cow'
disease, and many others, but I think a case can be
made that faith is one of the world's great evils,
comparable to the smallpox virus but harder to
eradicate." -- Richard Dawkins
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Meteorite Debris" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 08:49:37 AM |
|
|
In article <1177324207.452996.105390@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
agkistrodon@mindspring.com says...
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
Agki
Suppose you're off work sick, unfit to work. You may be recovering from
an accident. Eventually you get a med cert stating you are fit to work.
That certificate is ordinary proof for an ordinary event. Person
recovers from injury and returns to work.
Now suppose you present a med cert to the effect that you regrew a limb
that had been lost. Not good enough because the event is extraordinary.
--
Remove both YOUR_SHOES before replying
apatriot #1, atheist #1417,
Chief EAC prophet
Jason Gastrich is praying for me on 8 January 2009
http://members.optusnet.com.au/~pk1956/
Apatriotism Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/apatriotism
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make
you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 05:28:09 PM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 03:30:07 -0700, Agki <agkistrodon@mindspring.com>
wrote:
- Refer: <1177324207.452996.105390@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
Agki
You have fallen into the elementary trap of binary thinking.
No wonder you are confused.
--
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "raven1" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 10:29:03 AM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 03:30:07 -0700, Agki <agkistrodon@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
You're certainly a prime candidate...
--
"O Sybilli, si ergo
Fortibus es in ero
O Nobili! Themis trux
Sivat sinem? Causen Dux"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 09:09:54 AM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 03:30:07 -0700, Agki <agkistrodon@mindspring.com>
wrote:
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
Which is why that, while pure math requires proof, science requires
only evidence. And the more extraordinary the claim, the more
extraordinary the evidence must be.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
It's not a matter of intelligence, it's a matter of the capability in
the species of sentience and, more importantly, self-awareness. Since
human beings are capable of both, experimentation on and killing human
beings is, and should be, prohibited. Since the same is true of all
the apes, experimentation on and killing any apes should be
prohibited. (Recent work shows that it's true for African elephants
so experimenting on and killing them should also be prohibited.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob Casanova" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
24 Apr 2007 01:34:26 AM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 03:30:07 -0700, the following appeared in
sci.skeptic, posted by Agki <agkistrodon@mindspring.com>:
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
Actually, it was "extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence". "Proof" isn't normally a concept useful in
science; science uses "preponderance of evidence". In
science (as contrasted with math) an extraordinary claim is
one which contradicts existing evidence, usually the
majority of existing evidence. This requires greater than an
ordinary level of verifiable evidence to even be considered
for evaluation, for obvious reasons.
More related to my employement, Sagan also asked "How intelligent does
a chimpanzee have to be before killing him constitutes murder?" He
was relating to animal experimentation ethics. I have to turn it
around and ask "How stupid does a human have to be before we're
allowed to experiment on him?"
Agki
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "David Schwartz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 07:01:19 AM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 3:30 am, Agki <agkistro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Carl Sagan said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary
proof. Does anyone disagree? I do not believe it. Proof is proof
and any claim requires only ordinary proof. To demonstrate that
if a>b and b>c, then a>c requires only ordinary mathematical proof.
To assert that
if a>b and b<c, then a=c is true for all real numbers, would require
the same although, on the face of it, the assertion is extraordinary.
I think you misunderstand what Carl Sagan means by extraordinary.
For example, suppose I said I went to San Jose this morning. You ask
me for proof. I present a receipt from the San Jose McDonald's. You
would probably consider that sufficient proof for normal claims under
normal circumstances.
Although it's possible that I got the receipt from someone else. But
the claim is ordinary, and so it's more likely that I'm telling the
truth than that I faked a McDonald's receipt or got one from someone
else just to falsely claim I want to San Jose for no obvious reason.
Now suppose I said I went to Mars this morning. You ask me for proof.
I present a receipt from the Mars McDonald's.
This is an extraordinary claim. In this case, the claim is so unlikely
to be true that almost any imaginable defect in the proof is more
likely than the claim being true.
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 02:05:16 PM |
|
|
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion. Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 06:46:25 PM |
|
|
On 23 Apr 2007 12:05:16 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jack
<cawoodm@gmail.com> in
<1177355116.345905.244050@y80g2000hsf.googlegroups.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Not really. If we have 10,000 pieces of evidence for a theory and one
piece that suggests another it makes more sense to investigate the 1
piece than to reject the theory.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like).
A red herring, Sagan talked about evidence not proof.
As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
Observations never require proof, observations stand by themselves.
Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
As you said, the concept of proof does not belong here.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JoelKatz" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
23 Apr 2007 06:40:35 PM |
|
|
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 07:26:05 AM |
|
|
On Apr 24, 1:40 am, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary. Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Karl Johanson" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
28 Apr 2007 12:22:27 PM |
|
|
"Jack" <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote in
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary. Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
YES!!! And god's name is Batman! Lets see someone try to prove that
Batman didn't create the universe.
Karl Johanson
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 01:18:26 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2007 05:26:05 -0700, Jack <cawoodm@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
There is no burden to "bounce back". That there isn't any objective
evidence that God objectively exists is evident, due to the total lack
of such evidence.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 01:46:50 PM |
|
|
On Apr 27, 11:18 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 05:26:05 -0700, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
There is no burden to "bounce back". That there isn't any objective
evidence that God objectively exists is evident, due to the total lack
of such evidence.
Which makes God's existence an "extraordinary claim" by any standard.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 04:03:06 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2007 11:46:50 -0700, Neil Kelsey <neil_kelsey@hotmail.com>
wrote:
On Apr 27, 11:18 am, Al Klein <ruk...@pern.invalid> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 05:26:05 -0700, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
There is no burden to "bounce back". That there isn't any objective
evidence that God objectively exists is evident, due to the total lack
of such evidence.
Which makes God's existence an "extraordinary claim" by any standard.
Just the fact that there aren't any gods walking around all over the
place makes any existential god claim extraordinary.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 06:08:14 PM |
|
|
On 27 Apr 2007 05:26:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jack
<cawoodm@gmail.com> in
<1177676765.147488.194700@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:40 am, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary. Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
As for these miracles, you would have to get more specific. Some say
that the sunrise or a birth is a miracle. Fine, but we have pretty
good explanations for those events without needing to assert some
actions from some g(G)od(s). And if you point to someone recovering
from a disease that doctors thought was fatal I will point to someone
who died way early from something. If a very rare act is a miracle, it
is not less miraculous because it is bad rather than good. Cherry
picking the data and assigning to "God" all of the good events is not
evidence, it is hopeful thinking.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
30 Apr 2007 04:05:44 PM |
|
|
On Apr 28, 1:08 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 05:26:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jack
<cawo...@gmail.com> in
<1177676765.147488.194...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:40 am, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary. Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
Sorry, you lost me there: What is the problem exactly?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
30 Apr 2007 05:14:16 PM |
|
|
On 30 Apr 2007 14:05:44 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jack
<cawoodm@gmail.com> in
<1177967144.850491.240470@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 28, 1:08 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
On 27 Apr 2007 05:26:05 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jack
<cawo...@gmail.com> in
<1177676765.147488.194...@n15g2000prd.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:40 am, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary. Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary. Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
Sorry, you lost me there: What is the problem exactly?
You argued for the *existence* of some undefined entity. *Existence is
not really much of a claim, no less an extraordinary one. Show me
evidence of some being that created the Universe, show me evidence of
some being that both cares about my behavior and has the ability to
reward/punish me after death. Those are extraordinary claims and
demand extraordinary evidence. That some undefined g(G)od(s) exist is
not particularly interesting until you assert some qualities to this
entity.
As I have said to several people here: I will give you, for the
argument, that g(G)od(s) exist. Now show me that one or more of them
had something to do with creating the Universe. Show me that one or
more of them created life. Show me that one or more of them care about
my behavior. For bonus points show me that the g(G)od(s) of the first
case are the g(G)od(s) of the second or third.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
01 May 2007 10:20:21 AM |
|
|
On May 1, 12:14 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
Sorry, you lost me there: What is the problem exactly?
You argued for the *existence* of some undefined entity. *Existence is
not really much of a claim, no less an extraordinary one. Show me
evidence of some being that created the Universe, show me evidence of
some being that both cares about my behavior and has the ability to
reward/punish me after death. Those are extraordinary claims and
demand extraordinary evidence. That some undefined g(G)od(s) exist is
not particularly interesting until you assert some qualities to this
entity.
Just for the record I am a Christian and thus talking about the God of
the Bible here. As for "undefined", you seem to list several
attributes which characterize this god so I presume we have an
understanding regarding definition. If not, if no definition was
understood, how on earth would you be able to evaluate the evidence at
all? Regarding evidence for a being having created the universe: The
argument is really philosophical and self-evident and my understanding
and conviction is as follows (albeit somewhat unorthodox): Nothing
comes from nothing and so something has always existed. This eternal
entity is perfect in every way because entropy cannot be reversed.
Thus _everything_ is evidence for the _existence_ of God - a perfect
creator. I would say anyone entertaining the idea that science is
going to someday show us how nothing became everything is a fool who
cannot be helped and is lacking some basic understanding of science
and philosophy.
As I have said to several people here: I will give you, for the
argument, that g(G)od(s) exist. Now show me that one or more of them
had something to do with creating the Universe. Show me that one or
more of them created life. Show me that one or more of them care about
my behavior. For bonus points show me that the g(G)od(s) of the first
case are the g(G)od(s) of the second or third.
Now, assuming you accept that God exists you have to ask yourself the
big "Why?". Why us? Why this big effort and complexity just to produce
us? The Bible purports to answer this question but we can approach it
philosophically as well. Are you willing to proceed?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
01 May 2007 05:36:21 PM |
|
|
On 1 May 2007 08:20:21 -0700, in alt.atheism , Jack
<cawoodm@gmail.com> in
<1178032821.076530.245660@c35g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> wrote:
On May 1, 12:14 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
Sorry, you lost me there: What is the problem exactly?
You argued for the *existence* of some undefined entity. *Existence is
not really much of a claim, no less an extraordinary one. Show me
evidence of some being that created the Universe, show me evidence of
some being that both cares about my behavior and has the ability to
reward/punish me after death. Those are extraordinary claims and
demand extraordinary evidence. That some undefined g(G)od(s) exist is
not particularly interesting until you assert some qualities to this
entity.
Just for the record I am a Christian and thus talking about the God of
the Bible here.
I understand that you think that.
As for "undefined", you seem to list several
attributes which characterize this god so I presume we have an
understanding regarding definition.
I am looking for the connection between the evidence you claim and the
attributes you claim. That is the crux of my question.
If not, if no definition was
understood, how on earth would you be able to evaluate the evidence at
all?
God is a pretty catch all phrase. Even those of some particular
religion seem to change their notion of the attributes over a
discussion.
Regarding evidence for a being having created the universe: The
argument is really philosophical and self-evident
Self-evident means you don't have evidence but you had claimed that
you did.
and my understanding
and conviction is as follows (albeit somewhat unorthodox): Nothing
comes from nothing
Gravity is negative energy and it may well be that the sum total of
all mass/energy in the Universe is 0, which means that nothing did
come from nothing.
and so something has always existed.
Fine. So there was some undefined "something". You can't use this
argument to validly assert any other aspect of this something, just
that it "existed".
This eternal
entity is perfect in every way because entropy cannot be reversed.
There is no connection between the first part of that sentence and the
last. Entropy says nothing about perfection, it has to do with energy
states and temperature. That entropy has a direction tells us that the
initial Universe was once very hot. Hot and perfect are not the same
thing.
Thus _everything_ is evidence for the _existence_ of God - a perfect
creator.
So "everything" is evidence for this "God". Can you now tell me
anything else about this entity? Can you, for example, connect the
entity you discuss above with any being that somehow cares about my
behavior? Without any meaningful attributes this is not an
extraordinary claim, it is a banal claim. If we strip out the
multi-purpose name "God" from the discussion we have the claim that
"something created the Universe" with the caveat that we know thing
about the "something" or about the "creation". Big F Deal!
I would say anyone entertaining the idea that science is
going to someday show us how nothing became everything is a fool who
cannot be helped and is lacking some basic understanding of science
and philosophy.
And, yet, we can tell you astounding things about the age of the
Universe, about the early seconds and milli-seconds. We can fill book
after book with well supported testable claims about the beginning of
the Universe. Maybe not that very initial instant, but after the first
Plank instant we know lots. I admit this requires more than a basic
understanding of science, but it is pretty impressive. You have
scrunched your God into the first 10^-23 second of existence, a pretty
small god.
As I have said to several people here: I will give you, for the
argument, that g(G)od(s) exist. Now show me that one or more of them
had something to do with creating the Universe. Show me that one or
more of them created life. Show me that one or more of them care about
my behavior. For bonus points show me that the g(G)od(s) of the first
case are the g(G)od(s) of the second or third.
Now, assuming you accept that God exists you have to ask yourself the
big "Why?".
That is not the first thing I ask, I have lots more "whats" to ask.
Why us?
99.9999999999999999999999+% of the Universe is empty space.
99.99999999999999% of the solar system is empty. 99.99999+% of the
stuff in the Solar System is inhospitable to live. For the first
99.99% of the history of Earth there were not modern humans. My
question is where did you get the notion that all of this was intended
for you?
Why this big effort and complexity just to produce
us?
That makes the assumption that it was all meant for us. See if you can
support that claim.
The Bible purports to answer this question but we can approach it
philosophically as well. Are you willing to proceed?
Sure. Are you willing to look at the problems I posed above?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Phipps" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
01 May 2007 08:52:03 PM |
|
|
On May 1, 11:20 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 12:14 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
Sorry, you lost me there: What is the problem exactly?
You argued for the *existence* of some undefined entity. *Existence is
not really much of a claim, no less an extraordinary one. Show me
evidence of some being that created the Universe, show me evidence of
some being that both cares about my behavior and has the ability to
reward/punish me after death. Those are extraordinary claims and
demand extraordinary evidence. That some undefined g(G)od(s) exist is
not particularly interesting until you assert some qualities to this
entity.
Just for the record I am a Christian and thus talking about the God of
the Bible here.
That's simple then. The god of the Bible is a mythological god just
like Zeus or Amun-Ra: just do a google search for "Elohim" and
"Annuaki" and you'll see that Hebrew mythology was borrowed wholesale
from Sumerian mythology, the same mythology that inspired Greek and
Egyptian mythology.
Martin
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
01 May 2007 12:03:03 PM |
|
|
On May 1, 8:20 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 1, 12:14 am, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
You want to believe that God exists, based on some private knowledge?
Fine with me. The problem comes when you assert some particular
aspects of this God. Where is your evidence on the number of
g(G)od(s)? On their interest in my behavior? On their actions in the
world? When you think about it existence is a pretty minor claim.
Sorry, you lost me there: What is the problem exactly?
You argued for the *existence* of some undefined entity. *Existence is
not really much of a claim, no less an extraordinary one. Show me
evidence of some being that created the Universe, show me evidence of
some being that both cares about my behavior and has the ability to
reward/punish me after death. Those are extraordinary claims and
demand extraordinary evidence. That some undefined g(G)od(s) exist is
not particularly interesting until you assert some qualities to this
entity.
Just for the record I am a Christian and thus talking about the God of
the Bible here. As for "undefined", you seem to list several
attributes which characterize this god so I presume we have an
understanding regarding definition. If not, if no definition was
understood, how on earth would you be able to evaluate the evidence at
all? Regarding evidence for a being having created the universe: The
argument is really philosophical and self-evident and my understanding
and conviction is as follows (albeit somewhat unorthodox): Nothing
comes from nothing and so something has always existed.
What do you do with a statement like "nothing is something" then? Word
games are fun!
Study some physics instead. The creation of the universe is not a
philosophical problem, it's a physical one, since the universe is
material.
This eternal
entity is perfect in every way because entropy cannot be reversed.
Oh. I should have said, study physics more. Throwing around jargon
without understanding it only seems to confuse you. There is no way
that conclusion (the eternal entity is perfect) follows from that
premise (entropy cannot be reversed).
Thus _everything_ is evidence for the _existence_ of God - a perfect
creator.
Circular reasoning causes nausea:
I would say anyone entertaining the idea that science is
going to someday show us how nothing became everything is a fool who
cannot be helped and is lacking some basic understanding of science
and philosophy.
Oh goodie! Another fallacy! Poisoning the well! See if you can cram
some more in! You haven't done an argumentum ad populum for a few
minutes, how about one of those?
Good thing the great minds in history haven't listened to Luddites
like you. Even some Christians have shown more intellectual curiousity
than you do. "Man's reach must exceed his grasp, else what's a heaven
for?" That was one of your guys. Better that he had been shut up and
not gone around asking uncomfortable questions, huh?
*snip*
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
01 May 2007 11:56:47 AM |
|
|
On 27 Apr., 14:26, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:40 am, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary.
It would not be a miracle. It would no violate any known physical
law.
Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here but my real-life case is
this: Atheists demand extraordinary evidence that God exists because,
to them, the claim is extraordinary.
Why even talk of extraordinary evidence before any kind of objective
evidence is provided?
Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.-
It is not possible to provide evidence for the non-existence of
something. The theist tells me some god exists. I see no reason to
believe him, since I have never seen any such being; and no theist has
yet provided me with any evidence - extraordinary or otherwise. Many
theists have posted the claim that they have evidence, but none, when
requested, have actually presented this evidence. As Thomas Paine
pointed out, if you have received a revelation from a god, you are
obliged to believe it; but I am not obliged to believe you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Neil Kelsey" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 02:51:43 PM |
|
|
On Apr 27, 5:26 am, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 24, 1:40 am, JoelKatz <dav...@webmaster.com> wrote:
On Apr 23, 12:05 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
A proof must make it more likely that the claim is true than that the
proof is defective. That's easy to do for an ordinary claim, since
it's reasonably likely to be true already. That's nearly impossible
for an extraordinary claim, since it's so unlikely to be true.
The thing is, the "extraordinary" is a subjective notion.
Only in the same sense that whether or not a proof is valid is a
subjective notion. When you consider a proof, you have no choice but
to consider how likely it is that the proof is true and how likely it
is that there may be a defect in the proof that you cannot immediately
find.
How are you using the word "subjective" here? If you mean it's an
evaluation that can only be made by a person -- well, why isn't that
true of everything? If you mean there are no rational criteria by
which the decision can be made, then I disagree with you.
There are numerous rational, objective criteria by which "I went to
the movies yesterday" is not extraordinary but "I went to Mars
yesterday" is.
Also, the
concept of a proof, in the formal sense, applies only to conceptual
questions (maths, logic and the like). As soon as you translate proof
to the real world you end up with the problem that things are the way
they are regardless of whether you can prove it or not. Thus you have
either direct evidence (here is a rock, proof of it's existence) or
indirect evidence (here is a rock, here is a broken window, proof of a
certain event).
The same is true in math and logic. Things are still true or not
regardless of whether you can prove them. If you think math and logic
proofs are somehow different from others, then it's quite clear Sagan
wasn't talking about math and logic proofs.
Now here's the rub: formal proofs are inaccessible to the those for
whom the proof is not understandable (dummies), direct evidence is
inaccessible to those whose senses are unreliable (short sighted,
color blind) or not present (deaf, blind) and indirect evidence is
inaccessible to those who are a bit of both. Thus, in any attempt at
proving something you will have in your audience subjects for whom the
proof does not compell. Case in point: The God Question.
Right, the question however is whether the failure of the proof to
compel is a result of the rational or irrational resistance to the
proof. Sagan was explaining a category of rational resistance to
proofs:
1) The thing claimed to be proven is extraordinary, and
2) The proof presented is not extraordinary.
This leaves it more likely that the proof is defective than that the
thing claimed is true.
It is rational not to find a proof compelling in this case, even if
similar proofs would be accepted for ordinary claims.
If I said I went to the movies yesterday and you asked for proof, you
would likely accept it if I called my father and had you ask him what
he did with me yesterday if he said he went to the movies with me.
Why? Because it's very unlikely I pressured my father to lie about
such an unimportant thing.
All you have to do is subtly change the circumstances so that the
claim is extraordinary and the "proof" ceases to compel. For example,
suppose I'm accused of murder at the same time and many credible
witnesses place me at the scene at the same time I supposedly went to
the movies. Now it does not seem so unlikely that I pressured my
father to lie.
DS
To answer your 1st question and to reiterate my point: The
_evaluation_ of a claim as "extraordinary" is a subjective process and
dependant one what you consider "ordinary". If one circus performer
said to another that he performed a back somersault and landed on his
left hand, this might register as "mildly interesting" whereas for us
it would seem amazing or unlikely -> extraordinary. Likewise culture
and, ultimately, experience plays a decisive role. If I witness a
miracle and tell my wife (who has also witnessed miracles) she would
be less impressed than someone who has never witnessed a miracle.
Let's not start the whole "God Debate" here
This is exactly where the God Debate has to be brought up. There is a
qualitative difference between gymnastics and god. There is evidence
for gymnastics, there is no evidence for god. Your reluctance to
discuss the "miracles" you witnessed is typical. You're reluctant to
discuss them because you know there is a rational explanation for
them.
And gymnastics do not violate the laws of physics, and the claims in
the Bible and other religious writings do on a constant basis. Since
we have no evidence anything can violate these laws then god's
existence is even more of an extraordinary claim.
So, claiming gods exist is an extraordinary claim because you have no
evidence that he does, and because his existence defies all
observations about the natural world. I'd say there's nothing
subjective about that...the burden of proof is on you.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
27 Apr 2007 08:49:06 AM |
|
|
On Apr 27, 8:26 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-fetched and would bounce
the burden of proof right back.
Which would be fine if theists accepted the burden of proof in the
first place and didn't claim that the existance of God was obvious.
The fact is that thousands of years ago the Christian
god was just a god amongst many. (See http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
or http://www.usfca.edu/westciv/Sumerian.html or
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sumerian_gods or
http://www.geocities.com/garyweb65/sumgods.html or
http://home.comcast.net/~chris.s/sumer-faq.html#A1.3.1 or
look up the word "Elohim" on wikipedia.) Thousands
of years ago, God was known as "An" or the "Sky God" of Sumerian
mythology. We know this because the Bible claims Abraham came from
Ur which was located in Sumer. (See http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/
)
According to http://www.stevesdinner.plus.com/swd17.htm ,
"Orthodox tradition represents Abraham as a member of a Semitic tribe
from Ur. He probably spoke Akkadian, and the Akkadian counterparts of
the Sumerian gods Enki, An, Enlil, Utu, Nanna, and Inanna would have
been known to Abraham as Ea, Anu, Bel, Shamash, Sin, and Ishtar.
Abraham's tribe left Ur and travelled to Harran in southeastern
Turkey."
There's also the similarity between Sumerian mythology and the Bible:
in Sumerian mythology, the first man was named Adapa! In Sumerian
mythology, Enki told Adapa not to eat the food of the gods because
the
gods might poison his food and he would die and he obeyed Enki's
advice
and returned to Earth as a mortal and fathered the human race. Later
the
world was destroyed by An in a great flood from which there was only
one survivor who survived by building a boat that carried him, his
family
and all their animals! Many of these similarities are pointed out on
http://www.historel.net/english/orient/03mesop.htm which is a theist
site that doesn't seem to mind admitting the similarity between the
Bible and other mythology! Yet it still refers to "God" as if he
actually existed!
Besides mentioning that Abraham came from Ur in Sumer, the Bible also
mentions the city of Babylon and the "Tower of Babel" that was
supposedly built there. The Babylonians were hated by the Hebrews
and to this day "to babble" means to speak nonsense. The Garden of
Eden was also located in Sumer according to Genesis 2:10-14:
"And a river went out of Eden to water the garden; and from thence it
was parted, and became into four heads. The name of the first is
Pison: that is it which compasseth the whole land of Havilah, where
there is gold; And the gold of that land is good: there is bdellium
and the onyx stone. And the name of the second river is Gihon: the
same is it that compasseth the whole land of Ethiopia. And the name
of the third river is Hiddekel: that is it which goeth toward the
east of Assyria. And the fourth river is Euphrates."
The Euphrates river ran through Sumer, which is now Iraq.
It is worth noting that http://www.earthhistory.org.uk/
is actually a theist site! They refer to Anu as " the one God" but
claim that "Ea" and "Bel" were just other names for the same god.
This contradicts the fact that Anu, Ea and Bel were worshipped
separately in Sumer as three distinct Gods. (Anu was the god of the
sky, Bel was the god of wind and Ea was the god of water. Sumerian
mythology claimed that humans were created by Ea.)
According to http://www.crystalinks.com/sumergods.html
"Enki unraveled the secrets of life and death. His emblem was two
serpents ... entwined on a staff - the basis for the winged caduceus
symbol used by modern Western medicine." As Ea was the god of
knowledge, was the guardian of the "Tree of Life" in Sumerian
mythology and he was symbolized by a snake, it stands to reason that
the snake in the myth of the garden of Eden represented Ea. Bel was
similarly hated by Hebrews: according to the old testament, God told
the Hebrews to kill worshippers of "Baal" if they didn't obey his
first commandment to "not have other gods before Him".
What is interesting is that theists today are willing to accept that
their god was the god An of Sumer but they don't see why this should
be a challenge to faith.
( http://www.christianblog.com/blog/thomas/abram-was-from-sumer-after-all/
) An was the most powerful god in Sumerian mythology and hence it is
understandable that Abraham would choose him as the "one true god"
and dismiss all the others but then the question would be if Anu
(God) exists then what about all the other gods.
So God is just a myth created by man to explain the world around him
and give him comfort. If that's not good enough for you, consider
the fact that God had been used in the past to explain everything
from
storms to floods to earthquakes to volcanic eruptions but that we now
have scientific explanations for all of these calamities and thus
don't need to use any gods (let alone God) to explain them.
The fact is that scientists can perform measurements today that agree
with the predictions of quantum theory to ten digit precision and
accuracy. The so called "God of the gaps" has become so
infinitessimally small that we can feel confident that it doesn't
exist at all.
Martin
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jack" |
|
| Title: Re: Sagan's Famous Quote |
30 Apr 2007 04:00:29 PM |
|
|
On Apr 27, 3:49 pm, Martin <phippsmar...@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Apr 27, 8:26 pm, Jack <cawo...@gmail.com> wrote:
Believers, like myself, however
find the claim that no God exists more far-f | | | | | | |
