tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post2088840214122070613..comments2023-05-24T06:02:06.480-05:00Comments on Chuck's Chatter: Thoughts on EasterChuck Doswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comBlogger33125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-22264394669140937172014-08-11T00:25:51.888-05:002014-08-11T00:25:51.888-05:00Lisa,
We can only speculate on what a deity might...Lisa,<br /><br />We can only speculate on what a deity might want or not want. Given that I don't believe in such a deity, such speculation is essentially useless.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-27125130657817519682014-08-10T21:26:58.927-05:002014-08-10T21:26:58.927-05:00I'd like to throw in a comment based on anothe...I'd like to throw in a comment based on another angle. <br /><br />I am certain that if their was a deity that deity would not want you to worship it. That deity would likely want the same things for and from you and you would want for and from your children. <br /><br />Thus, in my opinion, the doctrines of organized religions are simply man-made doctrines that have no basis in anything. Why anyone pays any attention to them is beyond me. <br /><br />A lot of religious organizations do a good amount of charity work but they also teach doctrines that have no basis in fact. That is a disservice to everyone who comes in contact with them. <br /><br />I know of one person who killed herself because things were really tough and she was expecting things to be better in the next life. What next life? Bad decision based on bad information. Lisa MacArthurnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-43042157621244972212014-04-25T02:15:01.495-05:002014-04-25T02:15:01.495-05:00No problem. Hopefully it was useful to whoever mig...No problem. Hopefully it was useful to whoever might've been reading. Maybe some day we should reserve the NWC auditorium for a debate.Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-59284703732721414652014-04-25T01:54:33.543-05:002014-04-25T01:54:33.543-05:00Matt H.,
We've reached the point where I see...Matt H., <br /><br />We've reached the point where I see no value in pursuing this any further. If you wish to declare yourself the victor, that's fine with me. I'm not conceding anything but I'm saying that continuation of this discussion is futile. Sorry ...Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-22564657356789149972014-04-25T01:37:13.584-05:002014-04-25T01:37:13.584-05:00If it compels most people to believe, I'd call...If it compels most people to believe, I'd call that "compelling", at least to them. "It's based primarily on faith (not evidence)" -- only because of how you define 'compelling evidence'. Totally circular.<br /><br />Ob/subjectivity isn't black or white. Most subjective assessments (e.g., human PoPs) are based on some objective information or criteria and some subjective opinion. It's rarely if ever 100% one or the other. Nothing wrong with that. I never said being subjective makes your criterion invalid. I asked how you determine it. "It's subjective" is not a method for determining it. What is your method? If it's 100% subjective opinion, why is that any more valid than someone who believes in God because it's their opinion that he exists?<br /><br />No, I don't believe we need to define objective measures of paradigm shift, because that's not how I determine whether evidence is compelling to me. Magnitude of paradigm shift is what you said your criterion is. Mine is very different, and paradigm shift has nothing to do with it.<br /><br />Forget about paradigm shift if that's problematic. How do you determine that one claim is more extraordinary than another? e.g., How did you determine that "God exists" is a more extraordinary claim than "God doesn't exist"?Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-74960077793900478712014-04-25T00:59:07.169-05:002014-04-25T00:59:07.169-05:00Matt H.,
Amazing! ... you actually DON'T beli...Matt H.,<br /><br />Amazing! ... you actually DON'T believe the discovery of compelling evidence for or against the existence of the abrahamic deity would be a huge paradigm change!! Based on this alone, we seem destined to disagree and further debate is likley to be futile. <br /><br />The large numbers of non-believers are, imho, mute testimony to the absence of evidence commensurate with the claim of existence for the abrahamic deity. You're satisfied that such an issue has already been decided by majority vote, apparently. I'm asking for a lot more!<br /><br />I disagree that most believers have based their belief on compelling evidence. It's based primarily on faith, NOT logic or evidence. Believers might be convinced, but it's not based on the evidence!! I understand that YOUR evidence is clearly sufficient to convince YOU, but it's far too thin to convince most unbelievers, including me. I have provided statements of the sort of evidence it would take to change my mind. Many believers have made it clear that NO evidence would convince them NOT to believe ... that is simply irrational.<br /><br />This whole discussion you've pursued evidently hinges on my ability to define an objective measure of paradigm change. Otherwise, "If you don't have an objective answer, your argument is circular and/or arbitrary." Hogwash! My ability to develop an objective measure is not at all pertinent to the issue - and I don't have any obligation to live up to criteria you've imposed on me. I suggested several posts ago that subjective assessments are not inevitably invalid, although you apparently disagree. Many scientists have an obsessive attitude toward "objectivity" - subjective, non-quantitative knowledge is not necessarily invalid. This could be a whole debate in its own right.<br /><br />I've provided examples of what I consider to be large paradigm shifts in science. Many more could be offered. Is relativity a greater paradigm shift than evolution or continental drift? I know of no way to quantify that, but within each discipline, it would be obvious that these new concepts changed their respective fields enormously. The lives and careers in those fields were permanently altered by those concepts, once compelling evidence of their validity was provided.<br /><br />So far, I know of no one but you has decided we need to define objective measures of paradigm shift magnitude in order to assert that those shifts were enormous. It's your criterion, so perhaps you should put your considerable intellect to that task of measuring the magnitude of paradigm shifts. But I need no convincing to accept that relativity and the other examples were of huge impact on their fields.<br /><br />In fact, I DO deserve the right to impose my own personal criteria on what is compelling evidence. I think it's damned important to have compelling evidence if I'm going to be asked to believe in an all-everything being. Or even a being with huge, but finite capabilities in comparison to us. I admit it remains a logical possibility, but I've not seen anything to convince me. Although I have that right, I DON'T have the right to impose those criteria on anyone else - and neither do you.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-70119650978318479082014-04-24T23:55:20.097-05:002014-04-24T23:55:20.097-05:00It wasn't a question, but I'll answer it. ...It wasn't a question, but I'll answer it. No. To billions of people, there already is compelling evidence. I'll post a blog to answer your second question in a couple days. It's complicated because "extraordinary" can mean different things, but I'll address each one using probability theory.<br /><br />Your last paragraph is special pleading. You've made several positive assertions here. You said extraordinary claims, defined by the magnitude of paradigm shift they entail, require extraordinary evidence. Thus, your threshold for "compelling" depends on the magnitude of this paradigm shift.<br /><br />I've asked three times how you determine this magnitude and thus the level of evidence required for you to consider it "compelling". Your replies so far have been non-responsive. Are you unable to answer that question?<br /><br />If you don't have an objective answer, your argument is circular and/or arbitrary. It's essentially "There's no compelling evidence, because the evidence that exists doesn't rise to the level of "compelling", a level determined by my own subjective opinion."Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-42065026987004497472014-04-24T23:22:35.997-05:002014-04-24T23:22:35.997-05:00Matt H.,
You've not answered my question. Do ...Matt H.,<br /><br />You've not answered my question. Do you or do you not accept that finding compelling evidence to support either side of the existence question would be an enormous paradigm change? Yes or no? Do you not accept the principle that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Yes or no?<br /><br />Surely it isn't necessary to justify my assertion that compelling evidence for (or against) the existence of the abrahamic deity would have an extraordinary impact on the human species! Either way, the lives of billions of human beings would be altered dramatically and irrevocably. If the compelling evidence is <i>against</i> the existence of the abrahamic deity, then your putative majority of believers must recognize their faith has been unjustified. If the compelling evidence is <i>for</i> the existence of the abrahamic deity, then the billions of nonbelievers must accept a radical change in their world view. And, presumably, the various faiths must somehow reconcile their differences and accept a single version of faith in a deity. They can't all be right, after all.<br /><br />It seems to me that you've consistently tried to divert attention in your arguments from the fact that such compelling evidence simply does not exist. No matter what you might think about the subjectivity of paradigm change magnitude, it's pretty hard for me to imagine any human being who would not be profoundly affected by such evidence, were it to become available. <br /><br />If such evidence already existed, we wouldn't even be having this discussion. Since you are making the claim for the <i>existence</i> of said deity, the burden of proof is on you. I have no logical requirement to justify my unbelief.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-12675379670458842692014-04-24T16:20:36.305-05:002014-04-24T16:20:36.305-05:00This comment has been removed by the author.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-22248348927368750112014-04-24T15:08:08.323-05:002014-04-24T15:08:08.323-05:00Okay, so if not that, what does determine the magn...Okay, so if not that, what does determine the magnitude of the paradigm shift? Only your subjective opinion, or is there something else?<br /><br />It's the key question because you said the magnitude is what determines whether the available evidence is compelling or not (because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence). Your atheist position is built on top of that foundation, but so far your only answer has been "it would have to be estimated subjectively". Okay, how do you estimate it subjectively?Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-42752878034126820622014-04-24T12:05:21.760-05:002014-04-24T12:05:21.760-05:00Matt H.,
The fact that a majority believes in som...Matt H.,<br /><br />The fact that a majority believes in something has nothing to do with the magnitude of the paradigm shift. That belief at present is based on faith (i.e., in the <i>absence</i> of compelling evidence). If compelling evidence some day becomes available, <i>either way</i>, it would be an enormous paradigm shift. Are you just being argumentative or do you really not understand that?Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-82068816631366882352014-04-23T14:17:54.681-05:002014-04-23T14:17:54.681-05:00If it's based on "magnitude of the paradi...If it's based on "magnitude of the paradigm shift if the claim is true", wouldn't your claim be the more extraordinary one? Most people are theists and live under the paradigm that God exists, so "God exists" wouldn't be much of a paradigm shift. I must be misunderstanding you. What exactly do you mean by "paradigm shift"? Are you saying it's subjective and untestable?<br /><br />Regarding PoPs by human forecasters, there's a reason I developed an objective PoP model instead of grabbing them from NDFD :-)Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-29615801226691440962014-04-23T13:37:27.005-05:002014-04-23T13:37:27.005-05:00Change: the existence of a particular deity's...Change: the existence of a particular deity's existence to: the truth of a particular deity's existenceChuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-14313360955236587792014-04-23T13:35:50.825-05:002014-04-23T13:35:50.825-05:00Matt H.,
This debate is increasingly astonishing...Matt H., <br /><br />This debate is increasingly astonishing to me. The significance of a claim is "measured" by the magnitude of the paradigm shift if the claim is true. Did my examples from science not make that evident to you?<br /><br />If the existence of a particular deity's existence would NOT be a huge paradigm shift, I can't imagine what else might qualify!<br /><br />The magnitude of a paradigm shift would have to be estimated subjectively, like the PoPs issued by human forecasters. I assume you're willing to accept such things, no?<br /><br />I will leave it in your capable hands to incorporate the significance of a result into Bayes Theorem, if you feel it's needed. I'm occupied with other things right now.<br /><br />By what measure is my claim the unusual one? How are YOU defining unusual? Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-26427202769262873872014-04-23T13:06:19.162-05:002014-04-23T13:06:19.162-05:00You should know I've never asked you to dispro...You should know I've never asked you to disprove the existence of God and never would. That would be ridiculous. All I'm asking is that you apply a consistent (and scientific) standard, and to tell me where your "extraordinary evidence" claim fits into probability theory.<br /><br />What makes a claim extraordinary and how can we measure its level of "extraordinaryness"? Without special pleading or presupposing your own position, why is "God exists" a more extraordinary claim than "God doesn't exist"? By at least one measure, your claim is the more unusual one. What other tests can we apply?Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-6564766258545412662014-04-23T12:42:44.304-05:002014-04-23T12:42:44.304-05:00Since I can't edit these, let me re-phrase my ...Since I can't edit these, let me re-phrase my response. I have never, ever said my "beliefs" (that follow from my atheism) are true beyond question.<br /><br />You continue to try to shift the burden of proof to me - to DISprove the existence of the abrahamic deity. It's the extraordinary claim of the existence of such an entity that demands extraordinary evidence, not my "beliefs". And since you seem compelled to argue there's a rational basis for theism, it's up to you to back up your claim with compelling evidence.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-48408738060923048902014-04-23T12:30:38.866-05:002014-04-23T12:30:38.866-05:00Matt H.,
It's a pretty much universally accep...Matt H.,<br /><br />It's a pretty much universally accepted principle of science that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Surely you accept that principle, don't you? Examples abound in the history of science: the "Big Bang", relativity, continental drift, quantum theory, evolution ...<br /><br />My "beliefs" that follow from my atheism are irrelevant to this issue. And your description of them is a bizarre mischaracterization. <br /><br />It's my atheism that reflects my skepticism, not those putative "beliefs" that follow from atheism. The existence of your deity is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence - that has yet to be produced by anyone, anywhere in the modern era. The only "evidence" we have is from scriptures, which are not a credible source. Using the bible as a source is like using "Dianetics" to validate the principles of Scientology.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-79925434392326552212014-04-23T11:56:16.666-05:002014-04-23T11:56:16.666-05:00In meteorology, does the amount of evidence requir...In meteorology, does the amount of evidence required for your belief in a hypothesis depend on the significance of the phenomenon being studied? Where is this "significance" term in Bayes' Theorem or in any other evidence-based equation in probability theory?<br /><br />I agree that we should apply more scrutiny to beliefs of greater significance, but it seems your model leads to less scrutiny rather than more. It's basically "My beliefs (i.e., everything that directly follows from atheism) are true unless I see extraordinary evidence to the contrary". That sounds to me like the opposite of skepticism.Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-80593358589379848662014-04-22T15:06:52.288-05:002014-04-22T15:06:52.288-05:00Matt H.,
'Vast majority' might be a bit h...Matt H.,<br /><br />'Vast majority' might be a bit hyperbolic, but ... no matter.<br /><br />"What are your compelling reasons for having such a (relatively) high standard for what constitutes compelling evidence?"<br /><br />That's an easy one ... the existence of a deity is a topic of extraordinary significance. To depart from my skepticism about the existence of a deity would require extraordinary evidence.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-10424214346729925562014-04-22T11:09:27.711-05:002014-04-22T11:09:27.711-05:00That no compelling evidence exists is a conclusion...That no compelling evidence exists is a conclusion that depends entirely on your a priori assumption about what constitutes compelling evidence.<br /><br />That the vast majority of rational people have a different standard than you certainly doesn't mean you're wrong. I go against the vast majority all the time, but it forces me to constantly question my unique beliefs and make sure I have very good reasons for them. What are your compelling reasons for having such a (relatively) high standard for what constitutes compelling evidence?Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-4449132099022981122014-04-21T22:10:32.513-05:002014-04-21T22:10:32.513-05:00Matt H.,
If absolute proof existed either way, we...Matt H.,<br /><br />If absolute proof existed either way, we wouldn't be having this discussion.<br /><br />It's evidence, but it can also be interpreted to show that no such deity exists, so it's hardly convincing evidence.<br /><br />Why insist that it's rational to believe in something for which no compelling evidence exists? The number of people who believe something doesn't do anything to make that belief true.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-75376626520380031412014-04-21T16:00:41.281-05:002014-04-21T16:00:41.281-05:00Chuck, your post seemed to imply that if God exist...Chuck, your post seemed to imply that if God exists, there should be "absolute proof", so I repeated your term. Sorry if I misinterpreted it.<br /><br />That they believe in the same God doesn't mean they all treat each other perfectly. All I said was that it's evidence (not the best evidence, just evidence). Are you saying it isn't evidence?<br /><br />Shouldn't it require pretty strong evidence to believe that a belief held by the majority of people in the world is irrational? What evidence do you have for your belief about that?Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-25577500036561872782014-04-21T13:25:30.088-05:002014-04-21T13:25:30.088-05:00Matt H.,
So you disavow any responsibility for th...Matt H.,<br /><br />So you disavow any responsibility for the use of the term "absolute proof"? You're simply saying its a useless, fictional concept that you've never accepted?<br /><br />"Though there are notable exceptions, things believed by the majority of people in the world are true more often than not." - some notable exceptions indeed. I'm rather surprised you would think of using such a weak argument. If, as you assert, they all worship "the same god", then why are so many of them hateful and disrespectful of each other? Is that the work of the same god among them? Can that possibly be evidence for the existence of that same god? In my book, you have a long way to go with such reasoning to validate the existence of this god.Chuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-80278613848574811472014-04-21T12:42:00.319-05:002014-04-21T12:42:00.319-05:00Do you believe it's irrational to believe in G...Do you believe it's irrational to believe in God or do you not believe that?<br /><br />"Absolute proof" is your term, not mine.<br /><br />Actually, the majority of rational people in the world do believe in a God -- the same God. That alone should count as evidence. Though there are notable exceptions, things believed by the majority of people in the world are true more often than not.Matt Hauglandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16426124926123999587noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2759913671101666257.post-10169667336149576652014-04-21T12:24:53.781-05:002014-04-21T12:24:53.781-05:00Matt H.,
What I've presented here about why p...Matt H.,<br /><br />What I've presented here about why people might choose belief are clearly identified as speculation, without any evidence to back them up. They're not my "beliefs" at all!<br /><br />Regarding what evidence is "compelling" - if the evidence for the existence of a deity were compelling, then virtually every rational personwould believe in that particular deity. That's what I expect from compelling evidence.<br /><br />You seem to be going on about "absolute proof" - I don't require absolute proof for everything I believe in and recognize that science doesn't ever provide absolute proof, but I do ask that there be something vastly more substantial than how ancient Semites interpreted the word "day" or an ancient prophecy.<br /><br />See: http://www.flame.org/~cdoswell/LHTW/LHW_08_Standards_for_evidence.htmlChuck Doswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03099345055614900157noreply@blogger.com