Freethought & Rationalism Archive

AndresDeLaHoz · 04-08-2003, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Refractor
LOL, this is called LEGAL evidence. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence. And yes, if there was a crime, the more eyewitnesses that testify against the perpetrator, the better the prosecutions case becomes. So in a court of law, "argumentum ad numerum" is a legitimate form of legal evidence if it pertains to eyewitness testimonies.

There are millions of crimes committed everyday, but each crime only has a handful of witnesses. There are billions of people that did not witness OJ kill his wife, but does that mean he didn't do it? It seems to me that you don't understand how legal evidences work.

Funny stuff, seeing as we're talking about God. In other words, the legal equivalent of a bunch of eyewitnesses saying joe did it, a bunch of eyewitnesses saying mike did, a bunch of eyewitnesses saying pete did it, etc...

Seems to be enough reasonable doubt.

Refractor · 04-08-2003, 08:12 PM

Hi Mageth,

My time is going to be limited over the next couple weeks so I am not going to be able to continue a full-blown point by point debate in this thread, but I will continue our other debate in the "intelligent design vs. mindless processes" thread. There were many points I wanted to respond to below, but this will be my post in this thread. Thanks for the discussion up to this point.

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Babble? I don't think so. In order for an idea to graduate into the class of being "babble", you'd have to prove that it is *false*.

Leaning towards an Argumentum ad ignorantiam, I see. Your "idea" is a valid idea until I prove it false?

You've got it backwards. In order to graduate the idea from the rather large class of "pseudoscientific babble", you'll have to provide evidence supporting its possibility. Until then, it remains an undergraduate.

Actually, the Argument from Ignorance works both ways. There is no "backwards". It is defined as -

"Arguments of this form assume that since something has not been proven false, it is therefore true. Conversely, such an argument may assume that since something has not been proven true, it is therefore false. (This is a special case of a false dilemma, since it assumes that all propositions must either be known to be true or known to be false.) As Davis writes, "Lack of proof is not proof." (p. 59)

http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm

I am assuming that you are using the buzzwords "pseudoscientific babble" as a antagonistic way of saying the idea is "false" because it has not proved true, in which case, you are committing the Argument from Ignorance, as well as a the False Dilemma fallacy. (see above) Please brush up on your own knowledge of logical fallacies before you begin leveling such accusations. Thanks.

Quote:

An unproved idea is not babble - its just speculation.

Not all unproven ideas are babble, no. But this one is, and will remain so until evidence and possible mechanisms are provided. As will other such pseudoscientific ideas.

Yes, you consider this particular idea to be "babble" simply because it is philosophically opposed to your pet belief system of atheistic naturalism.

Quote:

But since you are anti-supernatural bigot, we should not be surprised that you choose to categorize it as "babble".

Interesting that you're all hepped up over me categorizing your idea as "pseudoscientific babble", yet you do not hesitate to categorize me as an "anti-supernatural bigot." (BTW, that's a bit of an Argumentum ad Hominem.)

No, it is not an ad hominem. Look up the defintion of "bigot" and you'll see there is nothing derogatory about it. You have proved that you are an anti-supernatural bigot by your very own words.

Quote:

LOL, this is called LEGAL evidence. In a court of law, eyewitness testimony is a form of evidence.

If not personally presented, it's called "hearsay evidence" and is not allowed. Since your claim is merely that "billions of people throughout history have witnessed such and such", your claim is simply hearsay evidence, and an Argumentum ad Numerum.

Hearsay? Erm, you can go to any library and find hundeds of history books that include documentation of all the supernatural accounts made by countless people throughout history. Look at all the different polls that have been conducted by magazines and newspapers and you'll find a majority of people claim to have had supernatural experiences. This is a well-known statistic that can be easily verified, so I am quite surprised that you are questioning it.

Quote:

And yes, if there was a crime, the more eyewitnesses that testify against the perpetrator, the better the prosecutions case becomes. So in a court of law, "argumentum ad numerum" is a legitimate form of legal evidence if it pertains to eyewitness testimonies.

Interestingly, in a court of law, both sides can present witnesses. Their testimonies often conflict, and part of the Jury's responsibility is to sort out what or who is believable from what or who is not.

I understand, but most people's personal experiences are not public. There are many credible eyewitnesses to supernatural events. People from every walk of life and every intelligence, income, cultural, and educational bracket have claimed to have experienced supernatural events. To automatically assume that all of these people are delusional, is itself, delusional.

Quote:

There are millions of crimes committed everyday, but each crime only has a handful of witnesses. There are billions of people that did not witness OJ kill his wife, but does that mean he didn't do it? It seems to me that you don't understand how legal evidences work.

It seems to me that you don't understand that this is not a courtroom or a trial, nor do you understand the concept of "hearsay" evidence. Here, your "billions" claim is an Argumentum ad Numerum, and a fallacy.

This doesn't have to be a courtroom or trial. Legal evidence is a legitimate form of evidence that applies to any scenario where the objective is to determine the truth behind events that are alleged to have happened in the past. Its in an inductive form of evidence. The argumentum ad numerum does not apply to legal evidence, and the fact that you think it does reveals that you do not understand legal evidence.

Quote:

I'm not claiming that these billions of people didn't witness such-and-such an event that happened to other people (e.g. as in a trial witness), but that they have never had what they would seriously consider some kind of "paranormal" experience.

But you are an outsider, a non-witness to the events. So the question arises - why should we take your (non-witness) opinion about the events that you didn't observe, *over* those of the EYEWITNESSES who did directly observe/experience the events?

Quote:

I have seen these things happen personally. Also, there have been multiple eyewitnesses to the same supernatural events. It's more likely that the events were real than the idea that the two or more people had the same mental illusion simultaneously.

Again, a bit of an argument from ignorance. "The supernatural explanation must be real because I can't believe two or more people can be deluded simultaneously! Not only that, I've witnessed such an event, don't know of a natural explanation for it, therefore what I experienced must have been supernatural!"

As I already pointed out, the argument from ignorance works both ways. If you think that because the supernatural has not been proven scientifically, it is therefore false, you have equally committed the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

Quote:

(It's well known that two or more people can indeed suffer an illusion simultaneously, BTW)

The same exact illusion at the same moment, that begins and ends at the same exact time? Sorry, but all the cases I have studied included people who have never had illusions before, were perfectly mentally healthy, were not dehydrated, did not have lack of sleep, low blood sugar, etc. In many of the researched cases where two or more people have claimed to have witnessed a supernatural event, there is no psychological or physical explanation for why they would have had a hallucination. In fact, such a conclusion goes *against* all evidence in a lot of cases.

Quote:

And as for "Also, there have been multiple eyewitnesses to the same supernatural events," you're assuming your conclusion in your argument. "I object. It has not been established by the defense that these eyewitnesses indeed witnessed a supernatural event."

No, the alternative conclusions, such as both people were delusional and/or hallucinating - is MORE ABSURD and MORE CONTRARY to the evidence in many cases.

Science has verified all the physical/psychological factors that cause or promote hallucinations. There are many eyewitness cases where NONE of those factors were present. So your suggestion that these events were "hallucinations" is what actually lacks the necessary evidence.

Quote:

In addition, this is merely more anecdotal evidence, which adds nothing to your argument.

All eyewitness testimony is anecdotal to greater or lesser degree, but it is still a form of evidence. You are correct that it needs to be established that the eyewitnesses are credible. I have researched many cases where the eyewitnesses of supernatural events were by all other accounts, credible.

I don't have the time to dig up all the detailed reports for these cases, but if you do some research on the internet, you can find some credible examples of them.

Quote:

My particular concept of God is irrelevant since you deny ALL concepts of god.

It's simply not true that I "deny ALL concepts of god," so this is a bit of a strawman, I'm afraid. I admit that some concept of god(s) are possible. It's just that I require good evidence to accept any concept of god as probable or existent. I do, perhaps, "deny" some particular concepts of god, such as the rather contradictory general Xian concepts of God.

In your post you proposed a god that:
- exists (obviously)
- created the universe
- created humans
- desires a "spiritual relationship" with humans
- created humans with a unique capacity for such a spiritual relationship

That does not describe any possible god(s). Indeed, it fits nicely with the Christian concept of god.

I am very tempted to ask you prove that those characteristics are impossible for a god to possess, and why I should consider an atheist's "theological" claims to be taken seriously, but I don't want to open up that can of worms right now because I won't have time to debate it. However, I look forward to addressing that issue with you at another time.

Quote:

Also note - I never once claimed that the frontal lobe would be "proof of god".

You definitely appear to be leaning that way with comments such as "Obviously, we are dancing on the periphery of a very large subject, which is the existence of God" and "Indeed, the existence of God is the real issue here."

No, you are misinterpreting what I said. My reasoning behind that comment was - if God exists, the idea that humans might have a mechanism that helps them relate to God becomes much more *plausible*. So if anything, I was suggesting that *GOD* might be proof of a spiritually-oriented frontal lobe! You see, you had it backwards.

Quote:

My take on it: if God exists, she would know what evidence would convince me, and presumably be willing to provide it. As I've not seen evidence that convinces me of God's existence, I conclude either that god doesn't exist or that she's unwilling to provide the evidence to me.

And if you think there is such evidence, please provide it. This question is asked over and over here, and as of yet I haven't seen it answered.

That is my point!! Unless you tell God, or me, or whoever, EXACTLY what kind of evidence would "convince" you, our hands are tied. To some people, perhaps the She-God would have to bake them a nice birthday cake, buy them a new car, and wipe their asses for a week before they'd ever believe she exists.

See my point? If someone is philosophically, dead-set against the idea of God, then they will continue set ridiculously high standard of evidence that are not practical or rational. It reminds me of that old antic where the atheist proclaims - "If God is real, he'll prove it right now by striking me dead with lighting". (Nothing happens). Then the atheist says, "You see, nothing happened. Therefore, God does not exist".

That's a very common antic that has been used by atheists. But it also called the False Dilemma fallacy because it assumes there are only two options - that either God doesn't exist based on that evidence, or that God does exist based on that evidence. But it omits a third possiblity - that perhaps God does exist, but chooses not to participate in the atheists' little "proof" games.

Quote:

As I have said before, I am not a Scientismist. I accept many different forms of evidence including, scientific, natural, logical, legal, inductive, deductive, etc. I have seen enough proof from all those forms of evidence to believe that it is more likely that a God exists than that some mindless natural force exists that randomly belches out universes, or causes complex lifeforms to randomly self-create out of non-living chemicals.

Self-organizing systems are so much more than "random". The "random" charge is "one of the most meaningless statements you can make".

As much as I'd like to challenge you on this comment, this is not the proper thread for a discussion on abiogensis. Perhaps we will delve into that topic in our other debate thread.

Quote:

And let me ask you: what evidence would it take to convince you that what we see was created by "mindless natural forces" and not generated by God?

I get a chuckle out of you guys who love to harp about "there is no evidence of mindless natural forces generating complexity".

Evidence for that phenomenon would be proved by creating a biotic soup and recreating the process. If non-living chemicals are all that is needed for an organism to create itself, then it should not be difficult to observe this process in action, especially since scientists have the advantage of custom-making a biotic soup environment that is designed to be drastically friendly to organic self-assembly.

Quote:

And I have already told you several times that my objective was not to "prove" that the frontal lobe is a spiritual antenna. My intent was to offer my opinion that that may be one of many possibilities. A possiblity is not in need of proof, because there are many things that are technically possible for which there is no proof. (Like the idea that Saddam would have never succesfully developed nuclear weapons, for example.)

A possibility is in need of at least some evidence before it can be taken seriously, esp. an extraordinary "possibility" like this one.

Supernatural possibilities are only "extraordinary" to philosophical naturalists. Indeed, I find it far more "extraordinary" that mindless natural forces would belch out complex, ordered, uncaused universes for no reason at all, and then magically change non-living matter into hyper-complex living organisms, simply given a couple billion years to do the job.

Indeed, what one person considers "extraordinary" another considers plausible, and vice versa.

Refractor

Mageth · 04-09-2003, 12:03 PM

Refractor:

I understand that you don't have time to continue this thread, but I feel it's necessary to clear up some misconceptions.

I am assuming that you are using the buzzwords "pseudoscientific babble" as a antagonistic way of saying the idea is "false" because it has not proved true...

No, you are wrong. See below.

As I already pointed out, the argument from ignorance works both ways. If you think that because the supernatural has not been proven scientifically, it is therefore false, you have equally committed the "argument from ignorance" fallacy.

What I think is that until the supernatural has been scientifically demonstrated, I can rightfully assume it's false. That's the way science works. One can assume something lies in the realm of falsehood until it's demonstrated it does not. That does not mean that it has been proven false. I don't think or claim that the lack of evidence/proof proves the supernatural is false, therefore I'm not committing an argument from ignorance fallacy.

This should be clear from my comment:

Quote:

Not all unproven ideas are babble, no. But this one is, and will remain so until evidence and possible mechanisms are provided. As will other such pseudoscientific ideas.

Yes, you consider this particular idea to be "babble" simply because it is philosophically opposed to your pet belief system of atheistic naturalism.

No, I consider it babble because it's a pseudoscientific claim that's often presented as scientifically true in spite of the fact that it's never been scientifically demonstrated, there's no credible evidence for its existence, and no one including you seems willing or able to propose a testable hypothesis as to its source or mechanisms.

No, it is not an ad hominem. Look up the defintion of "bigot" and you'll see there is nothing derogatory about it. You have proved that you are an anti-supernatural bigot by your very own words.

Look up the definition of ad hominem and you'll see it's "arguing against the man". It doesn't have to be derogatory. Characterizing me as an "anti-supernatural bigot" is very much "arguing against the man", and is perhaps also an attempt at poisoning the well.

Fact is, I'm not an "anti-supernatural bigot". If the supernatural is true, I'd very much like to know so. I have nothing against the supernatural per se, I'm not bigoted towards it or anti-it, it's just that I've seen no evidence that it exists. So when presented with such a claim, I demand evidence (and hypotheses) to back up the claim.

Hearsay? Erm, you can go to any library and find hundeds of history books that include documentation of all the supernatural accounts made by countless people throughout history.

More arguing by numbers. The number of people that believe something has nothing to do with the truth or falsehood of that belief.

Look at all the different polls that have been conducted by magazines and newspapers and you'll find a majority of people claim to have had supernatural experiences.

Ditto. Those people believe they had supernatural experiences. This is not evidence that the experiences were supernatural.

This is a well-known statistic that can be easily verified, so I am quite surprised that you are questioning it.

I'm not questioning that many people believe they've had supernatural experiences. I'm questioning whether what they had were truly supernatural experiences.

There are many credible eyewitnesses to supernatural events.

Umm, there are many credible eyewitnesses to events that they believe are supernatural. Once again, it has not been established that what they witnessed was supernatural.

People from every walk of life and every intelligence, income, cultural, and educational bracket have claimed to have experienced supernatural events.

That's more like it. They claim they experienced supernatural events.

To automatically assume that all of these people are delusional, is itself, delusional.

I'm not assuming they are all delusional. Perhaps some are. Many of them attribute a cause (supernatural) to an event they witnessed because they did not understand or know the natural cause to the event. This is not delusion, it's misinterpretation, misunderstanding, or just plain ignorance (not in a bad sense; merely as ignorance of the causes).

This doesn't have to be a courtroom or trial. Legal evidence is a legitimate form of evidence that applies to any scenario where the objective is to determine the truth behind events that are alleged to have happened in the past. Its in an inductive form of evidence. The argumentum ad numerum does not apply to legal evidence, and the fact that you think it does reveals that you do not understand legal evidence.

Simply put, you are claiming in this thread the fact that billions of people claim to have witnessed supernatural events is somehow evidence of the supernatural. In this thread, that is an Argumentum ad numerum. The number of people that believe something (e.g. that they have witnessed supernatural events) is simply not evidence of the truth or falsehood of that belief.

Further, you are not providing "legal" evidence. In a trial, if you, a lawyer, claimed "many people witnessed the perpetrator committing the crime", but could not bring the witnesses to the stand to testify, your comment would be objected to and stricken from the record.

But you are an outsider, a non-witness to the events. So the question arises - why should we take your (non-witness) opinion about the events that you didn't observe, *over* those of the EYEWITNESSES who did directly observe/experience the events?

You misunderstand my point. First, it was a counter-example to your "billions" claim, to illustrate that I could also make an argument by numbers to back up my position if I so wanted. Second, what I'm really saying is, if the supernatural is pervasive in our world, why do so many people not experience it?

In addition, I have been present at events that some people also present have claimed were supernatural. I did not see anything supernatural in the event. So, yes, I have been an eyewitness to such events, and could be put on the stand to testify.

No, the alternative conclusions, such as both people were delusional and/or hallucinating - is MORE ABSURD and MORE CONTRARY to the evidence in many cases.

Science has verified all the physical/psychological factors that cause or promote hallucinations. There are many eyewitness cases where NONE of those factors were present. So your suggestion that these events were "hallucinations" is what actually lacks the necessary evidence.

I don't recall making the charge that I think all such people claiming to have experienced supernatural events were "delusional and/or hallucinating". However, we know that one or even a group of people can be deluded and/or suffer a hallucination. As I said above, many if not most such events are probably examples of misinterpretation, or Non causa pro causa fallacies.

If you ask me "Which is more probable, the supernatural is the cause of these events, or the witnesses were either deluded, hallucinating, or ascribing an unproven cause to the events", I have to go with one of the "eithers". To accept the supernatural explanation would be to commit fallacious Non causa pro causa reasoning. It will remain so until the supernatural itself is demonstrated to be true.

All eyewitness testimony is anecdotal to greater or lesser degree, but it is still a form of evidence.

But not scientific evidence.

I don't have the time to dig up all the detailed reports for these cases, but if you do some research on the internet, you can find some credible examples of them.

There's no way in hell I can determine the credibility of most such accounts I find on the Internet!

I am very tempted to ask you prove that those characteristics are impossible for a god to possess

Well, I don't have to prove it, because I'm not claiming it.

I think you misunderstood my statement, "That does not describe any possible god(s)." What I meant was that your description does not apply to all possible gods. To a common definition of the xian god, yes, but not to all possible gods.

My reasoning behind that comment was - if God exists, the idea that humans might have a mechanism that helps them relate to God becomes much more *plausible*.

Well, it's already plausible that humans might have a mechanism that allows them to experience something some interpret as "god", whether god exists or not. We don't need god to explain it.

So if anything, I was suggesting that *GOD* might be proof of a spiritually-oriented frontal lobe! You see, you had it backwards.

And you seem to have it circular. We appear to have a "spiritually-oriented" frontal lobe, which lends credence to God. If god exists, that might explain why we have appear to have a "spiritually-oriented" frontal lobe.

God cannot be *proof* of anything until itself proven. And the "spiritual" function of the frontal lobe, even if it is indeed an interface to something supernatural, is not evidence of god(s) in general or a God in particular.

That is my point!! Unless you tell God, or me, or whoever, EXACTLY what kind of evidence would "convince" you, our hands are tied.

How are god's hands tied? Wouldn't he know what evidence would convince me?

See my point? If someone is philosophically, dead-set against the idea of God, then they will continue set ridiculously high standard of evidence that are not practical or rational.

No, I don't see your point. But then you're not describing me. I'm not "philosophically, dead-set against the idea of God". I set no standard of evidence; if god wills, god will know, and provide that evidence.

perhaps God does exist, but chooses not to participate in the atheists' little "proof" games.

I'm not playing that game. If god exists and chooses not to provide evidence to convince me that she is real, then god must have some reason for it. The only one I can think of is that god's not particularly concerned that I believe she's real.

Supernatural possibilities are only "extraordinary" to philosophical naturalists.

Umm, "supernatural" and "extraordinary" are damn near synonyms. By definition, something that is "supernatural" is extraordinary. I would think anyone could agree to that.

Evidence for that phenomenon would be proved by creating a biotic soup and recreating the process. If non-living chemicals are all that is needed for an organism to create itself, then it should not be difficult to observe this process in action, especially since scientists have the advantage of custom-making a biotic soup environment that is designed to be drastically friendly to organic self-assembly.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Contrary to your claim, it is a difficult task to observe the process in action or to reproduce the process in the laboratory. That difficulty, and the fact that it hasn't been done yet (though many experiments have successfully produced complex biochemicals from "soup"), are not evidence that it can't be done or that such an abiogenic process wasn't the source of life on earth.

But before you charge me of the same, if such a process is reproduced in a lab, it wouldn't prove that a god wasn't involved or that a god doesn't exist. All it would demonstrate is that such a process is possible without an intelligent designer.

Indeed, I find it far more "extraordinary" that mindless natural forces would belch out complex, ordered, uncaused universes for no reason at all, and then magically change non-living matter into hyper-complex living organisms, simply given a couple billion years to do the job.

Argumentum ad ignorantiamYou can't understand how or accept that natural processes can account for what we see, therefore goddidit. OK.

Before you charge me with the same, I don't claim to know that god did not "do it". What I claim is that natural processes are enough to explain the universe and life, so god is unnecessary as an explanation.

And a bifurcation fallacy. From the Logic Faq of the SecWeb library, this is the example given of a bifurcation fallacy:

"Either man was created, as the Bible tells us, or he evolved from inanimate chemicals by pure random chance, as scientists tell us. The latter is incredibly unlikely, so..."

Sound familiar?

There's no "magic" required (natural processes suffice), and, yes, there's no "reason" for it. You're the one making those kind of claims and dubious requirements, not me. Why must there be a reason?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.