Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Fanman]

Pattern-chaser,

What does logic tell us about accepting or rejecting any idea? It tells us that we should do neither unless we have sufficient reason. As you say, "we have no logical (in the strictest sense) reasons to believe God exists", just as we have no logical reasons to believe She does not exist. Our starting point is that God might or could exist, so She goes onto the Maybe pile, as all ideas do before we consider them in any detail. To move Her from there to the Accepted or Rejected piles requires sufficient reason, and we don't have that. So on the Maybe pile She must stay.

We agree here. Objectively, God belongs on the maybe pile. We can't logically move God from that pile due to a lack of (objective) evidence either way. But that doesn't mean we cannot logically accept or reject that God exists. (a) because there is anecdotal evidence for his existence, and (b) because of a lack of evidence that he does exist. Those factors mean we can logically accept or reject a positive or negative claim, even though he cannot shift from the maybe pile.

Prior to more detailed consideration, all ideas belong on the Maybe pile. Some can be Rejected or Accepted quickly and easily. For example, the idea that trees are mammals can be Rejected because of strong and sufficient evidence to the contrary. The idea that North America borders the Atlantic Ocean on its East side can be easily Accepted, again for sufficient reason. But many ideas are not so easily dealt with. If we have no obvious reason to accept or reject, then logic dictates that we leave them on the Maybe pile, doesn't it? What other justifiable conclusion could there be?

The fact that an idea is on the maybe pile - until there is evidence or justifiable reasons for accepting or rejecting it - doesn't mean that choosing to believe or disbelieve is illogical. Where there is an absence of evidence or logical justifications, we are free to decide whether to accept the idea, reject it or see it as a maybe.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence?

That keeps God on the maybe pile. But it does not logically prevent us from believing or disbelieving.

Yes, I claim the latter. Even though I am a believer. My beliefs are not in accord with logic — this applies to many beliefs held by humans, it is not unique to religious or spiritual beliefs.

I gather that your beliefs have efficacy. In that there is a logicality to them.

[Pattern-chaser]

What does logic tell us about accepting or rejecting any idea? It tells us that we should do neither unless we have sufficient reason. As you say, "we have no logical (in the strictest sense) reasons to believe God exists", just as we have no logical reasons to believe She does not exist. Our starting point is that God might or could exist, so She goes onto the Maybe pile, as all ideas do before we consider them in any detail. To move Her from there to the Accepted or Rejected piles requires sufficient reason, and we don't have that. So on the Maybe pile She must stay.

We agree here. Objectively, God belongs on the maybe pile. We can't logically move God from that pile due to a lack of (objective) evidence either way.

We've been here before, but OK...

But that doesn't mean we cannot logically accept or reject that God exists.

Er, yes it does. You just agreed as much.

Humans can and do accept or reject stuff for any reason, or for no reason at all. And this would certainly include our decisions to believe, or not believe, in God. But such decisions are not logical, and not backed by logic, as we have already agreed, above.



Your understanding of "logic" baffles me. I think we have reached an impasse.

• You agree that God must logically remain on the Maybe pile.
• Then you state that God can 'logically' be moved onto the Accepted or Rejected piles, and yet you agree (above) that there is no evidence to support this decision.

This is not compatible with my understanding of logic.

[Sy Borg]

But that doesn't mean we cannot logically accept or reject that God exists.

Er, yes it does. You just agreed as much.

Humans can and do accept or reject stuff for any reason, or for no reason at all. And this would certainly include our decisions to believe, or not believe, in God. But such decisions are not logical, and not backed by logic, as we have already agreed, above.

Your understanding of "logic" baffles me. I think we have reached an impasse.

• You agree that God must logically remain on the Maybe pile.
• Then you state that God can 'logically' be moved onto the Accepted or Rejected piles, and yet you agree (above) that there is no evidence to support this decision.

This is not compatible with my understanding of logic.

Fanman is correct because not all "maybes" are the same.

Microscopic alien probes on Earth studying humanity belong in the Maybe Pile, as does the simulation hypothesis, and the idea of a magic anthropomorphic spirit that created and controls the universe.

Life in rocks or subsurface oceans on Mars, Europa, Enceladus, Triton or Pluto are also Maybes.

I would argue that microscopic alien probes, or the universe being created and run by a giant programmer and/or spirit are so unlikely, they can be logically put aside while the exobiology speculation remains much more open.

I refer back to Dawkins's belief scale from 1 to 7, where 1 is total belief and 7 is total disbelief. As regards God, Dawkins ranked himself a 6. Thus, he is an atheist who has left theism on the Maybe Pile, and it is logical.

His level of doubt is so much less than the level of likelihood that it is more honest and accurate for him to declare himself an atheist. If he claimed to be agnostic, he'd have to explain, to make clear what kind of agnostic he is.

Theoretically, it is theoretically possible for your sofa to spontaneously turn into a perfect, sparkling diamond. The odds would be ridiculous, but it's still theoretically possible. Should that go on the Maybe Pile too?

What odds against a Maybe do you consider sufficient to rule it out? 5-1? 10-1? 10,000-1? A million to one?

[Pattern-chaser]

But that doesn't mean we cannot logically accept or reject that God exists.

Er, yes it does. You just agreed as much.

Humans can and do accept or reject stuff for any reason, or for no reason at all. And this would certainly include our decisions to believe, or not believe, in God. But such decisions are not logical, and not backed by logic, as we have already agreed, above.

Your understanding of "logic" baffles me. I think we have reached an impasse.

• You agree that God must logically remain on the Maybe pile.
• Then you state that God can 'logically' be moved onto the Accepted or Rejected piles, and yet you agree (above) that there is no evidence to support this decision.

This is not compatible with my understanding of logic.

Fanman is correct because not all "maybes" are the same.

Microscopic alien probes on Earth studying humanity belong in the Maybe Pile, as does the simulation hypothesis, and the idea of a magic anthropomorphic spirit that created and controls the universe.

Life in rocks or subsurface oceans on Mars, Europa, Enceladus, Triton or Pluto are also Maybes.

OK...

I would argue that microscopic alien probes, or the universe being created and run by a giant programmer and/or spirit are so unlikely, they can be logically put aside while the exobiology speculation remains much more open.

No. They can be put aside, for sure, but not "logically", because we lack sufficient reason to place them on the Rejected pile.

Theoretically, it is theoretically possible for your sofa to spontaneously turn into a perfect, sparkling diamond. The odds would be ridiculous, but it's still theoretically possible. Should that go on the Maybe Pile too?

Anything that is, or might be, possible belongs on the Maybe pile. Anything at all.

What odds against a Maybe do you consider sufficient to rule it out? 5-1? 10-1? 10,000-1? A million to one?

Distraction. For a start, how would you go about calculating the "odds" of (for example) God existing?

Logically, only sufficient reason is enough to Reject an idea. The 'odds' don't really enter the argument; the logical argument, that is. A logical argument is not dependent on 'odds', I don't think, but only on deduction. Other, non-logical, reasons might result in different conclusions, of course.

[Sy Borg]

What odds against a Maybe do you consider sufficient to rule it out? 5-1? 10-1? 10,000-1? A million to one?

Distraction. For a start, how would you go about calculating the "odds" of (for example) God existing?

Logically, only sufficient reason is enough to Reject an idea. The 'odds' don't really enter the argument; the logical argument, that is. A logical argument is not dependent on 'odds', I don't think, but only on deduction. Other, non-logical, reasons might result in different conclusions, of course.

How are you parsing "odds" and "sufficient reason"?

One (usually) cannot calculate the odds and likewise, one cannot calculate sufficiency.

Therefore your demand that odds be formally quantified is either unreasonable or a double standard.

Yet we are saying the same thing - which is the bleedin obvious. Everything is theoretically possible. Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely. Not everything needs to be calculated or subject to a formula. At the edge of the provable lies the speculative and at the edge of the speculative lies the unlikely.

[Sea Turtle]

What odds against a Maybe do you consider sufficient to rule it out? 5-1? 10-1? 10,000-1? A million to one?

Distraction. For a start, how would you go about calculating the "odds" of (for example) God existing?

Logically, only sufficient reason is enough to Reject an idea. The 'odds' don't really enter the argument; the logical argument, that is. A logical argument is not dependent on 'odds', I don't think, but only on deduction. Other, non-logical, reasons might result in different conclusions, of course.

How are you parsing "odds" and "sufficient reason"?

One (usually) cannot calculate the odds and likewise, one cannot calculate sufficiency.

Therefore your demand that odds be formally quantified is either unreasonable or a double standard.

Yet we are saying the same thing - which is the bleedin obvious. Everything is theoretically possible. Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely. Not everything needs to be calculated or subject to a formula. At the edge of the provable lies the speculative and at the edge of the speculative lies the unlikely.

This is one of the challenges for some. Nothing is for sure.

If someone asks are you sure, some will say yes while others will say "99% sure" and be unwilling to say 100% sure.

From some viewpoint it is a lie to tell 100% sure, and therefore everything is on the maybe pile.

This really starts to break down when the person insists something is sure, but something else is only 99% sure. This is a breakdown in logic for the person where emotion has taken charge as "100% sure" is an emotional choice while "99% sure" is a logical one. This is the Spock condition.

Sometimes the "99% sure" is fear of being wrong, while other times it is a desire to be exact. It is the same result, but different cause.

It is another way of dealing with the black and white goal post idea.

[Pattern-chaser]

What odds against a Maybe do you consider sufficient to rule it out? 5-1? 10-1? 10,000-1? A million to one?

Distraction. For a start, how would you go about calculating the "odds" of (for example) God existing?

Logically, only sufficient reason is enough to Reject an idea. The 'odds' don't really enter the argument; the logical argument, that is. A logical argument is not dependent on 'odds', I don't think, but only on deduction. Other, non-logical, reasons might result in different conclusions, of course.

How are you parsing "odds" and "sufficient reason"?

One (usually) cannot calculate the odds and likewise, one cannot calculate sufficiency.

Therefore your demand that odds be formally quantified is either unreasonable or a double standard.

I'm not sure that the application of logic — the logic that allows us to consider the structure of an argument and confirm that it is valid, or not — can be described as "calculation".

Also, I hope I have not "demanded" anything, but only offered my opinions, which I believe to be correct. And yet it is also fair to say, I think, that if we cannot put a numerical value on the 'odds' — a justified value, that is — then we should not refer to "odds" at all. For if we cannot present a precise numerical value, what are 'odds' or 'probabilities' anyway? Both are conventionally represented by numbers; by numerical values...

Yet we are saying the same thing - which is the bleedin obvious. Everything is theoretically possible.

Not "everything"; many things, perhaps?

Thus, it is logical to put aside that which one finds especially unlikely.

OK, I will not simply say "oh no it isn't". Instead, I will ask you to describe the "logic" that offers us sufficient reason to put these things aside? I ask this in the light of your chosen words, which seem to say that your estimates of likelihood are accurate and justified, and not just unfounded* claims.

* — i.e. not-justified; lacking sufficient reason, or maybe any reason at all.

Not everything needs to be calculated or subject to a formula.

Agreed.

At the edge of the provable lies the speculative and at the edge of the speculative lies the unlikely.

Your words seem to offer "provable" and "unlikely" as opposites, or complements. Was that your intention, or am I just reading too much into what you have written? It's just that it seems to me that the opposite/complement of "provable is not-provable, and that of "unlikely" is likely... Proof and probability are two different things; related or associated, yes, but different nonetheless.

[Pattern-chaser]

This is one of the challenges for some. Nothing is for sure.

If someone asks are you sure, some will say yes while others will say "99% sure" and be unwilling to say 100% sure.

From some viewpoint it is a lie to tell 100% sure, and therefore everything is on the maybe pile.

This really starts to break down when the person insists something is sure, but something else is only 99% sure. This is a breakdown in logic for the person where emotion has taken charge as "100% sure" is an emotional choice while "99% sure" is a logical one. This is the Spock condition.

Sometimes the "99% sure" is fear of being wrong, while other times it is a desire to be exact. It is the same result, but different cause.

It is another way of dealing with the black and white goal post idea.

I think there is another underlying issue here too. That of 'exaggeration for effect'. It varies from "I've told you a million times" to expressing certainty instead of mere confidence. It's a very human thing, and can be observed anywhere and everywhere. It's just something humans do.

Then there is simplification, where some might consider that 99% is close enough to 100% that it is acceptable to round up, in the name of simplicity and clarity.

But in a philosophy forum, where serious and considered thought is commonplace and expected, is such exaggeration/simplification appropriate?

[Gee]

People are always saying that there is no evidence for the god concept, I think you even stated it in an earlier post in this thread, but it is not true. There is a ton of evidence worldwide going back millennia in the forms of temples, churches, altars, statues, symbols, totems, etc., and a lot of written evidence from literally EVERY culture or nation that has existed since writing has existed. I brought this idea up in a science forum, you know where they love to hate religion, and although they tried, they could not find any culture that could disprove the universality of the god concept. We are not talking about coincidence here.

Denying this concept would be like saying that gravity is just coincidence -- just because it is everywhere does not make it real. Maybe not, but being causal makes it real, and the god concept is causal. The only difference between these two ideas is that we finally learned something about gravity, but have not yet learned about the god concept. One day we will learn, but in the meantime, we will interpret it in various ways through various religions.

Gee

Interesting perspective.

Thank you for saying so. Not many people share my perspective, probably because it is mine and not taught by others as far as I have seen. I should also probably note (for other readers) that my post above was written in response to a different member, so the "you" mentioned above is not the member that I am responding to here.

I recently discovered a topic by an author who might be Robert M. Pirsig[/url] (IQ 170), the author of the most sold philosophy book ever (5m copies). His posts showed that he held a similar idea as you and was actively investigating it within his philosophical work.

I found this interesting and looked up Pirsig in Wiki. This was the guy who wrote "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance", which was a book that I had heard of before. A few years ago in another forum, I was in a thread where we were discussing our adventures and misadventures. I told them about a cross country motorcycle trip that I took while in my early 20's, which isn't all that unusual except that I was a young woman and I made the trip alone. The people that I met on that trip were wonderful and very kindly invited me to eat with them and camp close to them so that I would be protected. There are a lot of really great people in this country. So one of the members, after reading my post, recommended that I read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. I did not buy it at that time.

When I looked up Pirsig, I found that not only did he have a very comfortable IQ, he had also battled schizophrenia. Many people do not realize this, but very high intelligence and genius often run hand in hand with schizophrenia in family lines. This was another connection, as I have schizophrenics in my family and would value an understanding from the perspective of a person fighting this condition. When you add his thoughts about the "God" concept, it is too intriguing an idea to pass up, so I ordered his book. It came yesterday, and I think I am really going to enjoy it. Thank you for the reference.

Robert Pirsig is known to have mixed Chinese and Western philosophies.

Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.

We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

If you look at that last bolded sentence, you will find what I see as one of the biggest differences between philosophy and science. Philosophy incorporates time into it's considerations, which allows it to find wisdom, where as science does not. Incorporating time actually changes the logic.

Gee

[Sculptor1]

Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.
We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

THere are reasons for belief, as you say,and It's nothing to do with logic.
Faulty humans, evolved from the same smaall clade of apes, all have the same fault.
There is no surprise that the fact that male humans have nipples might seem illogical, and there are so many other evolved anomalies one should not be surprised to find that humans can also have faults in their thinking too.

MacDonald's used to have a sign saying 1 million served, then 10 million, then 50 until they stopped being able to count.
These days the corporation is worth:
Brand value of McDonald’s worldwide
196.5bn USD
McDonald’s revenue worldwide
23.18bn USD
Number of McDonald’s restaurants worldwide
40,275
None of this success makes Big Mac good food.
Like with so many other things humans are drawn to things that satify, but not things that are good for them.

So yeah. millions of humans for millenia thought that the earth was the centre of the universe - they were wrong.
It does not matter how many people believe that a god exists; or that burgers are good, or that the universe is made for the purposes of the people of earth. Because reality does not give a damn what you beleive.
And it's not as if this "god" thing is the same across cultures; it is not. It's not even a single entitity, and where it is seems to waht different things from people acording the the vaugeries of specisif cultures. All religions are split on doctrine; protestant catholic mormon sunni sheite
So the fact of belief is not logical. More belief is not better belief. like more burgers are just more burgers.

[Sy Borg]

I'm not answering broken up bits. It's too fiddly and bores me. If I wanted to be bored I'd go do some cleaning.

At the edge of the provable lies the speculative and at the edge of the speculative lies the unlikely.

Your words seem to offer "provable" and "unlikely" as opposites, or complements. Was that your intention, or am I just reading too much into what you have written? It's just that it seems to me that the opposite/complement of "provable is not-provable, and that of "unlikely" is likely... Proof and probability are two different things; related or associated, yes, but different nonetheless.

Change it to "proved", then.

[Gee]

Sculptor, normally you are a very intelligent person whose thoughts I respect, but if there is any hint of religion or the "God" concept in a post, you seem to lose the ability to follow the ideas presented. My response was not about religion, it was about logic and what causes logic to fail. You missed the point!

Why do we value empirical evidence so highly? It is the only means we have to objectively disqualify scenarios. BUT I believe there to be more to the idea of empirical evidence than we give credit to.
We believe what we see. We need scientific proof to believe right?
Well what about the word of thousand and thousand and sometimes even millions of people over tens, sometimes hundreds, of generations? I don't believe that millions of people believe in something for thousands of years for no reason. I think that it is more logical that our empirical evidence is flawed in some way, or that there is some piece of the equation that we are missing than, say, that a hundred billion people since the dawn of mankind have been wrong about the existence of some type of higher power. THAT is illogical.

THere are reasons for belief, as you say, and It's nothing to do with logic.

Agreed. As there is no logic in your response, which appears to be emotional.

MacDonald's used to have a sign saying 1 million served, then 10 million, then 50 until they stopped being able to count.
These days the corporation is worth:
Brand value of McDonald’s worldwide
196.5bn USD
McDonald’s revenue worldwide
23.18bn USD
Number of McDonald’s restaurants worldwide
40,275
None of this success makes Big Mac good food.
Like with so many other things humans are drawn to things that satify, but not things that are good for them.

Here you are talking about growth and maybe success, but this is completely off topic. It has nothing to do with logic and nothing to do with what I stated. It is an emotional and manipulative response.

So yeah. millions of humans for millenia thought that the earth was the centre of the universe - they were wrong.
It does not matter how many people believe that a god exists; or that burgers are good, or that the universe is made for the purposes of the people of earth. Because reality does not give a damn what you beleive.

This is not entirely true. What we believe does affect reality, whether it is political, or our attitude regarding the success of a surgery, or just the chemistry that affects our moods, thoughts, and actions. Thought does not affect reality, but thought affects emotion, which causes belief, and belief affects a great deal. How do I know this? SCIENCE!!

And it's not as if this "god" thing is the same across cultures; it is not. It's not even a single entitity, and where it is seems to waht different things from people acording the the vaugeries of specisif cultures. All religions are split on doctrine; protestant catholic mormon sunni sheite

Just like a home is not the same across cultures as it can be an igloo, a tent, a hut, an apartment, a house, a teepee, a castle, etc. Or a tree can be tall or short, can have leaves or needles, and can even be a cactus like a saguaro. You are not making a point here. You are just rambling about religion.

So the fact of belief is not logical. More belief is not better belief. like more burgers are just more burgers.

Until you can separate the words "belief" and "religion", you are not going to understand a single thing that I stated. I do not want to argue the age-old science v religion crap as I think it is stupid. The point of my post was about logic. Logic changes when more information is added; philosophy tends to add time to it's considerations, which allows it to learn wisdom, changing the logic.

Let's try the same idea with a different subject. Say that a little boy lives on a farm in the country and likes to play outside. His mother informs him that the road in front of his house is very dangerous and he should stay away from it. He listens to his mother and watches the road carefully. Although he plays outside every day and watches the road every day, he has never noted any cause to be afraid of it. He has even seen squirrels cross the road without danger, and begins to doubt his mother's words. His whole life, he has studied this road and now knows that there is no real danger.

Is the boy wrong? I think that his logic is more pure than his mothers, so I doubt that he is wrong or that the road is dangerous to him. So does that make the mother wrong? I don't think so. She knows that surprising and unexpected things can happen, and even if they don't, he will grow up and one day drive on that road, so she feels a healthy respect for the dangers is a good thing. She has added the information gained through experience and she has also considered time, which changed her logic into wisdom.

Gee

[Sea Turtle]

This is one of the challenges for some. Nothing is for sure.

If someone asks are you sure, some will say yes while others will say "99% sure" and be unwilling to say 100% sure.

From some viewpoint it is a lie to tell 100% sure, and therefore everything is on the maybe pile.

This really starts to break down when the person insists something is sure, but something else is only 99% sure. This is a breakdown in logic for the person where emotion has taken charge as "100% sure" is an emotional choice while "99% sure" is a logical one. This is the Spock condition.

Sometimes the "99% sure" is fear of being wrong, while other times it is a desire to be exact. It is the same result, but different cause.

It is another way of dealing with the black and white goal post idea.

I think there is another underlying issue here too. That of 'exaggeration for effect'. It varies from "I've told you a million times" to expressing certainty instead of mere confidence. It's a very human thing, and can be observed anywhere and everywhere. It's just something humans do.

Then there is simplification, where some might consider that 99% is close enough to 100% that it is acceptable to round up, in the name of simplicity and clarity.

But in a philosophy forum, where serious and considered thought is commonplace and expected, is such exaggeration/simplification appropriate?

I don't look for right or wrong on this. only to understand why.

Probably just telling that we round up for simplicity is enough. Where some can get into disagreement is when the round up is assumed. Assumed is a dangerous word.

[Sculptor1]

Sculptor, normally you are a very intelligent person whose thoughts I respect, but if there is any hint of religion or the "God" concept in a post, you seem to lose the ability to follow the ideas presented. My response was not about religion, it was about logic and what causes logic to fail. You missed the point!

I realise that most posts tend to be combative. But sometimes people are in agreement and are just putting their own spin on the same arguement or clarifying a point.

There is no need for the ad hominem.

[Sculptor1]

This is not entirely true. What we believe does affect reality, whether it is political, or our attitude regarding the success of a surgery, or just the chemistry that affects our moods, thoughts, and actions. Thought does not affect reality, but thought affects emotion, which causes belief, and belief affects a great deal. How do I know this? SCIENCE!!

Really.
You realy want to support this statement?
IN a thread about LOGIC, you want to say that belief can affect realtiy, from a factual statement where I say that reality does not care about what you beleive?

So please demonstrate the science which shows that believing a something can change reality.