Regarding the Existence or Absence of God
- Thread starter rs7
- Start date
- Status
gotta disagree with ya there bud,.. no way am i in dark's league...that guy can seriously WRITE!
tell ya what, if he ever brings out a book (my money says he will), while i'm sure it will be full of sophistry of the highest order, i'd relish reading every word.
if he never makes it as a trader, he's got a job writing op/ed pieces sewn up. (either that or as a spin doctor for the Moral Majority
)No need to argue semantics.
However, I think we can all agree, as daniel is stating,
that the only evidence we are interested in
is evidence that can be SHOWN to support
your position.
Dark has produced no such evidence.
If all you have is evidence that only you can experience,
it is useless in a debate and you cannot expect
a rational person to accept your word as proof.
peace
axeman
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by I Missed Boat
Perhaps it is just me, but in the definitions you provided, it does appear that one can have evidence by way of experience to satisfy one's own belief in something (and it only has to fit one of the definitions of course).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
However, I think we can all agree, as daniel is stating,
that the only evidence we are interested in
is evidence that can be SHOWN to support
your position.
Dark has produced no such evidence.
If all you have is evidence that only you can experience,
it is useless in a debate and you cannot expect
a rational person to accept your word as proof.
peace
axeman
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by I Missed Boat
Perhaps it is just me, but in the definitions you provided, it does appear that one can have evidence by way of experience to satisfy one's own belief in something (and it only has to fit one of the definitions of course).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey pal,
I didn't talk about "proof," I talked about "evidence." And a piece of evidence-in a court of law for example) does not have to prove the entire case. And if one has a personal experience, THEN THE QUESTION AT HAND was whether someone can have an experience such that the experience is evidence FOR THAT PERSON. Or does something have to be provable to others to be evidence. It seems to me that someone can have evidence through an experience (providing the basis for one's personal belief), even if he or she can't prove their experience to others. But that evidence is only personal evidence, not necessarily evidence for others. Perhaps I am overlooking something in the definition, but I don't think so.
Axehawk you basically asked me 'where's the beef' in terms of why I haven't argued my position more substantively on this thread- only making references instead of getting to the nitty gritty. For one thing I have already argued multiple points, over the course of literally hundreds of posts, on two other religion flavored threads on this board. At some point a guy just has to say enough is enough, from a time and energy perspective as well as a practicality perspective (I have FINALLY pared down to only one or two visits a day here, joy of joys).
As for the guy in the hall you cornered, what does that prove? That you can shake down weak opponents? A sufficiently skilled debater can generally take any complex position at random and out argue the unequipped average joe on the other side (I recall an old Conan O' Brien where Andy convinced Conan that thermonuclear warfare would be cool). Weakness is often in the form of the opponent and not within reality itself. Defeating a farm league team is not the same as taking down the Yankees. I could team up with a friend and you could team up with Dan M- believers vs ex believers, heavyweight division. We could meet every day and debate for an hour until the debate was resolved. Do you have any doubt it could go on for fifty years? Just look how long these threads get!
So maybe I can steer this thread away from the "let's slam each other" phase it is in by bringing up some points about the nature of debate and the structure of belief systems. When presenting any individual point within context of a larger argument, it is important to realize there are two separate variables related to that point:
a) whether the point is interpreted correctly- i.e. whether the argued stance is logically consistent.
b) whether the point itself has high value, tangential value, or nil value in relation to the larger argument.
An illogical interpretation is obviously a thing to be avoided. But this happens far more often than we think because the problem usually lies in a faulty hidden assumption rather than faulty information. People assume facts are the whole enchilada and so they are never on guard for the rightness or wrongness of their assumptions. When analyzing market information and considering possible outcomes, I use something I call bipolar evidence theory (contrarian B.E.T is written on my concept sheet next to my monitor)- simply the notion that a set of facts or data will frequently lead to a conclusion wholly at odds with the initial surface level conclusion. This happens all the time. It is one of the fundamental reasons why the public is always so lost in the markets, and also why gurus are so bad. They present a set of hard facts but then sneak in faulty assumptions to create a deceptively strong argument that is actually invalid. A+B does not always = C. What if A and B are water drops, or positive matter and antimatter etc.
An irrelevant or tangential point is generally a thing to be avoided as well (in a structured debate at least). If the validity of a narrow conclusion does not have major implications for the larger conclusion, then the point in question is not really relevant to the debate whether said point is valid or not. Incorrect or illogical value assignment happens with the same regularity as bipolar evidence theory. People do not give data points equal weight- not on charts, not in arguments, not in life. Thus again there is the problem of rightness and relevancy not being mutually present as often as we assume them to be. People are prone to say, aha! I've got you because of THIS! And even if THIS! is conceptually correct, it doesn't mean much.
To make things hairier, multiple variables increase the complexity of veracity geometrically because of the way that conditional probability deals with uncertainty. Let's say you have just finished laying out a strong case for point ABC within the context of larger argument XYZ. If you are 70% sure point ABC is relevant and 70% sure your view on point ABC is correct, you might assume that such levels allow for high confidence. Actually no- this combination should result in LOW confidence. Why? Because the conditional probability of an event dependent on multiple variables is attained by multiplying the independent probabilities of those variables. Variables with probabilities of certainty less than full do not linearly confirm each other, they reduce the absolute probability of the meta conclusion.
So in the just cited case:
70% chance point ABC is relevant times 70% chance point ABC is correct
(0.70) x (0.70) = 0.49,
or 49% chance point ABC is both relevant AND correct.
Of course, if it's not both then it's a dud point. So in other words you can be 70% sure your point is relevant and 70% sure it is right, and yet the net results of this combination are still LESS than coinflip and there is a LESS than 50% chance your strongly felt point adds clarity to the debate! Is it any wonder so much debate is useless?
What is the point of this little exercise? The point is that solitary units of evidence are often worthless and deceptive at worst and woefully incomplete at best for evaluating the soundness of any complex multi variable dependent proposition. This is why zingers and one line propositions have such little value. The conclusion of a zinger may be wrong, irrelevant, straw man, in contradiction with hidden evidence, incorrectly weighted, misinterpretation of the facts, faulty statistical sampling, etc etc. etc.
As for the guy in the hall you cornered, what does that prove? That you can shake down weak opponents? A sufficiently skilled debater can generally take any complex position at random and out argue the unequipped average joe on the other side (I recall an old Conan O' Brien where Andy convinced Conan that thermonuclear warfare would be cool). Weakness is often in the form of the opponent and not within reality itself. Defeating a farm league team is not the same as taking down the Yankees. I could team up with a friend and you could team up with Dan M- believers vs ex believers, heavyweight division. We could meet every day and debate for an hour until the debate was resolved. Do you have any doubt it could go on for fifty years? Just look how long these threads get!
So maybe I can steer this thread away from the "let's slam each other" phase it is in by bringing up some points about the nature of debate and the structure of belief systems. When presenting any individual point within context of a larger argument, it is important to realize there are two separate variables related to that point:
a) whether the point is interpreted correctly- i.e. whether the argued stance is logically consistent.
b) whether the point itself has high value, tangential value, or nil value in relation to the larger argument.
An illogical interpretation is obviously a thing to be avoided. But this happens far more often than we think because the problem usually lies in a faulty hidden assumption rather than faulty information. People assume facts are the whole enchilada and so they are never on guard for the rightness or wrongness of their assumptions. When analyzing market information and considering possible outcomes, I use something I call bipolar evidence theory (contrarian B.E.T is written on my concept sheet next to my monitor)- simply the notion that a set of facts or data will frequently lead to a conclusion wholly at odds with the initial surface level conclusion. This happens all the time. It is one of the fundamental reasons why the public is always so lost in the markets, and also why gurus are so bad. They present a set of hard facts but then sneak in faulty assumptions to create a deceptively strong argument that is actually invalid. A+B does not always = C. What if A and B are water drops, or positive matter and antimatter etc.
An irrelevant or tangential point is generally a thing to be avoided as well (in a structured debate at least). If the validity of a narrow conclusion does not have major implications for the larger conclusion, then the point in question is not really relevant to the debate whether said point is valid or not. Incorrect or illogical value assignment happens with the same regularity as bipolar evidence theory. People do not give data points equal weight- not on charts, not in arguments, not in life. Thus again there is the problem of rightness and relevancy not being mutually present as often as we assume them to be. People are prone to say, aha! I've got you because of THIS! And even if THIS! is conceptually correct, it doesn't mean much.
To make things hairier, multiple variables increase the complexity of veracity geometrically because of the way that conditional probability deals with uncertainty. Let's say you have just finished laying out a strong case for point ABC within the context of larger argument XYZ. If you are 70% sure point ABC is relevant and 70% sure your view on point ABC is correct, you might assume that such levels allow for high confidence. Actually no- this combination should result in LOW confidence. Why? Because the conditional probability of an event dependent on multiple variables is attained by multiplying the independent probabilities of those variables. Variables with probabilities of certainty less than full do not linearly confirm each other, they reduce the absolute probability of the meta conclusion.
So in the just cited case:
70% chance point ABC is relevant times 70% chance point ABC is correct
(0.70) x (0.70) = 0.49,
or 49% chance point ABC is both relevant AND correct.
Of course, if it's not both then it's a dud point. So in other words you can be 70% sure your point is relevant and 70% sure it is right, and yet the net results of this combination are still LESS than coinflip and there is a LESS than 50% chance your strongly felt point adds clarity to the debate! Is it any wonder so much debate is useless?
What is the point of this little exercise? The point is that solitary units of evidence are often worthless and deceptive at worst and woefully incomplete at best for evaluating the soundness of any complex multi variable dependent proposition. This is why zingers and one line propositions have such little value. The conclusion of a zinger may be wrong, irrelevant, straw man, in contradiction with hidden evidence, incorrectly weighted, misinterpretation of the facts, faulty statistical sampling, etc etc. etc.
Surface level analysis is bad because it leads to overconfidence and false conclusions more often than not simply due to the natural mind traps that normally helpful heuristics can lay out for us. Our tools are useful but they have drawbacks. The mind is prone to all sorts of cognitive biases (as some other folks here have pointed out in an effort to discredit my theism). There are at least a dozen logic traps that people fall into during the analysis process, not because of intelligence or lack thereof but simply because of the way our brains are structured. The only way to overcome these natural cognitive biases is to train ourselves in the proper way, just as a trader must train himself in the proper methods of risk management and event perception etc. And even with the best mental training in the world, there will still be conceptual and experiential biases we will never be able to overcome. Whenever an atheist points at a religious person and says they are hampered by emotional or experiential bias, that atheist has three fingers pointing directly back at himself. There is no escaping it. Dan M and Axehawk, being ex-Christians you guys cannot deny having a helluva bias against what you rejected. Literally. This is not to say your arguments are tainted, only to say that any efforts to declare the religious person's arguments experientially tainted are disingenuous. When everyone has an agenda and the right answer is not known, there is no default neutral bias free position.
On to the next: Complex adaptive systems have multiple building blocks that respond and react to each other in ways that cannot be predicted with any simple equation. The market is a great example of a complex adaptive system. Our minds are complex adaptive systems. A chess game is a sort of closed complex adaptive system in that the positional outcome of a chess game between two randomly selected players cannot possibly be determined in advance- there are simply too many variables, and too many way those variables can interact and lock in with each other. Trends of price and trends of belief are autocatalytic sets: self reinforcing feedback loops that either resonate and move from strength to strength or dissipate and diffuse like ripples on a pond.
The most fascinating aspect of a complex adaptive system is the property of emergence. Like the unpredictable endgame in chess, we cannot predict in advance what emergence will bring us when a set of beliefs are brought together. When multiple truths are brought together, even if those truths only have varying degrees of certainty individually, the RESULT can be surprisingly powerful and independent of predicted analysis, due to the properties of emergence. We have to satisfy ourselves with describing the rules that shape such systems without trying overly hard to predict the outcome.
My point here is that complicated arguments- such as, does God exist, is Christianity true etc.- are also similarly complex. A sufficiently nuanced belief structure can thus have all the characteristics of a complex adaptive system. It is usually not based on any single argument, but rather on a self- reinforcing chain of various and diverse arguments, observations and experiences that creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. This is why it is often folly to say 'you are wrong on this point' or 'but what about this point,' as if individual points, subject to all the disqualifications cited, have any real weight in deciding the life or death of a belief structure. All these objections to problems with scripture for example. Blah, blah, blah. What if the person on the other side of the debate puts more faith in the fact that God exists and Christ is His son and works backwards from there? What if he believes all your weighty knife cuts are basically surface level misinterpretations? Or to turn it around on the atheist side- when Christians argue against evolution, don't you guys do the same thing? "No, you are missing the point here, no that part of your argument is incomplete, no what you are saying is not that strong..." I hope I'm beginning to convey here why nitpicks have such little value. It's not just because people are obstinate. It's because of the natural ramifications of complexity and the natural ramifications of singular data points.
My belief in God is in large part due to the properties of emergence within the complex adaptive system of my belief structure. Because of this, the source of my faith cannot be successfully mirror imaged by any opponents of my faith. All this means is that you can argue against me, but you are incorrect in assuming you can THINK like me- you can't get inside my head because the collection of facts and connections I have in my head interact in such a way as to practically become a living thing. If someone is similar to you, you may be able to mirror image their thought process more effectively. But the farther away they are in thought process and information input/output, the harder it is to actually know how they perceive things. An attempt to do this is usually folly, because if you were in someone else's shoes, you would be that person and thus not be yourself.
Many arguments arise from the mirror imaging problem- or rather, many arguments drag on and on because of this problem. People assume that 'because I see it this way, surely he must see it that way too- if only I work harder, he will surely see it- I see it so clearly.' But this is rather like shouting at someone who doesn't understand your language. If the perception is different, if the emergent property of the other person's belief structure is different, your high powered points pack no punch. If everything were cut and dry and everyone made the same assumptions and gave the same fact sets equal weight, then mirror imaging would work. But because different fact sets have different weights and different hidden assumptions act on each other to create a complex adaptive system with emergence properties, it is well nigh IMPOSSIBLE to simply 'stand in another person's shoes' unless that person is extremely similar to you.
Again, 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' An autocatalytic set is one that replenishes and strengthens itself through continued exposure to a sustaining environment. In this sense, my faith is an autocatalytic set. I have a large number of independent variables within my belief structure, of varying equal weights, all resonating with each other and deriving feedback from each other, but also growing stronger over time. There is good reason for comparing a belief system to a small seed that grows into a mighty tree. Whether this belief system is in reference to God, science, markets or what have you, if the environment sustains that system by providing a continuing flow of confirming evidence, that system will grow stronger over time.
A very real and inescapable implication of the property of emergence is that it is impossible to learn without really trying to learn. This is why personal dishonesty is so dangerous. Anyone who claims to be interested in an alternative view, but in actuality is only interested in defending their own view, will always see their analysis fall short. Always. Because of the limitations of the human mind and the inability to hold more than a handful of related concepts in our minds at one time, let alone weight them properly, a surface level analysis will always, always, ALWAYS be insufficient! You can't get all wet by dipping your toe in the water, you have to jump in the pool. You cannot escape structural cognitive biases if you never move from a position of attack to a position of true inquiry.
What is the point of combative argument, except as some form of mental bloodsport? Nothing, really- except for the observers who are actually taking in everything from a true point of inquiry perspective.
On to the next: Complex adaptive systems have multiple building blocks that respond and react to each other in ways that cannot be predicted with any simple equation. The market is a great example of a complex adaptive system. Our minds are complex adaptive systems. A chess game is a sort of closed complex adaptive system in that the positional outcome of a chess game between two randomly selected players cannot possibly be determined in advance- there are simply too many variables, and too many way those variables can interact and lock in with each other. Trends of price and trends of belief are autocatalytic sets: self reinforcing feedback loops that either resonate and move from strength to strength or dissipate and diffuse like ripples on a pond.
The most fascinating aspect of a complex adaptive system is the property of emergence. Like the unpredictable endgame in chess, we cannot predict in advance what emergence will bring us when a set of beliefs are brought together. When multiple truths are brought together, even if those truths only have varying degrees of certainty individually, the RESULT can be surprisingly powerful and independent of predicted analysis, due to the properties of emergence. We have to satisfy ourselves with describing the rules that shape such systems without trying overly hard to predict the outcome.
My point here is that complicated arguments- such as, does God exist, is Christianity true etc.- are also similarly complex. A sufficiently nuanced belief structure can thus have all the characteristics of a complex adaptive system. It is usually not based on any single argument, but rather on a self- reinforcing chain of various and diverse arguments, observations and experiences that creates a self-reinforcing feedback loop. This is why it is often folly to say 'you are wrong on this point' or 'but what about this point,' as if individual points, subject to all the disqualifications cited, have any real weight in deciding the life or death of a belief structure. All these objections to problems with scripture for example. Blah, blah, blah. What if the person on the other side of the debate puts more faith in the fact that God exists and Christ is His son and works backwards from there? What if he believes all your weighty knife cuts are basically surface level misinterpretations? Or to turn it around on the atheist side- when Christians argue against evolution, don't you guys do the same thing? "No, you are missing the point here, no that part of your argument is incomplete, no what you are saying is not that strong..." I hope I'm beginning to convey here why nitpicks have such little value. It's not just because people are obstinate. It's because of the natural ramifications of complexity and the natural ramifications of singular data points.
My belief in God is in large part due to the properties of emergence within the complex adaptive system of my belief structure. Because of this, the source of my faith cannot be successfully mirror imaged by any opponents of my faith. All this means is that you can argue against me, but you are incorrect in assuming you can THINK like me- you can't get inside my head because the collection of facts and connections I have in my head interact in such a way as to practically become a living thing. If someone is similar to you, you may be able to mirror image their thought process more effectively. But the farther away they are in thought process and information input/output, the harder it is to actually know how they perceive things. An attempt to do this is usually folly, because if you were in someone else's shoes, you would be that person and thus not be yourself.
Many arguments arise from the mirror imaging problem- or rather, many arguments drag on and on because of this problem. People assume that 'because I see it this way, surely he must see it that way too- if only I work harder, he will surely see it- I see it so clearly.' But this is rather like shouting at someone who doesn't understand your language. If the perception is different, if the emergent property of the other person's belief structure is different, your high powered points pack no punch. If everything were cut and dry and everyone made the same assumptions and gave the same fact sets equal weight, then mirror imaging would work. But because different fact sets have different weights and different hidden assumptions act on each other to create a complex adaptive system with emergence properties, it is well nigh IMPOSSIBLE to simply 'stand in another person's shoes' unless that person is extremely similar to you.
Again, 'the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.' An autocatalytic set is one that replenishes and strengthens itself through continued exposure to a sustaining environment. In this sense, my faith is an autocatalytic set. I have a large number of independent variables within my belief structure, of varying equal weights, all resonating with each other and deriving feedback from each other, but also growing stronger over time. There is good reason for comparing a belief system to a small seed that grows into a mighty tree. Whether this belief system is in reference to God, science, markets or what have you, if the environment sustains that system by providing a continuing flow of confirming evidence, that system will grow stronger over time.
A very real and inescapable implication of the property of emergence is that it is impossible to learn without really trying to learn. This is why personal dishonesty is so dangerous. Anyone who claims to be interested in an alternative view, but in actuality is only interested in defending their own view, will always see their analysis fall short. Always. Because of the limitations of the human mind and the inability to hold more than a handful of related concepts in our minds at one time, let alone weight them properly, a surface level analysis will always, always, ALWAYS be insufficient! You can't get all wet by dipping your toe in the water, you have to jump in the pool. You cannot escape structural cognitive biases if you never move from a position of attack to a position of true inquiry.
What is the point of combative argument, except as some form of mental bloodsport? Nothing, really- except for the observers who are actually taking in everything from a true point of inquiry perspective.
dark you are so FOS it's laughable. cant talk about it rationally cause its a complex multivarible blah blah blah you sound like deepok chopra on steroids hahahaha
This is true if he or she is trying to convince others, but not if said person is simply explaining why he or she believes something. Thunderbolt is preaching to everyone (although it's as if he's rambling to himself), but in this thread darkhorse has not really tried to convince anyone else to become religious (although I think he has in past threads). Therefore, I think it was appropriate for him to cite as evidence his experience. Maybe I'm wrong. Anyhow, I know darkhorse just wrote some posts, but I'm heading out of town. I'll read them on Monday. Have a good weekend everyone!!
- Status