Chance vs Intelligent design

[George-ananda]

Proper evidence needs to be objective rather than subjective. That means that anyone that is reasoning rationally will agree with others reasoning rationally.

So what do you do with all subjective evidence like two people seeing the same ghost? I have to consider everything in forming my 'all things considered' position. Enough consistent reports from quality people can affect my understanding of reality.

I particularly like scientific evidence and it does seem to apply here since we are discussing the physical world.

I also prefer scientific evidence but I can't ignore anything.

Remember, I am not doing science but forming an 'all things considered' opinion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what do you do with all subjective evidence like two people seeing the same ghost? I have to consider everything in forming my 'all things considered' position. Enough consistent reports from quality people can affect my understanding of reality.
I also prefer scientific evidence but I can't ignore anything.

One would need to look at the situation. Was it two cases of pareidolia? Were they together and one influenced the other? Were they primed to see something going in?

Your question does not have enough details to give a proper reply.

Remember, I am not doing science but forming an 'all things considered' opinion.

In other words just wasting time.

 

[George-ananda]

One would need to look at the situation. Was it two cases of pareidolia? Were they together and one influenced the other? Were they primed to see something going in?

Your question does not have enough details to give a proper reply.

That example was just to represent a genre of claims. Let's simplify and say one person seeing one ghost. Of course there can be normal and paranormal explanations and we will never know in one case. Given enough cases I can form an opinion that something seems to be going on.

In other words just wasting time.

My best 'all things considered' understanding of reality is very important to me.

As I suppose everyone else's best understanding is important to them.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You need to provide your definition of 'proper evidence' that is not subjective. I even think the honest testimony of a quality person is 'proper evidence' for consideration.

I am using the term 'evidence' as in the Wikipedia definition of 'Evidence':

Evidence for a proposition is what supports this proposition. It is usually understood as an indication that the supported proposition is true.

What that quote means is that the proposition needs to be verifiable. This is done by predictability of data. Such data, if it exists, is then evidence for the proposition. Data that does not match those predictions, would be evidence against the proposition.

In that case George claiming to have seen a ghost is evidence for the existence of ghosts (not proof).

Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

So what do you do with all subjective evidence like two people seeing the same ghost? I have to consider everything in forming my 'all things considered' position. Enough consistent reports from quality people can affect my understanding of reality.
I also prefer scientific evidence but I can't ignore anything.

Then you should believe in bigfoot and alien abduction.

All you are doing is laying the foundation for an argument ad populum.

Claims aren't evidence. Claims require evidence.

When people claim to have seen X, then that is a claim that require evidence. The claim is not evidence of itself. That's circular reasoning.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Given enough cases I can form an opinion that something seems to be going on.

Take the thousands of claims of alien abduction.
There is an explanation for why so many people claim and believe it.
That explanation need not be that it actually occurred.

Whatever explanation is proposed, is going to have to be based on evidence.
And that evidence is not going to be the claims themselves.


Why is this is hard to comprehend?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

My post said:

3. it hasn't been proven right


And now you're changing 'hasn't' to 'has'? Hopefully that was just a typo on your part or I'm really lost by your argument.

Yes, it was a typo. Sorry.

So, if there is no proof or disproof, we employ reasoning skills and subjectively judge likeliness by considering all strong and weak evidence and all argumentation. That's why I think OJ Simpson likely committed murder and why I think ghosts likely exist.

And, BTW, I do think alien abductions are likely too but that's another discussion.

In other words, you don't consider arguments ad populum to be fallacious.
"many people believe / claim it, therefor it's true or likely true".

 

[Brian2]

Just to be clear, what are things that are not "made"? Can you give examples?

God is not made.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

God is not made.

And round and round the merry goes.

 

[Brian2]

It just made someone $1.3B richer. Before you say that's a bad example, the point is that having a low probability says two things. One is that it rarely happens. The other is that it does happen sometimes. And the OP demonstrates that there is a lot of universe with lot of things going on in it to give that improbable occurrence a "chance" to happen.

Whatever happens is not done by an entity called chance however.
And really it is not known (even if it is believed) that all this universe had any chance of existing through natural causes.

 

[Brian2]

And this atheist, like you know, says that is BS.

If everything happened, came about by chance then this sentence is a product of chance.

 

[Brian2]

Chance is circumstances/events outside of your control.

There are millions of things happening in the universe all at the same time. Chance is what we call those circumstances/events that intersect with your life you had no knowledge of or control over.

So all of these things happening outside your awareness have a chance of intersecting your life.

Could be, but chance is not an entity that can do anything.

 

[Brian2]

And round and round the merry goes.

The first cause had no cause, no maker.
Do you say that all things had to have been made?

 

[Brian2]

All of this could have happened by itself. That doesn't mean that it did, or even that that's actually possible. It just means that it's not known to be impossible, which makes it possible in a different sense. What do you call something that will later be shown to be impossible but is presently not known to be so? You call it possible - the same word you use for things that you do know can happen.

When it is said that there is no need for an intelligent designer, what is meant more precisely is that there is no apparent need for one. Design does not imply intelligence. Sand dunes are a design. Spiral galaxies are a design. Snowflakes are a design. If the word does imply intelligence to you, try a different word that doesn't, like pattern or regularity. It's the same verbal sleight-of-hand we see with words like creation, code, and law. If those words force you to invoke sentient creators, code-makers, and law-givers, find other words.

Yes I suppose language can show how people have and do think and can influence how we think about things.

With empiricism, the big picture is that is that perhaps nobody intended it to be thought or written until sentience emerged capable of using language, and no reason to believe otherwise until we have a compelling reason to do so, which would be an observation that requires that hypothesis to account for it. If one modifies these kinds of statements, he usually changes their meanings. The critical thinker doesn't say that those things happened, just that they might have, and maybe also probably did, although I'm not sure how we can decide even that. But none of this should be a problem for atheists. I'm content to say that I can't estimate the likelihood of gods existing and don't need to, that I have no reason to assume or believe that they do, and in accordance with Occam's parsimony principle, won't inset one into my worldview or mental map until I need one to explain some observation, without which, a god belief is a complication that adds no predictive power to that worldview.

Yes if we can purpose something, if we have a will, then I willed this sentence to happen and did the necessary things to make it happen. Yet the bigger picture imo would be that if everything is a product of chance then chance in a real sense, brought about intelligence and purpose and all of human ingenuity and genius.
In one way that is not saying anything about the need for an intelligent designer and so it can be accepted by people who are atheists since it is just the truth.
Chance brought about the sentience that brought about will and intelligence.
You seem to agree and don't insert a God into it because that might make things too complicated, iow it might blow your mind.
I don't see how it makes things more complex necessarily however. It certainly answers questions, and to accept that a God exists is something that humanity has done and continues to do.
And the right God certainly adds and has added plenty of predictive power to us.

 

[rational experiences]

If men think a set of rules exists. Then why do you change form?

For example I invent a resource. I claim I have not destroyed removed all things. Yet my resource I invent disappears and is removed.

So I even destroy what I invented.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

If everything happened, came about by chance then this sentence is a product of chance.

I already told you it is BS.
You yourself acknowledge I wouldn't agree with that.

You willingly argue a strawman.

What do you expect as a response when you do that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

The first cause had no cause, no maker.

Now all you need to do is support that this "first cause" is a god.
Good luck with that.

Do you say that all things had to have been made?

I'm not saying anything. I'm responding to claims that are just bare assertions with no evidence.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Whatever happens is not done by an entity called chance however.
And really it is not known (even if it is believed) that all this universe had any chance of existing through natural causes.

If that is your way of saying that the origins of the universe are unknown then you are correct.

That does not make it valid for you to just make up gods for it.

Having said that, natural causes are known to originate things. Gods aren't.
So at least that makes it a valid contender.

And also, let us not forget, just about EVERYTHING that was claimed to come from gods, whenever studied and the origins were demonstrated, it turned out to be not gods but just natural causes.

So the track record of historical claims to explain phenomenon in the universe, isn't exactly on your side either.

There's a loooong track record of natural causes explaining phenomenon in the universe in demonstrable manner.
The track record of supernatural causes explaining phenomenon in demonstrable manner is ZERO

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Could be, but chance is not an entity that can do anything.

Good thing then that nobody claims that "chance" does anything.
That's just your strawman.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

if everything is a product of chance then chance in a real sense, brought about intelligence and purpose and all of human ingenuity and genius.

Yes, if there was no intent involved when the universe began to expand, break symmetry, and evolve according to the parameters established then, then whatever followed was not intended. That's tautologically true.

You seem to agree and don't insert a God into it because that might make things too complicated

The narrative should not and need not be any more detailed than is necessary to account for what we find. In a crime investigation, we don't conclude that the perp was a smoker until some evidence that he was is found, like a cigarette butt with his DNA on it at the crime scene. The narrative is fitted to the evidence. When science needs a god, it will add one. Shall we call it a smoker, too? Not until we need that to account for some observation. That's what parsimony means in this context.

And the right God certainly adds and has added plenty of predictive power to us.

Guessing is not what I'm referring to. Demonstrably accurate predictions are. We're expecting a comet to appear in a few weeks in the northeast horizon just before sunrise. What do you think the odds are that it won't be there? Naked-eye comet visits Earth for 1st time since Neanderthals in 2023 | Space