Calvin on the Sensus Divinitatis

[QMan]

You have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence.

As Ginkgo has pointed out: it's not that simple.

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances.

What do you mean by 'historically accurate'? Are there any sources of information about Jesus other than the four gospels, which frequently contradict each other, and whatever gnostic accounts you think support your argument? Are there any writings of other events by any of the above that establish their credentials as reliable historians?

There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural.

If one is all it takes, then give it your best shot. Which solidly verified miracle of modern times do you think is most likely to persuade the likes of me?

They are actively engaged in a daily and lifelong experiment of establishing a personal relationship with God that is promised to produce concrete and measurable results in their lives and the community.

You mean they: "have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence." What percentage of 'experimenters' come to accept the equally valid null hypothesis. Do they contribute to your statistical confidence?

Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

How can you tell whether or not I have run the experiment?

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies.

I think I'm on record as saying that I do not think science has a methodology. If not, I'll say it now. It doesn't matter how you arrive at an hypothesis, if it fails to make any difference in the material world, it is metaphysics. It may be true, but it isn't science.

Science after all is no more than a way of categorizing and cataloguing of a large physical inventory.

If science were no more than that, then god would definitely have no part in it.

It's a warehousing exercise of materials, observations that we happen to find around us.

That is more or less what Kuhn called 'normal science'. There's more to it.

Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation.

Where did I make any such assertion?

At least the theist has some probable cause and proof, while you have none.

What the theist has is a story, which although conceivably true, it is absurd to describe as probable and only the breathtakingly credulous could accept as proven.

Btw, let me know if you want to become a scientist and run the experiment to quantify God's influence in this world and your life. I am willing to help you design it and with the statistical evaluation. See my previous append on page 8 of this thread.

That's very generous of you. If it ever happens, I'll look you up. In the meantime, if you could stick to what your co-contributors have actually said, we could save a bit of time.

This is meant to cover the above two appends (Gingko, Uwot).

Good enough, an exposition showing the different points of view side by side. I am not much into point and counterpoint since my comments are usually clear and concise and along the guidelines for a philosophical discussion forum. I always am confident therefor that the reader will be able to decide on the better validity of an argument.

I will correct obvious error though when it creeps in. In regard to the point by Gingko that the more efficient modern methods of data analysis, which save time and effort, would have hindered the likes like Newton and Einstein, I see simply as erroneous.

Uwot's contention that testing of hypothesis only makes sense if it pertains to the real, material world and otherwise is metaphysics is of course a self defeating argument. Because hypothesis are set up in the material world they can only address responses in the material world EVEN IF dealing with testing of metaphysical concepts. For example, the social scientist can test the influence of a belief in a metaphysical God on a person or group with regard to various characteristics.

The other problem here that I see is that I think both are pursuing a strategy of simply quickly knocking down bowling pins (arguments) presented by the earnest other party as a form of idle entertainment. Simply there is mostly no sound reasoning offered up and basically only an argument that can be distilled to no more than "no, you are wrong", without any sound justification. I think that has in general been recognized as being a problem with the PN fora and it has been suggested that it could lead to the eventual demise of the current format. I agree with that prognosis.

[Ginkgo]

I will correct obvious error though when it creeps in. In regard to the point by Gingko that the more efficient modern methods of data analysis, which save time and effort, would have hindered the likes like Newton and Einstein, I see simply as erroneous.

I would like to clarify this point if I may. I am by no means was diminishing the role of what you call, "more efficient methods of data analysis". I don't think I was in denial. The point I was in relation to the occasions when the null hypothesis is inadequate. To give a practical example mentioned previously. Earlier in the history of astronomy the analysis of data and instrumentation available was sufficient to explain the orbits of the planets in terms of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Refinement of instruments and analysis discovered that Mercury behaved differently-not according to Newton's law. This provided a challenge and required a new hypothesis to explain the findings. It Thus was unsatisfactory to make any choice between two hypotheses. A number of new hypotheses had to be put forward as an explanation, including the possibility(hypothesis) that Newton gravity needed to be replace with something completely different.

This was the only point I was trying to make in this regard.

Uwot's contention that testing of hypothesis only makes sense if it pertains to the real, material world and otherwise is metaphysics is of course a self defeating argument. Because hypothesis are set up in the material world they can only address responses in the material world EVEN IF dealing with testing of metaphysical concepts. For example, the social scientist can test the influence of a belief in a metaphysical God on a person or group with regard to various characteristics.

Well, I agree with Uwot. HOwever, I can provide an argument if required.

The other problem here that I see is that I think both are pursuing a strategy of simply quickly knocking down bowling pins (arguments) presented by the earnest other party as a form of idle entertainment. Simply there is mostly no sound reasoning offered up and basically only an argument that can be distilled to no more than "no, you are wrong", without any sound justification. I think that has in general been recognized as being a problem with the PN fora and it has been suggested that it could lead to the eventual demise of the current format. I agree with that prognosis.

I would hope if it is claimed that an argument is false, then evidence would be provided. Otherwise, I agree with this comment.


Corrected my grammar last para.

[uwot]

You have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence.

As Ginkgo has pointed out: it's not that simple.

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances.

What do you mean by 'historically accurate'? Are there any sources of information about Jesus other than the four gospels, which frequently contradict each other, and whatever gnostic accounts you think support your argument? Are there any writings of other events by any of the above that establish their credentials as reliable historians?

There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural.

If one is all it takes, then give it your best shot. Which solidly verified miracle of modern times do you think is most likely to persuade the likes of me?

They are actively engaged in a daily and lifelong experiment of establishing a personal relationship with God that is promised to produce concrete and measurable results in their lives and the community.

You mean they: "have a primary and a null (alternate) hypothesis, which are both equally valid and can both be determined with the desired level of statistical confidence." What percentage of 'experimenters' come to accept the equally valid null hypothesis. Do they contribute to your statistical confidence?

Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

How can you tell whether or not I have run the experiment?

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies.

I think I'm on record as saying that I do not think science has a methodology. If not, I'll say it now. It doesn't matter how you arrive at an hypothesis, if it fails to make any difference in the material world, it is metaphysics. It may be true, but it isn't science.

Science after all is no more than a way of categorizing and cataloguing of a large physical inventory.

If science were no more than that, then god would definitely have no part in it.

It's a warehousing exercise of materials, observations that we happen to find around us.

That is more or less what Kuhn called 'normal science'. There's more to it.

Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation.

Where did I make any such assertion?

At least the theist has some probable cause and proof, while you have none.

What the theist has is a story, which although conceivably true, it is absurd to describe as probable and only the breathtakingly credulous could accept as proven.

Btw, let me know if you want to become a scientist and run the experiment to quantify God's influence in this world and your life. I am willing to help you design it and with the statistical evaluation. See my previous append on page 8 of this thread.

That's very generous of you. If it ever happens, I'll look you up. In the meantime, if you could stick to what your co-contributors have actually said, we could save a bit of time.

This is meant to cover the above two appends (Gingko, Uwot).

Good enough, an exposition showing the different points of view side by side. I am not much into point and counterpoint since my comments are usually clear and concise and along the guidelines for a philosophical discussion forum. I always am confident therefor that the reader will be able to decide on the better validity of an argument.

I will correct obvious error though when it creeps in. In regard to the point by Gingko that the more efficient modern methods of data analysis, which save time and effort, would have hindered the likes like Newton and Einstein, I see simply as erroneous.

Uwot's contention that testing of hypothesis only makes sense if it pertains to the real, material world and otherwise is metaphysics is of course a self defeating argument. Because hypothesis are set up in the material world they can only address responses in the material world EVEN IF dealing with testing of metaphysical concepts. For example, the social scientist can test the influence of a belief in a metaphysical God on a person or group with regard to various characteristics.

The other problem here that I see is that I think both are pursuing a strategy of simply quickly knocking down bowling pins (arguments) presented by the earnest other party as a form of idle entertainment. Simply there is mostly no sound reasoning offered up and basically only an argument that can be distilled to no more than "no, you are wrong", without any sound justification. I think that has in general been recognized as being a problem with the PN fora and it has been suggested that it could lead to the eventual demise of the current format. I agree with that prognosis.

What a pitiful, self-indulgent whimper. If it bothers you that you cannot defend your beliefs against moderate philosophical scrutiny, you are a fool to air them on a forum that has philosophy in the title. The charge that my arguments amount to no more than "no, you are wrong" is cowardly; look again, anything that you think I haven't supported with a valid argument, I will expand for you.

[QMan]

What a pitiful, self-indulgent whimper. If it bothers you that you cannot defend your beliefs against moderate philosophical scrutiny, you are a fool to air them on a forum that has philosophy in the title. The charge that my arguments amount to no more than "no, you are wrong" is cowardly; look again, anything that you think I haven't supported with a valid argument, I will expand for you.

Uwot, from my reviews of your appending style, I see that you are remaining true to form. Of course, I could defend my beliefs against any level of scrutiny, philosophical or otherwise, if there were any valid and worthwhile scrutiny to be had. Again, let the reader decide. This also points out how much more difficult life is for the theist than for the atheist. See, I am now still under the obligation to be nice to you while you are not operating under such constraints. I will therefore be nice and simply do no more then put you on my ignore list.

[QMan]

Uwot's contention that testing of hypothesis only makes sense if it pertains to the real, material world and otherwise is metaphysics is of course a self defeating argument. Because hypothesis are set up in the material world they can only address responses in the material world EVEN IF dealing with testing of metaphysical concepts. For example, the social scientist can test the influence of a belief in a metaphysical God on a person or group with regard to various characteristics.

Well, I agree with Uwot. However, I can provide an argument if required.

Hi Gingko, if you still feel so inclined, please do append your argument concerning the above point as well since I am definitely interested in it.

[Ginkgo]

Hi Gingko, if you still feel so inclined, please do append your argument concerning the above point as well since I am definitely interested in it.

I guess the short answer is that we need to make ontological distinctions, especially when we are talking about 'existence'.

[uwot]

Uwot, from my reviews of your appending style, I see that you are remaining true to form.

I think that is very selective reading at best; your arguments are weak so you blame the messenger. You may not like my style, some of it embarrasses me if I'm honest, but there is a good deal more philosophical content than you have the integrity to admit.

Of course, I could defend my beliefs against any level of scrutiny, philosophical or otherwise, if there were any valid and worthwhile scrutiny to be had.

I can't help but think that were you able, you would. Myself and others have raised a number of issues that you have simply ignored. To you remind you; from a recent post:

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances.

What do you mean by 'historically accurate'? Are there any sources of information about Jesus other than the four gospels, which frequently contradict each other, and whatever gnostic accounts you think support your argument? Are there any writings of other events by any of the above that establish their credentials as reliable historians?

There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural.

If one is all it takes, then give it your best shot. Which solidly verified miracle of modern times do you think is most likely to persuade the likes of me?

You are making very bold claims, but as soon as they are challenged they crumble. It is simply nonsense to claim that there are historically accurate accounts, when the different accounts don't even agree. As regard to "solidly verified miracles", you and I have a very different understanding of at least one of those words.

Again, let the reader decide. This also points out how much more difficult life is for the theist than for the atheist. See, I am now still under the obligation to be nice to you while you are not operating under such constraints.

The constraint I am under is to deal with what you and others actually say, rather than build some straw man and even then run away from it.

Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

How can you tell whether or not I have run the experiment?

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies.

I think I'm on record as saying that I do not think science has a methodology. If not, I'll say it now. It doesn't matter how you arrive at an hypothesis, if it fails to make any difference in the material world, it is metaphysics. It may be true, but it isn't science.

Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation.

Where did I make any such assertion?

You have made these things up. What do you think it says about you?

I will therefore be nice and simply do no more then put you on my ignore list.

Do as you wish; you are reading this anyway.

[QMan]

This system is kind of dumb but I am now finding out how the ignore list actually works. Indeed my invisible friend Uwot (you'll be reading this too just as I can't really ignore you) but the person you choose to ignore only disappears when you are logged in and reappears if you peruse threads without being logged in. Shouldn't one instead have an expulsion list with potential reinstatement for good behavior? What good is it otherwise? (And I could be on the board that determines what good behavior is?)

[QMan]

I will correct obvious error though when it creeps in. In regard to the point by Gingko that the more efficient modern methods of data analysis, which save time and effort, would have hindered the likes like Newton and Einstein, I see simply as erroneous.

I would like to clarify this point if I may. I am by no means was diminishing the role of what you call, "more efficient methods of data analysis". I don't think I was in denial. The point I was in relation to the occasions when the null hypothesis is inadequate. To give a practical example mentioned previously. Earlier in the history of astronomy the analysis of data and instrumentation available was sufficient to explain the orbits of the planets in terms of Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation. Refinement of instruments and analysis discovered that Mercury behaved differently-not according to Newton's law. This provided a challenge and required a new hypothesis to explain the findings. It Thus was unsatisfactory to make any choice between two hypotheses. A number of new hypotheses had to be put forward as an explanation, including the possibility(hypothesis) that Newton gravity needed to be replace with something completely different.

This was the only point I was trying to make in this regard.

Gingko, I am finally getting around to this. I see now what is going on. We are talking about two different types of hypothesis that have nothing to do with each other. Yours is a scientific hypothesis while I am talking about a statistical hypothesis. The latter can of course be used in both cases regardless as to which planet is involved. As long as you crunch numbers the statistical method can always be used to decide, e.g., h1- orbit is ellipsoidal or h0 - orbit is circular. They have nothing to do with the concepts of planetary orbits or types of solar system. But the more efficient number crunching can assist you by arriving at those concepts faster.

[Ginkgo]

Gingko, I am finally getting around to this. I see now what is going on. We are talking about two different types of hypothesis that have nothing to do with each other. Yours is a scientific hypothesis while I am talking about a statistical hypothesis. The latter can of course be used in both cases regardless as to which planet is involved. As long as you crunch numbers the statistical method can always be used to decide, e.g., h1- orbit is ellipsoidal or h0 - orbit is circular. They have nothing to do with the concepts of planetary orbits or types of solar system. But the more efficient number crunching can assist you by arriving at those concepts faster.

Yes, I know I mentioned that before in a earlier post.

[Arising_uk]

... For example, the scientist beliefs that paint adheres to walls. ...

No, the scientist knows that paint adheres to walls not believes.

S/he mixes in a new chemical in various proportions and evaluates whether paint adhesion is improved, the same, or worse. His belief that paint adheres to walls did not enter into the picture and does not have to be changed. What has changed is that the scientist now knows how to improve paint adhesion.

So if S/he then has a belief that adding a certain chemical will improve paint adhesion they do the experiment to test the hypotheses. If the paint does not adhere as well then their hypotheses is proved wrong and will be changed.

Who says theists have no meaningful evidence of God? They have historically accurate accounts of Christ and all the surrounding circumstances. There are solidly verified miracles even in modern times of which a single one establishes the reality of the supernatural. They are actively engaged in a daily and lifelong experiment of establishing a personal relationship with God that is promised to produce concrete and measurable results in their lives and the community. Just because you are prejudiced towards not wanting to conduct that experiment does not entitle you to claim that no concrete results can be obtained. Run the experiment and then start talking.

What do you mean by a miracle? Something that a 'God' caused? Show me the evidence for this. If you mean there are events that we currently can't explain, big deal, but they do not prove the existence of a 'God'.

Also, you place way too much importance on science and its methodologies. Science after all is no more than a way of categorizing and cataloguing of a large physical inventory. It's a warehousing exercise of materials, observations that we happen to find around us. Your assertion that this physical inventory just happens to be there has a much lower probability than the theists view of an active creation. At least the theist has some probable cause and proof, while you have none. Btw, let me know if you want to become a scientist and run the experiment to quantify God's influence in this world and your life. I am willing to help you design it and with the statistical evaluation. See my previous append on page 8 of this thread.

This is laughable, first you say way too much importance is placed upon science and its methodology and then you claim that you have a scientific experiment to quantify 'God's' influence in this world and my life, make your mind up! That a religious belief in a theistic 'God' could help with ones existential existence is obvious but to infer that this proves 'its' existence is not. All it shows is that beliefs can be useful and have little relationship to evidence in the sense of ontologically demonstrating the existence of things to others, much different from science. On the whole what you describe is active confirmation bias and if you have that then your beliefs are impregnable to reason or philosophy.

[Arising_uk]

Hello again, Arising: sorry for the time away. I was on vacation. I'm back now, and pleased to be talking to you again. ...

Hope you had a nice time.

Here's the problem, Arising: the front door of my house is an object, and an object I happen to own, and of which I have full control. But God is not like that. There is indeed evidence for His existence, but it is not the sort of easy, comprehensive evidence one gets from looking at a controllable object. Really big and really complex things, such as say the universe, the atomic level or even consciousness are not possible to describe comprehensively. That is not to say that we can know nothing about them, but that in knowing them we know something genuine but only partial. ...

But all of them are demonstrable, there's the Universe in the stars, thats IBM spelt out in atoms, I'm conscious are you? Demonstrate this 'God' in the same way.

Take the universe, for example. Scientists tell us it's infinite. But they don't know. They have not tested it, because by definition they couldn't. But they know our part of the universe, and they extrapolate to the rest, and then beyond that they simply guess or imagine, or use mathematical projection to estimate that which they cannot possibly measure: you can't "measure" infinity.

They tell us no such thing and they don't do what you say.

Cantor says you are wrong about infinity.

God's like that. He's a whole lot bigger than me, and He is in charge, not I. How much of Him I can know is determined both by the size of my brain and by His self-revelation. But I cannot manipulate him with my mind like I can manipulate an object. ...

You can manipulate objects with your mind? Time to contact the Fortean Times.

Yet partial knowledge, as in the case of the universe, is not ignorance, not mere guessing or superstition. Thus "belief" in God means knowing Him in part, to the extent that human beings are capable, and "belief" or "faith" comes in because of my littleness, not His insufficiency. ...

Not asking what you think you 'know' or believe, asking you to show me this 'God'.

Belief is something scientists use all the time; so do ordinary people. You "believe" you can understand my message. You "believe" your spouse is reliable. You "believe" your money will still be in your bank account when you use your credit card. You "believe" an airplane will stay up in the air with you in it... In a thousand ways, every day, we all use "belief." And there is nothing irrational in you doing so.

Not so, I have no idea what your message is but I know that I can read the words you type, I hope my spouse is reliable(whatever thats supposed to mean?) but accept I only know I hope, I hope my money will still be in my account and have reasonable reasons to believe it will be, I hope the airplane will not crash with me in it, I know why it stays in the air and I believe that barring human error, mechanical failure, or environmental conditions it will stay there. Are you saying your belief is just hope?

So my question would be, "Why would anyone deny someone else a right to use [this sort of] belief, since we all do it all the time?"

I've said it before and I'll say it again, people can choose to believe what they like and I'm the last one to deny them as that is pretty much impossible, however when they tell me that what they choose to believe is the truth and exists then I want them to show me it, otherwise I'll just put it down to wishful thinking. Especially if they also tell me that there are dire consequences for me if I don't believe them.