An Attempt to Prove God's Existance

I'll respond more later Wooden Shoe! But I couldn't agree more! It is always good to hear from ya!

Have a great weekend,

Eric D.

Greetings to all,

I get from shoe and Eric that they have a pretty good idea of what happened from my experience, which persuaded me. I have no quarrel with their decision not to pursue a similar set of experiences themselves, for logical reasons. The goal is to establish a clear choice, my understanding of freedom.

I am still left with the, in their minds irrelevant, calculation of the plausibility that the God of the bible is substantially present in our world. When I do the numbers, the computed result is very close to one. I recognize the dangers of confirmation bias, and have done all that I was trained to do to prevent that. They, in turn, are vulnerable to rationalization. I hope that they are using good training (Socrates's the examined life) to guard from that danger.

In the end, the pathway getting experiences that I could enter into my calculations has produced a very rich and fruitful life for me, and for my students who like me "tasted the pudding."

So, all that may be following this thread are enriched in the choices set before them.

I would be thrilled if some Entity, whatever name it would have, would make itself known to humanity, just because it would blow the minds of the God believers, for it would be so totally different from anything they are expecting.

For you to state that this entity would be so totally different from anything I am expecting, means you have a clear impression of what I am expecting, and you have enough of a concept of the entity to know how it would be different.

Would you care to share some details in regard to this?

Cheers,
enegue.

Hello Enegue.

Although my comment was mainly to Eric, and just meant as a jocular exchange, I am willing to have a bit of fun with it.

The one commonality God believers have is that they believe there is something out there that cares about them, that they should live a curtain way in order to please that something, and if they are good little boys and girls in the eyes of that something, some portion of their self will be collected and placed in storage.
Now I am sure that this gives some comfort to those who believe this and helps to make them conform to living in a certain way.
Now if any part of the above was true, and that this Entity had invested in this universe to the extent of creating it, you can be sure It would make it very clear to all of us as to our obligation.
Unfortunately that has never happened, if anything it would be the oposite.

If any Entity ever showed up, believers simply would not except it as God, because It would not fit their preconceived idea.

However no one need worry to much, as the likelyhood of this happening is slim to none.

Regards, John.

Now if any part of the above was true, and that this Entity had invested in this universe to the extent of creating it, you can be sure It would make it very clear to all of us as to our obligation.
Unfortunately that has never happened, if anything it would be the oposite.



Regards, John.

Happens all the time. Happening how! But, He has given man, you included, the free will to turn a blind eye to all His demonstrations. You are the one who is choosing to not do the proscribed "test Me now in this" experiments. For your "reasons," which you trust.

But, you are probably correct in your prophetic claim that He won't be recognized by hypocritical, dogmatic "followers." They, like you, are dodging high integrity philosophy, trusting their own epistemology instead of that carefully thought out and mathematized by the discipline. Love is still playing by the rules. Everyone making up their own rules for finding truth are doomed to repeat the parts of history where the truth unloved got it's revenge.

I should append, everyone, and all those that were counting on them to man or woman up. But, at least, when it happens, we will all know who to blame.

Hello Groktruth.

I am so pleased and thankful to the person who invented the delete function on computers.
It keeps me from getting my shovel all smelly.

Regards, John.

Hello all,


Groktruth wrote,

“I have no quarrel with their decision not to pursue a similar set of experiences themselves, for logical reasons. The goal is to establish a clear choice, my understanding of freedom.”


It should be pointed out that I have had such a strong familiarization with Christianity. I was raised in the Midwest (Ohio) in a very conservative part of the state (and country-really) and quite exposed—weekly—to church, Sunday school, and pastor visits. I claimed to be saved at the ripe old age of nine and from there on, with few exceptions, pursued a strong- dedicated Christian life. I taught at a Christian bible academy for three years and then went to college and got a degree in religious studies, with a specialty in the Pauline epistles and theology. My reasons for no longer being a believer actually has far less to do with the bible per se and much more with what believers claim about those complex diverse writings. These writings represent many agendas, ideas, expectations, dreams, cultural biases, contradictions, ironies, beautiful poetry and tragic fiction-and much-much more. It is unfortunate that instead of the biblical literature being approached on its own terms, with all the confinements that go with doing so, believers attempt to force its diverse complexities into a filtered few ironclad teachings. My first step away from the faith involved the recognition that there’s enormous gaps between what believers say the bible teaches and what it (or—more accurately ‘they’) actually do(es) teach. So I have pursued such belief with all due diligence. I simply, in the end, did not find what you have claimed to find and my reasons are clear and easily accessible. Moreover, they are easily seeable by others who also wish to just place their own ideas aside and view the biblical teachings in the context of their times without the anachronistic tendencies of our own day.


Groktruth wrote,

“I am still left with the, in their minds irrelevant, calculation of the plausibility that the God of the bible is substantially present in our world. When I do the numbers, the computed result is very close to one. I recognize the dangers of confirmation bias, and have done all that I was trained to do to prevent that. They, in turn, are vulnerable to rationalization. I hope that they are using good training (Socrates's the examined life) to guard from that danger.”


I disagree! You haven’t avoided confirmation bias here at all! There’s simply no way to treat ‘god’ -especially the one of the bible-as some sort of reducible and predictable force unless you stack the deck in your favor prior to any testing! Since god is a volitional being who acts in accordance to a will-divine purpose AND there’s a complex causal materialistic world AND a whole host of demonic/Satanic activities a-work in the world AND humans-volitional beings acting in the world you cannot “know” from simply praying and having some sort of expectation that if the prayer or what have you comes to pass that such fulfillment was in fact the working will of god ONLY or even MOSTLY! In basic, from a scientific and statistical calculation of such diverse variables-you could not reliably determine which one is the responsible acting or likely acting agent that brought about such and such results-and you should know that if you are what you say you are! God is an invisible being who’s ways and will defy human understanding and I can quote a whole host of passages that substantiate that very position! To think that one can reduce god to acting like forces of gravity or is seen clearly like certain studied behaviors in animal populations would be both odd and theologically demeaning. To better one’s locus of likely causation one must be able to control variables and manipulate outcomes in order to know ever better the nature of likely causes. Obviously, no one can do this with ‘god.’ For that matter no one can do this with Satanic or demonic forces either. The mere suggestion, even for presuppositionalist apologists, that god is figured out or clearly seen by such mathematical precision is both scientifically and theologically absurd!

For example, take Paul’s thought in Romans 1 with a bit more seriousness: “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.” (Romans 1:20 NIV). Now many attempt to argue that such material visibility of god is rationally knowable-at least we see that it may be theologically so. However, this interpretation of Paul is highly doubtful: (1) Paul wasn’t exposed to scientific methodology. Such ideas are very new to history. (2) What Paul, in context, appears to be doing is suggesting how humanity in its state of utter sinfulness came to reject this god of the heavens revealing its wrath to all men. So, quite the contrary, Paul may be arguing here that it is humanity’s sinful inability to see what otherwise would be clear to see if humanity was not fixed in such a depraved state. Hence, the need for spiritual intervention by Christ. (3) Also, if one were to argue that Paul is arguing for a pre-scientific methodology of sorts, then one has irreconcilable difficulties with passages as “for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” Romans 3:23 and Romans 8:18-25 “I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. 22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently.”

It is obvious that Paul thinks of the creation as poisoned and corrupted by the evils that have occupied it since the Fall! If Paul is stating that creation and our view of it is theologically informative in terms of causal identification of the correct Divine source, then he’s obviously wholly unclear how such a “depraved” and “corrupted” creation can be a reliable image of anything remotely reflecting the perfected Divine creator. It seems far more consistent with Paul, if one wishes Paul to be so consistent, that his leanings were not bent toward seeing the divine in the material fallen universe! Rather, it appears far more likely that he was attempting to make the case for why humanity has fallen and how blind humanity is to its own depraved state.

Therefore there are not just scientific reasons for doubting your position-but also theological reasons as well! To think Paul would have advocated for a rational-human centered science to see and affirm the activity of god in the world is a stretch indeed. The only way we could possibly gain anything from your so-called studies is if we ignore all of these problems. How you can identify the statistical likelihood of god acting in the world can ONLY be decided by you making certain presupposed and focused guided biases that will lead to that conclusion regardless of the obvious and apparent objections to it. One could do just the same sort of thing with ANY god or set of beliefs he or she likes!

These systemic problems in your thinking here exist regardless of whatever motive I may have. I may be a liar and a cheat. I may be a thoroughgoing rationalist who’s only obsessed with good arguments from reason alone! In any case, the problems in your thinking exist despite whatever I may or may not be! Pretending that the problem is me and Wooden shoe doesn’t remove the hopeless wreck that this circular reasoning and confirmation bias has produced. Again, you’ve given no reason to doubt our criticisms-accept MORE attacks on us! By the way, I do have a spiritual philosophy and I would argue that reason is NOT sufficient to capture that numinous reality. I just know that with proper use of reason I am apt to see reason’s limitations.

In fact, you arguing that we are rationalists is truly odd! I see reason as vital to proper management of one’s thoughts and guidance in particular courses of cognitive action. I doubt a rationalist per se will end up any better than an inductionist. If you mean that we rely on reason for discovering ultimate divine truth or what have you, then not only do you not understand my position but you-yourself are guilty of this very thing! To consider your ‘reason’ sufficient and inferential thought analysis wholly or mostly correct enough to identify GOD—a supernatural spirit being—in the materially driven universe is the high mark of rationalism in religious philosophy that would have made Descartes proud! It is you my dialectical friend that relies on his own scientific form of rationalism to even make his position possible! What you’ve missed here is that I’m criticizing that very rationalism by use of reason itself. If you argue that what is legitimate is our inductive inferential reasoning to attain genuine knowledge of reality in this divine identifying sense, then I am arguing that such reason is not sufficient for the task! I’m a skeptic of reason by showing its limitations through the use of reason itself! In other words, one can use a reliable method to show its own limitations even if doing so reveals the self-refuting nature of the matter. So, reason works, and works quite well, only within certain parameters, however! Once we see how our words and reasoned conceptual framework is limited by showing those limitations, then we see that to have enlightenment about the nature of things doesn’t require such dependent things as our very reason itself. Reason helps expose, expound, and guide us in so many vital ways. But, in the end, it is too frail a method to sustain us in what it is we’re after most: Freedom from our own sufferings and all the implications of such a realization. Quite the contrary Groktruth, it is you that depends wholly on reason in a way that I do not think succeeds or is even, in the end, right to do! At the level of analyzing the epistemic nature of reason itself, I am a sort of Humean skeptic. At the level of analyzing ideas that purport to have the truth, I use the very rationalistic means that the professor of truth uses in order to evaluate such assertions. At the level of one who attempts spirituality, I have no need of reason or the limiting concepts that our collective minds and public language has created to define and confine such experiences. Freedom in the sense I’m arguing for here requires a letting go of such ego attachments to our inductive inferential reasoning --or any conceptual framework for that matter!

Here nor there, nothing you wrote even attempts to address Hume’s Fork issue! Hume’s criticisms fall on both empiricism and rationalism. You really should know this.

Groktruth you may invite all to see what you claim to see. But I was one who did so and I have to say I’m disappointed in that finding. If others are somehow satisfied by such discoveries, then I wish them all the best. However, for those who wish not to buy into something that requires so many assumptions and wants ‘truth’ nonetheless, then I would encourage those to taste the other puddings on offer! After all, there are a lot of different flavors and types out there to enjoy!

Eric D.

Hello Eric.

A very good post Eric that says what I put in 2 lines.BG
But that is exactly what I said earlier, The fact that I am not able to argue in such philosophical detail.
However as a retired mechanic, I certainly can tell that the square shaft ain't going to work in the round hole.

Regards, John.

Eric,

Your post seems long on argument, and short on evidence or experience.

But, your summary of your background was helpful. The scriptural prediction is that the experiences you reported in your background doomed you to confusion and spiritual blindness. All religion, no spirituality. Biblically, the cure is to "receive the love of the truth," which is likely to include the study of philosophy, which sort of means the love of the truth.

As you noted, all religious Christian teaching of the bible is inconsistent and hypocritical. The scholarly approach you took is better, but the philosophical approach, as i understand philosophy and scholarship, does not throw out the spiritual assertions.

What does that mean? Here is a book, supposedly inspired by a spiritual (say, dark matter, or some such thing) being, invisible to us. This book, in discussing itself, making remarks that we would think belong in a preface, makes it clear that for us to understand it, we need to use, but not lean on, our logic, reason, our "own understanding." It points us to "faith," which is, it declares quite pointedly, a subset of evidence. It quite clearly tells us not to "search the scriptures, hoping in them" to find eternal life. But, "to live by every word that comes (present tense) from the mouth of God." It promises that anyone "seeking God with all their might" will find Him, will come to "know His voice," will get "faith" (evidence) from hearing that voice. The evidence will make everything clear, if not visible. We will be able to walk by that evidence, even though it only alludes to what we still cannot see.

Pure science. Which is why theology was long called the "queen of the sciences." The God of the scriptures agrees to submit to some testing, although this is, as you point out, somewhat undignified for any person, especially One who makes a point of being unpredictable. But, they are supposedly God, and if they say "test me now in this," who is to say that they were lying?

And, so, we have the thousands of reports of those who did the test, and got what was predicted, evidence, faith. And no reports that I have ever heard of of anyone doing the test (with reasonable attendence to the materials and methods specified) and not getting a confirmation. Worked for them. Don't, won't persuade you or anyone else, because, as you point out, God is a Person, who won't be found by anyone unwilling to look for themself.

Now, as to confirmation bias, this is what experimental statistics, which is what I got my doctorate in, is all about. It is, in human endeavor, as good as it gets for preventing this error. You, in your apparent ignorance of Bayesian methods, Pascalian game theory, multivariate statistical models with estimatable error terms, and so on, are still free to disagree. You are free to hold up your version of "proof of confirmation bias," which seems to be wherever an alternate, ad hoc explanation can be found that seems more reasonable to others, exists. But, philosophers of science, back in the 60's, proved that such a "proof" can always be found, and so is meaningless. So, disagree all you like. I have no reason or experience that would support your disagreement.

But, science with it's evidence, it's confirmed predictions, trumps, is actually the cure for, rationalization. The error term is always present, But we go for the ideas where it is lowest. Of course we never know for sure that our models as constructed are true. That is a straw man argument. We are not trying to know that. We just know that some models, those confirmed by validated predictions, are truer than others. The goal is to constantly improve these models. Especially models of what God is like.

Wooden shoe,

I couldn't agree more Wooden shoe! I think your responses are quite good in and of themselves. I've always enjoyed!!


Groktruth wrote,

“Your post seems long on argument, and short on evidence or experience.”


This comment reveals that you’re not following the points of my criticisms. I’m not offering evidence!! I’m criticizing yours along the lines already given several times above! I’m not obliged to provide evidence when doing critical analysis because I’m obviously critiquing the quality of your professed evidence!


Groktruth wrote,

“But, your summary of your background was helpful. The scriptural prediction is that the experiences you reported in your background doomed you to confusion and spiritual blindness. All religion, no spirituality. Biblically, the cure is to "receive the love of the truth," which is likely to include the study of philosophy, which sort of means the love of the truth.”


You missed the point, again! I was wholly dedicated in all the ways that a believer trusts in. It is convenient for you to argue that because I didn’t arrive at your so-called conclusions I didn’t have a genuine spiritual experience. Obviously, I studied, was personally and psychologically dedicated to the faith, and believed with all the emotion that my heart could muster. What I was providing you was a background and not full disclosure of my personal spiritual experiences. Naturally, it wasn’t necessary for me to do so since what you were bringing to the fore was the evidence of the veridical nature of such experiences. Regardless, it is interesting that you discount any and all contrary religious experience based upon your own armchair psychological evaluation of people who supposedly have ONLY religious experiences and not genuine spiritual ones. Your comments are both evidence of ignorance of my personal experiences and typical of dogmatist reactions against any who possess a different experience of YOUR faith!


Groktruth wrote,

“As you noted, all religious Christian teaching of the bible is inconsistent and hypocritical. The scholarly approach you took is better, but the philosophical approach, as i understand philosophy and scholarship, does not throw out the spiritual assertions. What does that mean? Here is a book, supposedly inspired by a spiritual (say, dark matter, or some such thing) being, invisible to us. This book, in discussing itself, making remarks that we would think belong in a preface, makes it clear that for us to understand it, we need to use, but not lean on, our logic, reason, our "own understanding." It points us to "faith," which is, it declares quite pointedly, a subset of evidence. It quite clearly tells us not to "search the scriptures, hoping in them" to find eternal life. But, "to live by every word that comes (present tense) from the mouth of God." It promises that anyone "seeking God with all their might" will find Him, will come to "know His voice," will get "faith" (evidence) from hearing that voice. The evidence will make everything clear, if not visible. We will be able to walk by that evidence, even though it only alludes to what we still cannot see.”


Well, as you put it that this book in discussing itself….etc. is an interpretation of the book itself. As far as leaning on our understanding-logic etc. as sorts of tools to point towards faith is YOUR understanding of certain passages and theological traditions concerning those prioritized passages! There’s no reason to think that the bible is A book any more than there is a reason to think that the bible has some unified teaching on how we’re to use our rational faculties. You’ve unskillfully combined numerous passages ranging from Romans, the gospels, and Hebrews (plus others) -and presumed that they are all speaking to some modern notion of how we are to use our reason, properly pursue the spiritual path, and what we are promised to find when we do so! The interesting thing here in relation to your philosophical opinion isn’t the careless way in which you managed these texts to topically refer to something wholly modern, but that it reveals the necessary confirmation bias that MUST be involved in any so-called scientific study you perform on the matter. Since science and all our intellectual energies are not sufficient for our coming to spiritual truth—that is, we need faith based guidance in order to “see” anything of grand spiritual reality, we-as a consequence -must prefer that evidence that will speak to conclusions favorable to those suppositions ahead of time! How in the faith interpretation of let god be true and every man a liar can you create a reasonable falsification principle?

There’s only a few select few ways in which you can move here! (1) You can say that such experiences ‘could’ be falsified by the procedure you’ve selected. However, according to your faith position that still wouldn’t necessitate disbelief in such spiritual experiences. (2) You might say that such science will confirm it and you’d see it if you had the heart of belief. However, according to this if I already had the heart of belief, then I’d already see without the inferior need to have proof (“blessed are they who do not see and yet believe,” “the Jews seek after signs but the Greeks after wisdom”). You might reply with-well it strengthens faith in some. Well, maybe-but such evidence is for the weak in faith. Such evidence is not only unnecessary –ultimately- it is spiritually undesirable even if one starts out weak. Either way, evidence of the induction sort is not what is of spiritual importance here! What is of import is ‘seeing’ and believing not the rational quality of the evidence. Your position, given what you’re theologically committed to and stated above, hardly rests on anything scientific and rational. It is “I believe in order to understand” and NOT “I understand therefore I believe.” In this case, neither science nor reason is vital for the believer or for spiritual fulfillment. Hence, your position is disingenuous. (3) Given this position, you cannot say that it is the evidence of causal inferential reasoning that led you to such ‘seeing.’ Rather, it is belief! In science such commitments are not scientific because they can be falsified. In other words, a truly scientific course of action requires the scientist not to be wholly cognitively committed to the hypothesis that he or she is currently studying. No such distant rationalized apathy can be stated for your position! Hence, it cannot, by definition, be scientific. It is a religious commitment.

(4) You could say that such commitments are beneficial for the believer in some ways. Perhaps, depending on the person under discussion. Here nor there, whatever benefit such so-called science may bring it must be personal and not a means for which science can speak to in and of itself.

Therefore, what you’re truly advocating is a belief- commitment first and then a pursuit of those bits of inductive science that will reveal that belief. You obviously wouldn’t put it this way. However, from a scientific analysis of your position this is exactly what must be said because it must assume an ardent and whole-hearted commitment to the hypothesis prior to any confirmation of it! Whatever one makes of your position, it isn’t science in any way you cut it!


Groktruth wrote,

“Pure science. Which is why theology was long called the "queen of the sciences." The God of the scriptures agrees to submit to some testing, although this is, as you point out, somewhat undignified for any person, especially One who makes a point of being unpredictable. But, they are supposedly God, and if they say "test me now in this," who is to say that they were lying?”


LOL! OK theology was called the queen of the sciences much in the same manner that alchemy was considered legitimate chemistry! The god of scriptures nowhere explicitly states to be tested in the way that you’re reading it! The Malachi 3:10 passage—written in its time and understood in that cultural context has nothing to do with scientific inductive proof of god!! Such conceptions were foreign to the people of this time. Even if it were known to them it would have been irrelevant. The text obviously deals with faith in god and knowing that when the children of Israel obey him he will return unto them gifts in accordance with his promise, “Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, that there may be food in my house. Test me in this,” says the LORD Almighty, “and see if I will not throw open the floodgates of heaven and pour out so much blessing that there will not be room enough to store it.” Anyone may see for herself that reading science into the passage is a forced effort!

However, there is textual support for the sort of doubt of faith in god that isn’t invited by god at all—a doubt that science would have to have in order to conduct actual studies: “So they quarreled with Moses and said, “Give us water to drink.” Moses replied, “Why do you quarrel with me? Why do you put the LORD to the test?” (Exodus 17:2); “And he called the place Massah and Meribah because the Israelites quarreled and because they tested the LORD saying, “Is the LORD among us or not?” (Exodus 17:7); “not one of those who saw my glory and the signs I performed in Egypt and in the wilderness but who disobeyed me and tested me ten times—“ (Numbers 14:22); “Then the devil took him to the holy city and had him stand on the highest point of the temple. “If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.’ Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test’’ (Mathew 4:5-7).


Your selective treatment of biblical texts as modernistically oriented is a classic case of anachronistic treatment. It is YOUR personal modern belief in science that is ironically projected onto the pages of the bible as if what you’re seeing is the biblical teaching itself. While you’re refuting some modern beliefs, you oddly treat the bible as a modern would and not as the people of the day would have likely done so.


Groktruth wrote,

“And, so, we have the thousands of reports of those who did the test, and got what was predicted, evidence, faith. And no reports that I have ever heard of of anyone doing the test (with reasonable attendence to the materials and methods specified) and not getting a confirmation. Worked for them. Don't, won't persuade you or anyone else, because, as you point out, God is a Person, who won't be found by anyone unwilling to look for themself.”


Convenient! Too convenient. In other words, ‘when you put god to the test, he will deliver’—means—‘if you already and diligently believe and search him out (apparently as a scientist would—oddly enough) you will find the evidence you’re looking for; and if you do not, well, you weren’t REALLY looking with faith and belief!’ Nonsense!! With such an approach one cannot possibly be shown to be mistaken!

Quite apparently, any belief system can be so biasedly affirmed in this intellectually dishonest manner. In fact, they do and there are. In all sects such professed evidence is in more than abundance! The evidence is apparently innumerable.


Groktruth worte,

“Now, as to confirmation bias, this is what experimental statistics, which is what I got my doctorate in, is all about. It is, in human endeavor, as good as it gets for preventing this error. You, in your apparent ignorance of Bayesian methods, Pascalian game theory, multivariate statistical models with estimatable error terms, and so on, are still free to disagree. You are free to hold up your version of "proof of confirmation bias," which seems to be wherever an alternate, ad hoc explanation can be found that seems more reasonable to others, exists. But, philosophers of science, back in the 60's, proved that such a "proof" can always be found, and so is meaningless. So, disagree all you like. I have no reason or experience that would support your disagreement.”


Well, my my! All these scientists who apparently missed what you’ve figured out! Amazing!! You’ve via these methods-proved god in statistical form. I suppose that all these other staticians and scientists missed your well proven conclusions! Here nor there, I do have an understanding of how statistics is done. I’m also aware of the fact that Bayesian methods have been criticized as anarchical and I know that an adequate understanding of confirmation bias refers to a type of selective thinking whereby one tends to notice and to look for what confirms one's beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one's beliefs. Period! I do not have to possess a doctorate in anything to see how you make your argument. You simply bias what you look at by YOUR OWN ADMISSION! Of course, you say it has to do with one’s fervent commitment to ‘seeing’ the evidence. Here nor there, from a scientific and critical analysis point of view, your position commits you to a set of theological propositions that influences outcomes. So, you may teach this sort of thing to your students—if you have any—but don’t attempt to blame your poor arguments on my intellectual comprehension of methods and data that are ultimately irrelevant to the overall quality of your arguments.


Groktruth wrote,

“But, science with it's evidence, it's confirmed predictions, trumps, is actually the cure for, rationalization. The error term is always present, But we go for the ideas where it is lowest. Of course we never know for sure that our models as constructed are true. That is a straw man argument. We are not trying to know that. We just know that some models, those confirmed by validated predictions, are truer than others. The goal is to constantly improve these models. Especially models of what God is like.”


This literally makes no sense whatsoever! None! Let’s get clear what is stated here. First, you are advocating for a sort of rationalism. If you claim to have all this understanding in philosophy as you do-then this should be obvious! There are ways in which science is appropriated FOR rationalistic purposes: See Cartesian and Kantian philosophy. You should know this! At any rate, the point is that the error term is always present-etc. Philosophically this means that the error term is analogous to the possibility of the configuration being in error in some way. Given this and other relevant issues we can never bust out of our confined models to know if what they are reflecting in the conclusions are actually and wholly true! We just know that those models that predict better than others are “truer” than those other models. Hence, we have some empirical basis for believing in such models. Of course, such models may be improved—somehow especially as it concerns god.

Utter and total confusion. Obviously, genuine belief in god is a necessary prerequisite FOR any such empirical research according to you. Yet, error is possible! However, the error term here is in the procedure and formula of the relevant math and how the overall data is assessed. However, it cannot be in the believer DOING the research! Henceforth, any error factor is ultimately irrelevant to the pursuit of affirming the model in the end. Also, since we can never know the veridical nature of our models we must ASSUME that the property of mere prediction is a ‘truth’ indicator of the overall veridical nature of the model itself! What?? How do we know when dealing with volitional beings as are supposed to exist in the realm of the supernatural is not somehow tampering with the outcomes? What is it about prediction that in and of itself “proves” the veridical nature of anything? Apparently, we are always confined to the mere models. If capricious spiritual beings exist and influence the world, given this limitation, we are further confined in knowing what it is that is influencing our accurate predictions. Hence, we can never say, by your own admittance, what is true ultimately! Therefore, merely the fact that model series X are better predictors of the data than model series Y and Z only tell us how well our models predict—NOT what is true! All your showing is what is a better predictor of such and such method-not what is true in reality!! Hence, from the mere models alone, you cannot say what god IS like truly or even what is “MORE TRUE.” All you can say is what APPEARS to be a better predictor contingent on the models you’re using. At best, you’ve proved nothing about god, only what your models say should happen when so constructed by such and such methods within those models!

Yet, you know and assert the nature of god and how god will faithfully deliver the evidence prior to any evidence or research at all. Furthermore, you claim to know which god such evidence will confirm- oddly enough. If you or believers already have such understanding, then models are pointless since one comes to such knowledge without models of any kind. Your cognitive state cannot be such that you hold the god hypothesis tentatively. Your position requires that you assert such belief prior to even doing the model-whether the model is accurate or not is, then, irrelevant! You already possess non-empirical belief in such a being. Thus, not only do we not have a reason to depend upon error laden-limited models for such belief-but we have no psychological reason for basing any belief thereupon!


It is vital to understand this objection. If one can affirm ‘god-experience’ within one’s own limited everyday life, then the belief would be just as epistemically valuable as those based on some mathematical model. In basic, this confused view of yours cannot differentiate between which set of evaluative experiences are qualitatively better than others. This has also the implication of leaving which type of such experiences would be more and somehow better normatively informative god experiences. All we can say is that if one searches for god and one will surely find him, then one could just as well find him in any experience: one can see god in a supposed fulfilled prayer; or a fulfilled dream; or in the successful goals of a murderer who claimed that his motives would succeed because god revealed it. You’ve provided NO reason, given all that you’ve written, to distinguish between types of ‘god-experiences.’ In fact, given certain implications of what you’ve written one need no such confirmation at all!


Now, how does any of this successfully combat Hume’s Fork? It doesn’t at all! In fact, your position only admits to it. You admit that the models are our construction of the world through mathematical models that examine and predict the data. Quite obviously, this all supposes the usefulness of our inductive inferences, which is exactly what Hume’s criticism was aimed at. Since we can never escape the cultural, our psychological reasoning of causal inferences, and past confirmation- influences we can never “know” what the ultimate and actual causes are or even if we can depend on such ‘methods’ and forms of reasoning for what is ultimately real or safely epistemically knowable. Given this and your own admittance of the limited nature of predictive models (not to mention the peculiar philosophical trust in ‘prediction’ as somehow an indicator of what is truer), then we have lots of good reasons—even more than what you’ve mentioned prior—to doubt your position and place aside your thinking on the matter as a whole! From any reliable analysis-your take is obvious pseudo-science and nothing more. We need no more consider your take here than we need to consider whether or not the earth is flat.


Thanks for the convo,

Eric D.

Eric,

You are welcome. I trust you enjoyed the great outpouring of ideas you offered!

And, we have agreed to disagree about what matters. I have chosen to lean on evidence, faith, and you on argument. No, the understanding I have is not mine. As I stressed, I got it from God, asking Him for it, buying it from Him. I get along with a little understanding and logic, as needed to produce predictions I can test. and, I choose to be as ignorant of Humes Fork, as you are of Bayesian science. Yes, as I was advised, the gate to truth is narrow, few find it, I'm right and 99.99% of other scientists are wrong. Gets lonely at the top, but the company I do find here is priceless.

I think too, that we agree that our choice of what matters is what rules us. You can never understand me because of your choice, nor can I understand you because of my choice. (I choose to not understand you, just as you have chosen to not search for my evidence.) All we can do is set our choices out before the other, so that, if we want to, we can change our minds. I am not persuading you, nor you me. I don't even want to persuade you. I am quite content that you know that you are not trying to generate persuasive evidence, which is all that I am trying to do. You have reasons to dismiss my evidence, and I have additional evidence that confirms it. I have evidence, that persuades me, that your reasoning is rationalization. You have reasons, that persuade you, that my evidence is confirmation bias.

So, in the conversation, we see a difference, that allows a choice. We are both freer. Thank you for the conversation!

Groktruth wrote,

“And, we have agreed to disagree about what matters. I have chosen to lean on evidence, faith, and you on argument.”

No! You rely on Bayesian claims of what evidence is like. There are real problems with using this method to “see” or argue for the genuine nature of reality. It is an argument! However, I’ve simply tried to show that such reliance doesn’t escape certain criticisms nor does it escape Humean skepticism in the philosophy of science. For example, to be more explicit, the Bayesian claim that no matter what prior probabilities scientists subjectively assigns to hypotheses, their subjective probabilities will converge on a single value, is not in any way satisfying. For instance, values of p(h) will not converge unless we start with a complete set of hypotheses that are exhaustive and exclusive competitors. This seems never to be the case in science. Additionally, there’s no reason given why the value on which all scientists will converge Bayesian conditionalization is the right value. This may beg the question against the Bayesian-but it does show that such a method is no solution to Hume’s problem of induction!!

To be a bit more explicit about this problem of induction since you’ve obviously missed the point on the more general note of probability brought out in my previous post: Simply to say that the long-run relative frequencies will converge on some value is simply to assert that nature is uniform, that the future will be like the past, and so begs Hume’s question!! Similarly, hypothesizing probabilities propensities that operate uniformly across time and space also begs the question against Hume’s argument!! As I already wrote in the previous post, probabilities are useful ONLY if induction IS justified, not vice versa!! Of course, there’s many other and even more severe problems with the method you’ve chosen-but this is enough to show that one is rightfully skeptical of the ultimate ontological status of any inductive conclusions derived from empirical or probabilistic methods and models!

I’m sorry you cannot deal effectively with these objections. But here nor there, argument often reveals the limitations on what one takes to be “evidence” and certain “faith.” This is your philosophical burden to bear-not mine!

Groktruth wrote,

“No, the understanding I have is not mine. As I stressed, I got it from God, asking Him for it, buying it from Him.”

Right! According to you and ten million others whose experiences are opposite of yours also got that info from god too! You may be the right guy and all of those others are somehow corrupted -true. However, I have no reason to buy your self-grandiose claims to the ear of God himself!

Groktruth wrote,

“I get along with a little understanding and logic, as needed to produce predictions I can test. and, I choose to be as ignorant of Humes Fork, as you are of Bayesian science.”

I’m not nearly as ignorant of Bayesian problems as you are obviously of Hume’s Fork!! You seem to think erroneously that since you have more knowledge in some inductively dependent method of science and I in another field that-that fact somehow relativizes where we respectively stand on this issue! Wrong! Problems with induction are universal and apply to Bayesian thought directly. To critique it requires only that we understand its basic assumptions and how it functions in relation to Hume’s critique. It obviously has not succeeded and most philosophers of science have long since abandoned it as a hopeful answer to Hume. Your work is obviously in attempting to use Bayesian statistical method to “prove” presupposed theological commitments. Mine is a critique on ALL such inductively dependent sciences—including yours! Hume’s criticisms are not dependent on MY rich comprehension of Bayesian method. All I need is the methodical outlay along with its epistemic assumptions in order to critique it. You, however, need a far better understanding of the real and historical problems with your chosen science.

I should also point out here that your commitments to god and this method are hardly equal. Would you be so willing to say that unless you had the Bayesian based results from your subjectively driven studies that you would have NO faith? You may claim that you have both-but theologically these are not equals. You do have to prioritize them. If you do not, then you fall into the traditional problem of rationalizing belief in god. If one is free to believe without such inductive motivations, then one need not bother with your method at all! If not at all, then it becomes obvious that faith is sufficiently ‘seeing’ the truth. You might say that such observations or study is good to have; you cannot say, however, that it is necessary or certainly sufficient. Naturally, faith MUST take priority. If this is so, then I am well within my rights to charge your method as biased from a more critical and scientific point of view. You could retort with the notion that Bayesianism allows for such subjectivity. This is true. However, it only leads to questions that reveal that you’ve assumed these hypotheses in fact possibly exists in a world of already complete and competing hypotheses of which you somehow have epistemic access to. Your assumptions MUST be taken wholly on faith NOT evidence in the normal usual sense we take it to mean.

Groktruth wrote,

“Yes, as I was advised, the gate to truth is narrow, few find it, I'm right and 99.99% of other scientists are wrong. Gets lonely at the top, but the company I do find here is priceless.”

Well, I think this speaks for itself!!

Groktruth wrote,

“I think too, that we agree that our choice of what matters is what rules us. You can never understand me because of your choice, nor can I understand you because of my choice. (I choose to not understand you, just as you have chosen to not search for my evidence.)”

I think you misunderstand my position. My criticisms involve the relation of our semantics, inductive inferences, and our conceptual faculty to the nature of reality, that is, we ask what the nature of their ontological status is. My issue revolves around the nature of inductive evidence and whether or not our conceptual wherewithal can be reliably said to reflect the genuine nature of reality. It isn’t just about choices-but is also about how any choice of this type may be said to be epistemically adequate.

I do thank you as well for the conversation and we will have to agree to disagree. I have truly enjoyed our lively discussion. I do not mean to be rude but I have to leave this here due to personal issues calling me away.

Thanks,
Eric D.

Eric,

My evidence of your poor grasp of Bayesian science is your repeated use of the word "induction," while Bayesian science os basically about deduction. And, while induction does insist that the future will be like the past, Bayesian deduction cannot exist with surprising predictions (a future unlike any known past) about the future.

Stephen

Groktruth wrote,

“My evidence of your poor grasp of Bayesian science is your repeated use of the word "induction," while Bayesian science os basically about deduction. And, while induction does insist that the future will be like the past, Bayesian deduction cannot exist with surprising predictions (a future unlike any known past) about the future.”


Well, Bayesian method does attempt to explain the empirical world!! It does operate from a deductive basis initially, in its hypothesis stage—but its use has been employed to explain data from a range of supposed testable-predictable hypotheses. In basic, its worth is that certain hypotheses will be confirmed via predictions --affirmation of the statistical success of a given hypothesis. It most certainly is inductive in the obvious testing phase. The hypothetico-deductive method isn’t about ignoring inductive inferences!! Where you got that from is a genuine mystery. Such a method—of which Bayesian method is but an example—of scientific inquiry proceeds by formulating a hypothesis in a form that could conceivably be falsified by a test on observable data. You still are using observable data and tests via inductive inferences. You must utilize inferences to test the hypothesis! I’m wondering, honestly, why, if you have the background you claim, that you do not have a clear grasp of that. The very popular philosopher of science Alex Rosenberg has well expounded how the deductive and inductive inferential character of both the hypothetico-deductive method and the Bayesian method fail precisely because neither succeeds in avoiding Hume’s skepticism. I wonder why you are not aware of this.

But here nor there, lets somehow agree that there’s utterly no induction of any kind involved here—ONLY deduction, which, of course, would be bizarre if true. This too, would be even worse in the light of Hume’s Fork. Part of Hume’s criticism is how BOTH induction and deduction fail. In basic, what we have before us is induction, which leads to the problems already outlined, Hume’s critique of empiricism, and deduction, which is Hume’s critique of rationalism. So, either we justify our science claims on the assumptions grounded in our causal ways of reasoning, which assumes that we could never have sufficient conditions to justify such claims, or we must rely on very rationalistically designed definitions, logical deductions, and terminology that necessitate outcomes contingent thereupon. The problem should be readily apparent! If we are left with our causal inductive inferences, we can never know enough to assert what we want to assert when we hope to say something positive about the actual nature of the universe. At best all we can say is that once we assume that the past operates like the present and causes behave in exactly the way we think, then we can only tentatively say that such and such evidence suggests that empirical proposition X is “true” for now. This may be fine scientifically speaking, but it can never be used to build a metaphysical philosophy for obvious reasons. If we are left with deductive conclusions, all the epistemic right we have on ontological claims is that OUR way of reasoning, terms, and structured logic is ontologically informative ONLY if we remain within the validity of our axioms and all that such a process involves. In essence, all we’ve done here is affirm our own reasoning-not necessarily anything about the world external to it. Mere definitions and reasoning will never be enough to inform us about the so-called objective and intrinsic nature of reality—only our reasoning about it!

It is apparent that you didn’t follow my previous criticism. It was the dream of Bayesian method that it would deal effectively with Hume’s skepticism. The problem, of course, is that it too must rely, for its effective use, on inductive principles: I wrote, “Similarly, hypothesizing probabilities propensities that operate uniformly across time and space also begs the question against Hume’s argument!! As I already wrote in the previous post, probabilities are useful ONLY if induction IS justified, not vice versa!!” Follow the criticisms with more care to detail.

Either way Groktruth, you do not escape Hume’s skepticism merely because you switched between induction and deduction. You claim to be a philosopher-type! Oddly, you admittedly have no understanding of-perhaps-the most influential and problematic philosophers of science and the modern age (Hume)—Hume literally influenced most philosophers that came after him. I suggest a good reading of his material is in order.



Eric D.

Eric,

Well, you tempt me to look into Hume. He certainly caught your attention, and I admire your energy!

But, since you did not take my bait on my "I am better than 99.99% of other scientists." remark, let me say what I wanted to say anyway. That number comes from Science Citation Abstacts, or it's current equvalent. It turns out that my citation rate per publication is in the top .01% of PhD scientists. For every scientist with my publication rate, there are 10,000 with fewer. Besides bolstering my ego, which I think you implied was behind my assessment (and I do enjoy the honor!), I looked that up because I wanted evidence that the H-D method was as good as I was told. Being an evidentialist, this was how I decided. Couldn't ignore the evidence, and stay philosophically consistent.

I counted this evidence as especially relevant because I have been routinely appraised as being a rather foolish and incompetent person. (Hume? Hume? Who the h*** is Hume?) In one case, my publication of a H-D theory was so incompetent that it was only published on invitation (no peer review). A competent student then kindly cleaned it up, and included me on his paper, which is the one getting cited. Also got me another publication invitation. The idea is now touted as the most important in the science of conservation in the last two decades. No thanks, truth be told, to me, except in my willingness to see if H-D science was all it was cracked up to be.

So, you see, the philosophy stands affirmed by the evidence, no matter what the critics say.

And, of course, you are correct, that induction plays a role even in Bayesian, H-D science. In Tricker's marvelous little book, he points out mathematical models for induction, that are useful in getting an objective base for the prior plausibility of hypotheses. Re the God hypothesis, I even used these inductive models to discover that, based on what we saw in nature, the odds were very good that humans co-existed with some higher life forms. In applying the Bayesian models, I had to use these objective estimates of the prior in my first calculations of the posterior plausibility, given my prayer and tithing experiments. I was quickly forced to admit that my prior skepticism was subjective and irrational.

Your assumption that I was leaning totally on deduction and excluding induction seems a reflection of the fact (reread your posts) that you only mentioned induction, and were excluding deduction from your thinking, while I have consistently (read my former posts) mentioned both. You seem not to have attended very diligently to the common human tendency to falsely dichotomise (all is either or, not both and), and to project the "log" in our eye onto the "speck" in another's eye.

Just a thought. If the shoe fits, etc.