-->
@Polytheist-Witch
@TheMorningsStar
Amoranemix 18 :People who prefer to believe some fantasy over reality often try to sell their fantasy as reality. For that they deceive. So, yes, I find clarity about what is being said important.I'm so sick and tired of every bigot atheist basically saying every theist is out to deceive every single other person on the planet. It is complete b******* and an utter lie. I do not witness because my religion does not call for it and I don't think any of the gods need me to. But if someone asked me questions and I tell them answers to those questions it does not mean I'm trying to deceive them. I am telling them what I think feel and have experienced. If you feel you're being deceived that's you on your end and not mine. That's how you feel you shouldn't even be in this forum talking to any of us.
Please stay on topic.
TheMorningsStartar 16 :I would argue that "good reason to doubt" would constitute counter-evidence, but I guess it is just how each phrase is interpreted by different people.Amoranemix 18 :You are not arguing it. You are just using one term for both. I have given reason to make a distinction, but of course, I am arguing from a rational point of view, i.e. which approach is suitable for true beliefs, rather than desirable beliefs. Reality is not everyone's cup of tea.Do you not know what "I would argue" means or are you just here to play word games? Because if it is the latter then this entire discussion is a waste of time.
I think the most common meaning is that one believes it to be true, but that it has not been demonstrated.
The purpose of naming conventions must be usefulness.
An additional concept that is useful is context. A claim should be evaluated based on evidence, context and background knowledge. Strictly speaking the latter two probably are part of the first category, so one could replace the first term with something like explicit evidence, i.e. evidence that does not belong in another category. Then we have :
A claim should be evaluated based on explicit evidence, context and background knowledge.
Try abstaining from selective quoting if you are genuine and not into time wasting.
Amoranemix 18 :[11] No, you haven't emphasized it. I haven't even noticed you say that because there could be evidence one is not aware of, a claim is tentatively true. You also have not supported it.[12] So you claim, but can you prove that ?[*] I am not arguing about how people acquire beliefs. I am arguing about how to proceed to acquire rationally justifiable beliefs. I agree that some people ignore the evidence that they could missing because it would undermine their ability to hold a particular belief they desire.For clarity, I did not say that a good reason to doubt IS that there could be counter-evidence one doesn't know about. I used 'could be'.I am confident you can think of examples where that is indeed the case.I used the term tentatively three times in the OP in places that would make it clear what is being argued."It helps with establishing the position that one should tentatively hold to.""If none can be provided then the logical conclusion is that we should tentatively hold to theism as true.""Counter-evidence needs to be provided or else theism is rationally concluded as true (tentatively)."That is just where the term was explicit. It really should not have been difficult for someone to see it but yet you somehow missed it?
I had responded to what you had said i.s.o. what you seemed to intend to say because the latter is a fallacy. Now you responded to what you presumed I said i.s.o. what I actually said.
So, let us try again :
TheMorningsStartar 16 :I agree, but I emphasized that theism would be held tentatively for that very reason. If I am not aware of counter-evidence then I am justified in holding to a view of something and am rational in doing so. It isn't that "there is no counter-evidence anywhere", that isn't a premise in the argument (otherwise the conclusion wouldn't be to hold onto theism tentatively).
You are missing the point. Your argument failed to take into account the possibility of unknown counter-evidence. Reid’s principle may support a tentative conclusion in the absense of counter-evidence, but for that you would first have to establish there isn’t any.
[12] Because that is how it works. Are you denying it? Because, if so, welcome to solipsism. I can walk you through the steps on how that is reached, but it really shouldn't be necessary.
No, it doesn’t work that way. I shall tell you how it works. Claims are evaluated based on context, background knowledge, and explicit evidence. If you throw these three on the heap ‘evidence’, then there is always evidence, for no claims are made in a void. Now what you would want is that ‘evidence’ can easily be broken up in separate pieces of evidence that can then be easily categorized in ‘evidence for’ and ‘evidence against’. However, in reality on complicated topics ‘evidence’ is more often one big continuum that is difficult to devise in for or against. In that case with your simplistic view one wouldn’t be aware of any counter-evidence while a proper evaluation would conclude that trusting a claim is not rationally warranted.
Amoranemix 18 :[13] The problem is that the personal case is irrelevant. It are the claims of others that matter.[14] No, that is not what C1 is about. C1 is : “If you claimed to have experienced X then, absent counter-evidence, you likely had a true experience of X.”[15] So, in both P1 and P2 you mean there is a more than 70% chance. The problem is that you supported those premises under the assumption that 'tend to' means more than 50% chance. So you will need to amend that.[16] If you think you can salvage the argument with multiple testimonies, then go ahead![17] You have yet to explain or demonstrate how they are tied together. In your argument you merely jumped from senses to experiences.[18] It may be true for sight experiences, but C1 talks about experiences in general.[c] That was intented to illustrate the point that followed, that which matters, that which you failed to quote and address, namely that your argument is invalid. No one as far as I know is claiming that P1 and P2 do not hold in general. You on the other hand claim they do hold in general, so the burden of proof is on you.P3 and P3' are true in the sense that no justification for what either are about has been provided.Assuming that what is true for you is true for everyone would be committing a hasty generalization fallacy.[13] Sure, but so what? Having part of the argument be more personalized before moving to more general is not uncommon, the fact that you are emphasizing this point is weird.[15] Tend to literally means more often than not. Absent any definitive numbers on how much it 'tends to' (which would take further arguments) we have to take an a priori position, and as I already showed, mathematically the average of all the 'tends to' is 75% (which is greater than 70%). So, the safe assumption is, based on the math, exactly what I was arguing. Unless you can justify that the 'tends to' should be based on a value between 50-70% then your objection is not all that great.[17] I have no intention in going into detail on something like that when it is pointless to do so.[21] They are inherently tied together in such a way that these lines of objections constitute a pointless waste of time and the same exact line of reasoning, when applies consistently, will force you into solipsism. You are obviously not interested in an honest discussion, which is fine, but it means that there is no reason to continue the discussion with you.[22][13] You are not supposed to move on to the general case, but demonstrate it.
[15] Again, in your support of P1 and P2 you didn’t use 75%, but 50%, which apparently isn’t enough. The two parts of your proof must use the same value for a variable, not for one part an average and for another part the minimum. Also, that something tends to X does not imply that on average it has a 75% chance of being X.
[16] Agreed. It is unlikely mutliple testimonies would salvage your argument.
[21] The point would be to support your argument.
[22] I see you are already manoeuvering towards to the exit. Most people hold out longer.
The experiences in your argument are sense experiences. Not all experiences are sense experiences. For example, you mentioned God as an experience. However, one can’t see, smell or hear God. One can only see light, smell odor and hear sound. Transforming sense experiences into God requires processing, something you haven’t even mentioned. In fact, you haven’t even attempted to demonstrate a link between a god experience and sense experiences.
[18] You are arguing as if you haven’t even read the parts you failed to quote. If you want a constructive discussion, you should read my whole posts and not just the parts that inconvenience you least.
[c] Most skeptics aren’t irrational enough to buy Reid’s Principle of Credulity just because you ignore objections to it.
Amoranemix 10 :The reason to doubt needs to be good and good reason to doubt is not the same as counter-evidence.TheMorningsStartar 16 :I mean, this just goes into how we define counter-evidence, doesn't it?Amoranemix 18 :Indeed. I distinguish evidence from background knowledge because I want to believe in reality.You say that as if I don't want to believe in reality. There is no real merit in distinguishing background knowledge from evidence. Background knowledge can constitute a type of evidence.
To me, helping to distinguish fact from fiction is a real benefit.
Amoranemix 18 :People who prefer to believe some fantasy over reality often try to sell their fantasy as reality. For that they deceive.[*] So, yes, I find clarity about what is being said important.Intent is ambiguous. If I guess that you intended to say A and assumme you did say A, then you can easily sabotage the discussion later by denying having said A.In this case it does not seem important though, as you do not seem to rely on Reid's principle being evidence.[*] Have to agree with Polytheist-Witch on this part of your comment.[23] This is absolutely uncharitable and is so egotistical [24] as well that it makes it clear that you are not open to honest discussions on theism.[25] This is the last comment I am making in response to you because even if you might make a good point or two, you clearly are not here for honest discourse and thus it is a waste of time to talk to you when I can spend such time on any number of other things.[26]
[23] Polytheist-Witch’s comments constituted a red herring.
[24] Characterizations without substantiation.
[25] This thread is not about theism. Read the OP to discover what it is about.
[26] If you want to reinforce your beliefs, you should discuss with people with similar beliefs. Present your argument on a Christian forum. They are more likely to tell you how great it is and as a bonus they will tell you how unreasonable atheists are.
